Category Archives: federal election commission

“Judge tosses Democratic Party challenge to Trump order’s impact on FEC”

campaign finance, campaigns, federal election commission

Politico:

A federal judge has dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit claiming an executive order issued by President Donald Trump was intruding on the independence of the Federal Election Commission.

In a ruling Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party groups’ case was simply too speculative to justify emergency intervention from the court. The FEC had pledged to remain independent, had received no directive from the White House to change its practices and vowed to abide by the law. Without evidence undermining those promises, Ali said he was compelled to dismiss the suit.

The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed the suit in February after Trump issued an executive order that sought to assert greater control over executive branch agencies that have traditionally operated with considerable independence from the White House.

From the court’s opinion, which finds the executive order to be more bark than bite (so far):

The possibility that the President and Attorney General would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury. . . .

Here, the committees do not allege that the President or Attorney General has applied section seven of the executive order to the FEC or its Commissioners by purporting to issue an “authoritative” or “controlling” interpretation of FECA despite the FEC and its Commissioners’ statutorily protected independence. Exec. Order No. 14215 § 7. Nor do the committees plausibly allege the President or Attorney General plans to do so. And the Court cannot conclude from the text of section seven alone, which refers to executive employees generally and does not mention the FEC, that this type of extraordinary step by the President or Attorney General is certainly impending or a “substantial risk.”

Share this:

“The FEC Can’t Do Anything. Congress Should Leave It That Way”

authoritarian threats in US, federal election commission

Trevor Potter and Adav Novi in The Fulcrum:

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is vital to America’s political process. As the only federal agency dedicated solely to enforcing election laws, the FEC plays a critical role in protecting voters and maintaining a level playing field for political campaigns.

But at this moment, America faces an unfortunate choice: We can have an FEC that does nothing or an FEC that President Trump wields as a partisan weapon against his political opponents.

Between those two unhappy options, the nation is better off without a functioning FEC for now.

One of the FEC’s six seats became vacant last week. Combined with a prior resignation and President Trump’s unlawful firing of another commissioner earlier this year, the FEC is now down to only three members—one fewer than the minimum quorum it needs to take legal action on election issues. The FEC has faced other challenges in recent years, but without a quorum, the agency is effectively out of business: it can’t make any rules, issue opinions, or launch investigations.

The FEC’s incapacitation is not good for voters or for American elections. Under normal circumstances, restoring the FEC’s quorum would be a no-brainer. Indeed, in prior instances when the FEC has lost its quorum, our organization, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), has vigorously argued for Congress to quickly confirm new members so that the agency can perform its role of enforcing election laws.

This time is different.

In February, President Trump issued an executive order in which he claimed to take control of all independent federal agencies, including the FEC. He directed the FEC to conform its official legal actions to his positions and to the positions of Attorney General Pam Bondi. Under this order, the FEC may not take any action that is contrary to Trump or Bondi’s views of election law.

We cannot overstate how dangerous this is. A big part of the FEC’s job is to enforce the law against political candidates, parties, and members of Congress—and the President is now claiming that he has the right to control who, when, and how the FEC prosecutes.

Particularly from a President who has demonstrated unprecedented willingness to use his power against anyone who dares oppose him, placing the enforcement arm of election law under his control would enable him to investigate his political opponents in Congress for supposed election offenses, while also allowing his allies to break the rules with impunity.

This should be deeply concerning to every American….

Share this:

“As of Today, the FEC Can’t Enforce Campaign Finance Laws — and That’s Only One of Its Problems”

federal election commission

Dan Weiner for the Brennan Center:

Starting today, the bipartisan Federal Election Commission won’t be able to do its job. That’s because the independent agency, which oversees money in campaigns for federal office, will no longer have the minimum four required members to do most business.

The loss of quorum is due to the resignation of a Republican appointee, coupled with President Trump’s unprecedented move in February to fire a Democratic appointee. Such a shortfall has only happened three other times in the FEC’s 50-year history, including twice during Trump’s first term.

