Experts warn FEC is a watchdog lacking ‘bark or bite' with no quorum
Experts are sounding alarms over the status of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which has been largely paralyzed from performing much of its work.
Former Commissioner Allen Dickerson's departure from the body at the conclusion of his term at the end of April gave the normally six-person FEC its third vacancy. A loss of quorum now prevents the FEC from carrying out many of its responsibilities, including holding meetings, conducting investigations and issuing penalties against potential violators.
An apparent lack of urgency in filling the vacancies could cause a significant backlog of cases as the midterm elections approach.
'It really puts the country in a bind when the FEC doesn't have a working quorum, without enough commissioners to do its job, everything just piles up,' said Michael Beckel, the senior research director for the cross-partisan group Issue One, which educates and advocates on issues concerning U.S. democracy, elections and government.
'At the end of the day, without a quorum, the FEC is a watchdog that doesn't have the ability to bark or bite,' he said.
The lack of quorum is a rarity in the agency's 50-year history but not entirely without precedent. The first instance occurred in 2008, toward the end of George W. Bush's presidency.
Beckel said political pressure contributed to the end of that six-month gap in the FEC's work as Republican presidential nominee John McCain used public financing for his campaign and needed the agency to sign off on the funding, which it could only do with the quorum of at least four members.
But no major party nominee has used public financing since then, and Beckel expressed doubt about a similar situation arising to create the same pressure.
'Without the same sort of political pressure existing now, it's hard to imagine what contours might arise that would lead to a logjam being broken,' he said.
The other instances came in Trump's first term, in 2019 and 2020, with just a one-month respite between them.
Complaints can still be submitted to the agency during this period, but the FEC can't enact fines or other penalties, issue new rules or advisories or conduct audits. Since the current loss of quorum began, two scheduled public meetings have been canceled.
The pending situation could be similar to the one that Dickerson, Commissioner Shana Broussard and former Commissioner Sean Cooksey inherited when the Senate confirmed their nominations to the agency in December 2020, ending the last loss of quorum. The FEC last had six members in January.
Dickerson told The Hill in an interview that much of the backlog dated back to the 2016 election cycle, and the commission's members had to make 'very difficult decisions,' taking into account a limited budget, about what cases they could move forward on and what needed to be let go given time constraints.
He credited Broussard, who served as chair in 2021 while he served as vice chair, as being key to clearing the backlog.
'We had a shared commitment to ensuring that the commission was restored to functioning order, and that required dealing with, in many cases, old and complex cases that were really making it difficult for the agency to get back up and running,' Dickerson said. 'And that was a lot of hard work and late nights.'
He said the extent of the problem that the current lack of quorum causes for the FEC will depend on how long it lasts and the number of credible complaints that are filed, adding that often complaints aren't well argued or are designed more for 'headlines' than the law.
Dickerson said a lot of focus is on the FEC's enforcement docket, but he expressed more concern about its current inability to engage on rulemaking and requests for advisory opinions to assist the public.
'The closer one gets to an election, the more likely it is that the outside world is going to need guidance from the commission on novel questions of the law,' he said. 'And until a quorum is restored, that's a key function of the commission that may be undervalued by some people, which I think is maybe its most important function.'
Cooksey stepped down from his post on the first day of Trump's term and expressed hope that Trump would nominate appointees to fill the positions of commissioners whose terms have expired. Commissioners are allowed to continue to serve on the FEC even after their term has expired until the Senate confirms a replacement.
Two of the three current commissioners, Broussard and James Trainer III, are serving on expired terms.
But Trump removed former Chair Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat, in February and didn't lay out any process to replace her. Weintraub argued her unilateral removal by Trump was illegal, but her seat has been vacant since then.
Weintraub said in an interview that Congress anticipated the problem of a new commissioner not being ready in time to replace an outgoing one in allowing commissioners to remain until a replacement is set.
'That is a normal process. That's what should have happened in my case, and had I been replaced in the normal course, rather than summarily moved, the commission would not be without a quorum today,' she said.
The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment about whether Trump has any plans to nominate additional commissioners soon. The FEC declined to comment on the vacancies and possible future nominations.
While the lack of quorum has mostly occurred during the Trump administration, numerous administrations have allowed commissioners to continue to serve well past their term's expiration.
Dickerson said he wouldn't consider this to be a sign of a lack of prioritization but an effect of the large size of the federal government and smallness of the FEC.
