Latest news with #FederalElectionCampaignAct
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners, and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. 'Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued that Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
15 Years of Super PACs
Super PACs ushered in a new era of speech freedoms and improved American democracy more than I imagined. And I should know—fifteen years ago, I created the first one. On March 26, 2010, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decided v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), unanimously striking down a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that capped individual contributions to independent expenditure-only committees at $5,000. I'm proud to have been the lead plaintiff in that case. While Citizens United v. FEC is a watershed political speech case in its own right, commentators often incorrectly give it credit—or blame—for Super PACs. The anniversary of SpeechNow seems an appropriate time to set that record straight. Citizens United established that corporations and unions could make independent expenditures in political campaigns. However, SpeechNow recognized individuals' First Amendment right to pool their resources for independent political speech. Why is SpeechNow still so important 15 years later? Super PACs have fundamentally delivered on their promise to expand political speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the landmark Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, the Court ruled that an individual could independently spend unlimited amounts advocating for or against a candidate. The SpeechNow decision took the next logical step. The First Amendment protects the right of two, ten, or 10,000 or more citizens to pool resources to speak as much as they want about a candidate. What could be more American than that? Those who share a belief form a group, contribute to it, and then use the funds to speak to our fellow citizens about who should govern our nation. This enhanced freedom has had a substantial impact, making campaigns more informative and competitive. First, as incumbents feared, election campaigns are more hotly contested than they've been for decades by a significant measure. In 2010, Republicans gained 63 seats, the most since 1948. Democrats gained 40 seats in 2018, topped just twice since 1974. In the Senate, Democrats lost nine seats, the most flipped seats since President Ronald Reagan won in 1980. Party control of the White House changed hands three times since 2016—the last time that happened in three straight elections was between 1888 and 1896. Super PACs also benefit voters, who get more information about candidates from campaign spending. These new groups are a significant factor in the record spending on federal campaigns, which has more than doubled since 2008, with most of the gains in congressional races. However, the roughly $16 billion spent in the last election cycle is still less than how much we spent on potato chips. All this spending helped drive turnout, which in 2020 was the highest in over 100 years, with the 2024 election a close second. I won't claim that correlation is causation, but the critics claim the ruling threatened democracy. Those dire warnings have proven wildly off-base. Perhaps most crucially, SpeechNow recognized that meaningful political communication requires resources. In a nation of over 330 million people, spending money to reach voters is a prerequisite for effective political discourse. By removing artificial constraints on political groups, SpeechNow liberated and bolstered political speech. Genuinely free political speech can yield powerful results. In 1967, opposition to the Vietnam War continued building. Fortunately, there were no limits on giving money to candidate campaign committees at the time, allowing a few wealthy, anti-war liberals to fund Eugene McCarthy's challenge to President Lyndon B. Johnson. They poured over $13 million in today's money into his campaign in New Hampshire, a massive sum for one state. McCarthy didn't win, but he shocked everyone by getting 42 percent of the vote, which drove LBJ out of the race and became a turning point in political opposition to the war. In the New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, the Supreme Court noted our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Letting incumbent politicians have the power to limit how much we can spend our funds to criticize them is an affront to this commitment. Fifteen years after SpeechNow, it's time to recognize its essential wisdom: limiting the money we citizens can spend on political speech means limiting our free speech rights. The experience of the past 15 years has proven that more speech, not government limits on speech, best preserves our freedoms and American democracy. The post 15 Years of Super PACs appeared first on
CBS News
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Democrats ask judge to block Trump executive order giving him more control over FEC
National Democrats asked a judge Tuesday to issue a preliminary injunction halting an executive order signed by President Trump that gives him more control over the Federal Election Commission. The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic campaign organizations filed a federal civil lawsuit last month challenging the executive order, alleging it was a naked power grab by Mr. Trump to assume more control over U.S. elections. In February, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to curtail the authority of independent regulatory agencies. "The independent regulatory agencies officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people's elected President," his order said. Under the order, the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi would "provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch." Further, any proposed and "final significant regulatory actions" from executive departments and agencies, "including so-called independent agencies," are to be submitted for review to the president before they could be published in the Federal Register. The Democratic campaign groups allege they're already suffering harm because of the executive order. They argue that their employees fear that their fundraising and communications strategies may trigger an FEC complaint against the committees, "as has occurred in previous election cycles." They say that the order violates the Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA, by demanding that commissioners and their employees defer to Mr. Trump and Bondi's interpretations of the law and prohibiting them from "'advanc[ing] any interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law.'" Democrats noted that the executive order grounds its directive in the Article II authority of the president, but they argue that under controlling precedent, "Congress may create expert commissions like the FEC that are insulated from direct Presidential control, and therefore confirms the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of FECA. Last month, Ellen Weintraub, the current Federal Election Commission Chair and one of three Democratic members on the committee, said Mr. Trump had illegally removed her as a member of the FEC.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DNC sues over Trump order to expand White House control of independent agencies
National Democrats on Friday sued over President Trump's executive order aiming to expand the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies. The Democratic Party's three national political committees contend that Trump's order could preclude independent agencies from taking legal positions that don't align with the president's views. They wrote in their complaint that the Watergate scandal resulted in a 'bipartisan recognition' that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced. But Trump's executive order threatens to undercut that consensus and leave judgment to a 'single partisan political figure —the President of the United States.' 'This abrupt departure from the statutory scheme threatens significant harm to the Democratic Party's three national political committees,' wrote Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The Democrats said that Trump's order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive branch's legal interpretations of the law reflect the consensus of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners, who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, the commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. The order stands to let Trump, the head of the Republican Party, dictate legal interpretations that could impact complaints against Democrats, they argued. The lawsuit seeks to dismantle Trump's executive order by prompting the courts to uphold FECA, including its provisions that shield the FEC from presidential control. The three national political committees' chairs said in a joint statement that Democrats would use 'every tool at our disposal' to confront Trump's 'illegal actions in the courts.' 'Americans are legally guaranteed fair elections with impartial referees – not a system where Donald Trump can dictate campaign rules he wants from the White House,' said DNC Chair Ken Martin, DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene and DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand. Updated at 2:15 p.m. EST Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