Ordinarily, the big question would be how fast the president and Congress will move to restore a full complement of commissioners so the agency can function. That is still important. But in light of the firing and the president’s other steps to exert control over the FEC and other independent agencies, there is now a much bigger issue: Will the FEC be able to continue as an independent watchdog at all? Because even worse than a dormant FEC is one that could be weaponized against the president’s opponents….

Share this:

“Departure on FEC hobbles the election enforcement agency”

federal election commission

Politico:

The Federal Election Commision, the agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws, is again without enough members to take official action after a Republican commissioner announced his departure on Wednesday.

The agency is paralyzed without a quorum and cannot vote on things like the outcomes of investigations, citing committees for campaign finance violations, and issuing advisory opinions or guidance for campaigns.

Allen Dickerson, who was confirmed to the FEC in 2020, is the second commissioner to willingly depart the agency this year, following Republican Sean Cooksey’s resignation in January. President Donald Trump also sought to fire Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, in February. She publicly contended that the firing was illegal but has not participated in recent commission votes and is no longer listed on the agency’s website. The FEC has six commissioner spots, and four is required for a quorum, but Dickerson’s departure leaves the agency with just three commissioners.

Dickerson and the three remaining commissioners — Trey Trainor, Dara Lindenbaum and Shana Broussard — voted on several matters in Wednesday’s agency meeting before Dickerson announced his resignation….

Share this:

“Democratic National Committee Files Lawsuit Against Trump; The party claims President Trump’s executive order aimed at independent agencies will gut the Federal Election Commission.”

federal election commission

NYT:

The Democratic Party sued President Trump on Friday, contending that his assertion of control over independent executive-branch agencies, which include the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, violated federal election law.

The lawsuit, which was jointly filed by the three national Democratic committees in federal court in Washington, D.C., is the first time the party has sued Mr. Trump in his second term. It comes as Democrats are embroiled in an internal debate over their strategy for opposing Mr. Trump’s overhaul of the federal government.

The order stated that federal agencies cannot interpret the law differently than the president or attorney general. That assertion effectively brings oversight of the bipartisan Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaigns for federal office, under direct control of the president, Democrats argue.

“The executive order purports to provide President Trump — the leader of the Republican Party — with the ability to order the F.E.C. to take particular positions on any question of law arising in the commission’s performance of any of its duties,” the Democrats’ lawsuit states.

The filing also argues that the executive order violates federal election law, undermining Congress. “The assertion is incompatible with nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court precedent blessing Congress’s authority to insulate certain agencies and officials from day-to-day control by the president,” the lawsuit says….

Share this:

“Trump Targets Independent Campaign Finance Watchdog in Latest Ouster”

federal election commission

Dan Weiner:

This latest move by the president smashes through longstanding safeguards. It’s too early to tell the full scale of the impact of Trump’s actions. Weintraub was set to help decide dozens of complaints related to the 2024 elections, including not only complaints against Trump and Musk, who spent nearly $300 million to help the president get elected, but also complaints Trump himself filed against Kamala Harris and various media outlets such as The Washington Post and CBS News. How those matters are resolved could depend on who fills her seat and the seat of a GOP commissioner who recently resigned.

In her post on X announcing the president’s attempt to fire her, Weintraub noted that it was illegal. She has a strong argument given the FEC’s structure and Congress’s clear intent that the commission be independent and insulated from partisan weaponization. At least one other Democratic commissioner at an independent agency who Trump purported to fire has already sued.

Legality aside, firing Weintraub without going through the process of choosing a successor with input from Congress looks like an attempt to subvert the FEC at a critical moment. It could potentially lay the foundation to weaponize the agency against the president’s enemies while stifling any effort to pursue his friends and allies. This is only the latest action to strip away longstanding guardrails — others include firing other heads of independent agencies, the apparently illegal firing of at least 17 agency inspectors general (independent officials who monitor for waste, fraud, and abuse), and the appointment of extreme partisans to critical law enforcement roles at the Department of Justice and other agencies.

Share this:

Trump Purports to Fire FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

chicanery, federal election commission

Commissioner Weintraub:

Received a letter from POTUS today purporting to remove me as Commissioner and Chair of the FEC. There's a legal way to replace FEC commissioners-this isn't it. I've been so fortunate to serve the American people and stir up some good trouble along the way. That's not changing anytime soon.