'We need to hope that those seats are filled. I think it's best for the republic to have six working commissioners with a range of views and with significant bipartisan buy-in on its decision-making,' he said. 'But I'm not going to characterize the decision-making of the government overall based upon an agency the size of the FEC.'
Beckel said the loss of a quorum shouldn't be interpreted as an opportunity for candidates to 'push the envelope,' as willful violations of campaign finance law can still face prosecution from the Justice Department (DOJ) and complaints can still be filed to the FEC.
'There will still be watchdogs out there filing campaign finance complaints,' he said. 'There will still be partisan actors out there who are making sure that their opponents don't do anything awry.'
But Weintraub and some reform groups expressed concern that bad actors could feel emboldened to commit violations.
Omar Noureldin, the senior vice president of policy for the watchdog Common Cause, noted the DOJ's shrinking of its public integrity unit in the aftermath of the resignations of multiple officials over the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams being dropped.
'It's very clear, from what we've seen from the civil rights division to the public integrity section to the tax division, that enforcement is not going to be something that is a priority,' he said.
'There are state laws that regulate campaign finance and city laws for local elections and so those are still avenues by which we can hold some folks accountable,' Noureldin added. 'But it's not going to be at the scale that the FEC can do.'
But some also were concerned about the potential members the Trump administration would choose.
Erin Chlopak, the senior director of campaign finance for the Campaign Legal Center, pointed to Trump's executive order exerting control over federal agencies, including the FEC. She said this is 'completely contrary' to Congress's vision of the agency as independent.
'That independence is uniquely crucial to its ability to do its job,' she said. 'If that's going to be an issue, then that's yet another reason why restoration of the forum poses different concerns, sort of unique concerns in this moment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mysterious poll may shape Royals' stadium choice. No one will say where it came from
As Missouri lawmakers weighed an incentives package to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals inside state lines, speculation about polling related to the Royals and Clay County circulated throughout the state Capitol. Top lawmakers involved in the debate, from the Republican bill sponsor to the top Democrat in the state House, have ascribed significance to the mysterious poll, mentioning its existence in legislative hearings, interviews and a press conference over the past several weeks. Any type of polling in Missouri could hold significant weight as the Royals decide whether to stay in the state or move to Kansas. The incentives plan in Missouri requires commitments from local governments and a poll in Clay County could help the team determine whether voters would support some form of tax increase to fund a new stadium in the Northland. Kansas City-area officials contacted by The Star say they heard the polling showed positive results for the likelihood of Clay County voters supporting a new Royals stadium in North Kansas City. But most who spoke with The Star expressed some level of skepticism about it. In interviews, most officials said that they have not actually seen the alleged poll, its full results or who paid for it. While very little has been shared publicly, nearly every official who spoke with The Star, from state lawmakers to a Kansas City councilman to a Clay County commissioner, said they had either heard of it or seen a small portion of its results. Clay County Commissioner Scott Wagner said in an interview that he received the top line results of the poll. However, he would not say who shared it with him, saying only that it didn't come from the Royals and that the poll was not commissioned by the county. 'The top line results that have been shared with us suggest that Clay Countians are very open to the Royals coming,' Wagner said, adding that he hasn't seen finer details about the poll. 'But, as you know, the devil's in the details. And, as was witnessed last year, the details can make or break a question like that.' Revelations about the mysterious poll come after Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that would allow the state to offer incentives to help pay for up to 50% of new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals. But neither team has committed to staying amid a competing offer from Kansas that would potentially pay for up to 70% of new stadiums across the state line. The lack of firm commitment will likely put pressure on officials in Kansas City, Jackson County and Clay County to put together additional funding packages for the teams. The required local commitment in the Missouri plan would likely come in the form of a local tax vote, just more than a year after Jackson County voters rejected a similar tax. Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican who handled the Missouri bill in the House, was also one of the officials who said he had heard about the poll. Brown, who hails from Clay County, said he would love to see the Royals move to the Northland. 'I have heard that it has been done. I heard that it was favorable,' Brown said. 'I would like to think that is something that people would not just imagine or put that out there, you know, without it being based in some sort of reality.' Brown said he heard that Axiom Strategies, a political campaign firm owned by GOP consultant Jeff Roe, conducted the poll. Representatives from Roe's firm did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but Axiom's involvement would not come as a major surprise. The firm previously managed the local tax vote campaign for the Royals and Chiefs, The Star previously reported. The teams and the campaign did not go out of their way to make it known that Axiom was involved at the time, either. A spokesperson for the Royals also did not respond to a request for comment about the poll. But others who spoke with The Star had heard about the poll as well. Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers said he has seen a copy of it, but said it was not given to him. Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican who sponsored the Missouri funding bill, and Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat, said they had heard of its existence but have not seen it. 'What I had heard, it (polled) so high that I thought…it was a pretty far stretch, quite frankly,' Nurrenbern said in an interview, adding that she takes every poll with a grain of salt. However, she said that if Clay County decides to put a stadium-funding tax vote on the ballot, 'we can make the case to all of Clay County, northern Clay County as well, that this would be a good investment for our county.' In April, the FOX 4 TV station in Kansas City reported that a Royals poll had been sent out to Clay County residents. While it's unclear if this is the same polling circulating among lawmakers, the station reported that the poll asked if residents would support a half-cent sales tax increase to support a Royals stadium in North Kansas City. If the Royals decide to stay in Missouri, a potential fight over the teams between Kansas City and Clay County could be on the horizon. But, so far, the team has not shared where it would like to build a new stadium. A downtown Kansas City site at Washington Square Park and a spot in North Kansas City in Clay County have both been floated as potential sites in Missouri. But news of a recent real estate deal tied to an Overland Park site in Kansas has also intensified speculation about the Royals' intentions — and their preferred stadium location. It's also unclear when the team plans to make its decision and whether the decision to stay in Missouri would be based on polling in Clay County or Kansas City. Any local tax vote in Missouri would likely come in November at the earliest. The Kansas incentives offer expires at the end of June, which means the team could decide whether to cross state lines by the end of the month. But Kansas could also extend that deadline to give the teams more time to decide. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas is one of the biggest supporters of the Royals moving downtown. When asked whether Lucas was concerned about the polling in Clay County, his spokesperson said that the mayor's 'focus remains on Kansas City's plan and providing the best option for the Royals in Downtown Kansas City.' 'With Missouri state support now secured, Kansas City will continue its work with the Royals to build a robust and responsible development plan,' the spokesperson, Megan Strickland, said in an email. 'The Mayor is committed to leveraging Kansas City's unique experience in large facility development to create the best venue and district for our community, our taxpayers, our future, and our team.' After Kansas and Missouri approved incentives packages for the Chiefs and Royals, officials who spoke with The Star now say they're largely waiting to see where the teams decide to end up. For Wagner, the Clay County commissioner, Clay County would respond if 'something comes our way.' But, 'we're not driving that ship,' he said, the Royals are. 'I have come to learn that anybody who says they know anything doesn't know anything,' Wagner said. 'Because, at the end of the day, there's only one decision-maker and that is the team.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What is the Prenatal Equal Protection Act? New bill would effectively ban abortion in Ohio
(WJW) — On Wednesday, Republican State Reps. Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman are set to introduce a controversial new bill at the Ohio Statehouse that would ban abortion in the Buckeye State. The legislation is called the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, and it aims to extend full legal rights to fetuses from the moment of fertilization. Bagworm outbreak threat growing in Ohio, OSU warns 'We are trying to create a constitutional debate in which we believe the state's constitution would be superseded by the U.S. Constitution,' said pro-life activist Austin Beigel, who helped craft the bill. Beigel, a member of End Abortion Ohio, said the legislation is about ensuring what he sees as equal protection for all life — born or unborn. 'To simply say this is a person in the womb, out of the womb — we know they are human. We believe all people deserve legal protection under the law,' he said. Supporters of the bill argue it is not about politics, but about morality. 'It is not going to permit the killing of innocent human beings, innocent people,' Beigel added. But opponents said the bill defies the will of Ohio voters, who passed a constitutional amendment in 2023 explicitly protecting access to abortion. 'I mean, we knew on Nov. 7, 2023, that there would be plans to undermine the will of the Ohio voter,' said Jordyn Close, deputy director of the Ohio Women's Alliance. Close said she first learned of the proposed legislation last week and was troubled by what she found. 'This bill does not account for any special circumstances. It does not account for any real-life realities for Ohioans who need abortion care,' she said. Baby delivered from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia The bill argues that Ohio's constitutional amendment legalizing abortion should be considered invalid, claiming it violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause. But Close believes that argument won't hold up in court. 'Our fantastic legal team and legal scholars will be able to defeat this,' she said. Supporters of the legislation are expected to hold a rally inside the Statehouse from 2:30 to 4 p.m. on Wednesday as the bill is officially filed. Whether the bill gains traction in the legislature remains to be seen, but the fight over abortion rights in Ohio appears far from over. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
