Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

Capitol building, Washington, DC

Unsplash/Getty Images

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.

It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

The White House and money

AI generated image

Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.

The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.

Keep ReadingShow less