— Ellen L. Weintraub (@ellenlweintraub.bsky.social) 2025-02-06T23:41:05.134Z

Tom Moore:

(@ellenlweintraub.bsky.social) must be kept on the payroll and on the computer systems, her access to FEC HQ unimpeded. The FEC general counsel needs to do her job and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act. She does NOT need a vote of the Commission to do so.

— Tom Moore (@thmoore.bsky.social) 2025-02-06T23:44:36.558Z
Share this:

“With a Democrat’s Help, the F.E.C. Goes From Deadlock to Deregulation”

campaign finance, federal election commission, political polarization

There’s a lot to drive discussion in this NYT piece on the FEC and Commissioner Lindenbaum’s role in a recent series of votes.  (Disclosure: I was serving at the White House when Commissioner Lindenbaum was nominated.)

I haven’t had the chance to dig into the substance of the specific rulings highlighted in the piece, including the recent advisory opinions (and including the important AO on canvassing and coordination that Ned and Rick flagged a little over a month ago).  I tend to think that some of the critique of commission action and inaction is sometimes directed at the desire to change laws or regs rather than working with what the regs actually say, and I’d want to actually read the underlying legal materials before opining on the policy decisions.

The piece does highlight that “Ms. Lindenbaum’s work in the trenches of campaigns, where lawyers sort through the law’s gray areas to decide what can and cannot be done, that her supporters and detractors alike say has informed her thinking.”  And I agree with the profoundly informative nature of that experience.

The piece also highlights Marc Elias’s role in the series of recent votes: “One surprising thread through many of Ms. Lindenbaum’s most consequential decisions is that they were sought by Mr. Elias, who has become the face of voting-rights litigation on the left.”  But I think that thread may only be surprising if you’re the type to anoint someone as the “face of voting-rights litigation” for a diverse and hazily defined coalition of millions of voters with a whole lot of distinct voting-rights interests.  (The unrelenting focus of American political reporting on branding star personalities is not the only way to understand policy decisions or present narrative.)  Lawyers bring matters forward for a lot of reasons, including the interests of their clients and/or funders.

Share this:

CNN admits it’s using different debate criteria for Biden, Trump than Kennedy

federal election commission

Joe Biden and Donald Trump are two of the least popular presidential candidates of all time. It’s no surprise that an independent presidential candidate (with a famous last name) is getting outsized attention among prospective voters. But there appears to be a strong effort to box Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from the debate stage.

As I highlighted last month right when CNN made its announcement, CNN’s “objective” criteria (the term used in federal law) to stage a debate included the requirement that “a candidate’s name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency prior to the eligibility deadline.” As I noted, that would exclude both Biden and Trump, as neither is the party’s nominee nor has any paperwork been filed on behalf of either candidate in any state.

Recent coverage wondering if Kennedy might make the debate stage occasionally highlights this disparity, as Kennedy’s ballot access remains fairly successful but far from certain. A New York Times piece today notes (with a somewhat playful headline, “The Big Hurdle Between R.F.K. Jr. and the Debate Stage (It’s Not a Poll)”):

The Kennedy campaign has complained that the ballot access requirement to participate had set an unfair double standard for Mr. Kennedy, asserting that neither Mr. Biden nor Mr. Trump would qualify under those rules because they have not been officially nominated by their respective parties. Amaryllis Fox, Mr. Kennedy’s campaign manager, has said that “the 270 threshold is nonsensical.”

In a statement, CNN rejected that framing, saying that “as the presumptive nominees of their parties both Biden and Trump will satisfy” the ballot access requirement, adding that “as an independent candidate, under applicable laws R.F.K. Jr. does not.”

From another statement by CNN:

The law in virtually every state provides that the nominee of a state-recognized political party will be allowed ballot access without petitioning,” a CNN spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday. “As the presumptive nominees of their parties both Biden and Trump will satisfy this requirement. As an independent candidate, under applicable laws RFK Jr. does not. The mere application for ballot access does not guarantee that he will appear on the ballot in any state.”

