Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What the FEC can (but mostly cannot) do with only three regulators on the job

Matthew Petersen

FEC Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen resigned last month. Now, with only three members, the commission can no longer carry out many of its basic responsibilities.

The start of September marks a grim new chapter for the Federal Election Commission.

With Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen departing at the end of last month, the commission no longer has the minimum number of members required to carry out most of the FEC's basic responsibilities as the watchdog and regulator of federal campaign finance activity.

There are six seats on the commission, but two of them have been vacant since soon after President Trump took office. With Peterson's resignation, after 11 years on the job, the commission has lost its four-person quorum — and also the potential for the four votes necessary to take even the most anodyne, bipartisan action.


Without a quorum, the FEC cannot:

  • Hold its regular public meetings.
  • Determine violations of campaign finance laws and subsequently penalize or fine candidates or political committees.
  • Conduct its routine audits of presidential candidate fundraising and spending.
  • Issue advisory opinions when politicians or political action committees ask about the boundaries of their behavior.
  • Open new investigations or rule on already existing ones.
  • Vote on new rulings.

Although the FEC is stalled on these core functions, it has not completely shut down. It can still:

  • Receive complaints on infractions and ruling recommendations from the general counsel.
  • Accept contribution and spending reports from political committees.
  • Continue access to and upkeep of campaign finance data through the FEC's website.
  • Assist political committees, the press and the public with campaign finance-related questions.

The FEC will continue in this dysfunctional state until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms at least one new commissioner.

That means the next several crucial months in the 2020 campaign — when the Democratic presidential field will get winnowed and many of the bellwether Senate and House contests will get started — will occur without the candidates or outside groups getting any money-in-politics oversight.

Absent an unanticipated breakthrough, the entire 2020 election could be left vulnerable to campaign finance malefactors, unchecked by even a subdued FEC. (Such was the case for most of 2008, the last time the agency lacked a quorum.)

The president has only chosen one person — Trey Trainor, a Republican and Trump-supporting Texas attorney — but the Republican-majority Senate has done nothing to advance that nomination since it was sent to the Capitol two years ago.

Historically, presidents have typically submitted pairs of candidates, one from each party, for the Senate's consideration. The FEC may not have more than three commissioners of the same party — a requirement that, while designed to make sure the agency would not become a venue for blatant partisan punishment, has instead resulted in almost total gridlock even when all the seats are filled.


Read More

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A 2021 poll shows 73% of Connecticut voters supported the amendment giving all voters the option to vote by absentee ballot without needing an excuse.

(Adobe Stock)

CT election security group honors 10 years of fighting for democracy

A Connecticut voting-rights group is celebrating its 10th anniversary.

Bridgeport Generation Now has worked to broaden voting access and ensure fairer elections for city residents. Some of its most important work came at a time when many Bridgeport residents felt their votes didn't matter, pointing to absentee ballot fraud as the cause.

Keep ReadingShow less
Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Court’s Slaughter Decision Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority

This series from Lawyers Defending American Democracy connects the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to current events that threaten democracy and the justice system. Each piece highlights the unique responsibility lawyers carry—through their oath, professional obligations, and roles in their communities—to help the public understand what’s at risk and to speak out when democratic principles are under threat. LDAD’s call to action is straightforward: as the Founders once did, we must recognize threats to constitutional values, demand accountability, and act to defend them.

In its recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter, a divided Supreme Court approved an expansive use of presidential power that upsets the Constitutional balance between Congress and the President. The Court approved the President’s summary dismissal of agency leaders (in this case, commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission), notwithstanding a statute signed by a former President and the Court's own precedent specifically forbidding such dismissals. This decision will further politicize and weaponize much of our federal government.

Keep ReadingShow less