This is an overt acknowledgement from CNN that it is not following its promulgated “objective” criteria. Instead, for Biden and Trump, it is altering the criteria, to allow a “presumptive nominee” (not a candidate), and to say that if these individuals “will satisfy” the requirement they qualify (not a present qualification). It’s a reason (as my earlier post points out) why the Commission on Presidential Debates scheduled its debates when it did and set the criteria as it did.

Kennedy has filed an FEC complaint to this effect. But it remains to be seen how the FEC will respond.

(It’s worth noting there is a polling requirement that Kennedy must separately meet. He has met 3 of the 4 polling requirements and might be able to meet the last one in the next several days.)

It’s no surprise that the major party candidates do not want to share the stage with a third candidate. Jimmy Carter didn’t want John Anderson on stage. After Ross Perot appeared on the debate stage in 1992, the CPD raised the polling threshold to appear from 5% to 15%. Biden and Trump would be happy to debate one another without Kennedy, I’m sure. And there are criteria that could have been designed to increase the likelihood of that happening, without this sort of error of making a standard that the staging network has to modify for two of the candidates.

Share this:

Truly Bizarre Story in Mediaite About Texas Voting Technology Making It Possible to Figure Out How People Voted, and FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor Taunting Republican Leader for Voting for DeSantis Rather than Trump

chicanery, federal election commission, voting technology

Mediaite:

The eyes of Texas were upon the ballots cast by several high-profile Texas politicians on Wednesday, after documents were leaked related to a stunning lawsuit accusing state election officials of failing to properly protect ballot secrecy. The leak included the purported ballot for the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) — catching him in a lie about how he voted in the presidential primary.

The 77-page complaint was filed by an elections security researcher who lives in Williamson County, Texas and four other Texas voters, two of whom also live in Williamson County, one from Bell County, and one from Llano County. Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson, Director of the Division of Elections Christina Adkins, and the county election administrators for Williamson, Bell, and Llano Counties are named as defendants, accused of “willful and systematic disregard of election laws” that put at risk the secrecy of potentially millions of ballots cast by Texans in recent elections.

The complaint describes the plaintiffs as all “consistent voters” who “voted in the most recent Texas elections in November 2023 and March 2024,” but either do not qualify to vote by mail under Texas law or prefer to vote in person….

The actual method used to cross-reference the unique identifier ballot numbers with the voter names and the results from individual ballots were originally filed in redacted form with the complaint (a redacted presentation by a Texas A&M University computer scientist regarding the methodology available for download here), according to our source. Rumors have been flying around Texas political circles in recent weeks about the method mentioned in the lawsuit and whether or not Texans’ ballots were really at risk of exposure.

And then on Wednesday, Texas-based website Current Revolt published documents that were produced using the methodology deployed in the investigation for the lawsuit – specifically, Rinaldi’s ballot.

Rinaldi voted in person in Dallas County for the Texas GOP presidential primary in March. He had publicly endorsed former President Donald Trump, said he voted for him, and even continued to insist earlier this week that he had cast his vote for Trump.

That’s not what the ballot and cast vote record images (below) show. Instead, Rinaldi allegedly voted for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), whose campaign collapsed in an embarrassing sputter in Iowa months earlier.

Why is FEC Commissioner Trainer even asking someone if they will be “in a #MAGA hat at” the Republican convention?

I expect we are going to hear much more about both aspects of the story, especially the potential loss of a secret ballot in Texas. If this pans out, just wow.

Share this:

“Trump-nominated FEC leader: let political donors hide their identities”

campaign finance, federal election commission

Raw Story:

A Donald Trump-nominated Federal Election Commission leader wants to make it easier for political donors to hide their identities — a major impediment to post-Watergate interpretations of political transparency that allow anyone to see where politicians are getting their money.

The proposed directive, titled “Requests to Withhold, Redact, or Modify Identifying Information,” was submitted today by Commissioner Allen J. Dickerson for possible consideration at the commission’s public May 16 meeting. Raw Story obtained a copy.

Dickerson’s memorandum says that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s disclosure requirements “are not absolute” and subject to exceptions.

“Where a person or group can show ‘a reasonable probability’ that compelled disclosure ‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties,’ they must be excused from disclosing the information that will put them at risk,“ Dickerson’s memorandum says.

Share this: