1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Title: Federal Election Commission (TL;DR Version)

Author: Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation

Chapter 29 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” focuses on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the independent agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws. Authored by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a prominent advocate for restrictive voting laws, the chapter argues that while the President’s direct authority over the FEC is limited, a conservative President can still influence its direction through strategic appointments and by directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce campaign finance laws in a manner consistent with the FEC’s interpretations.

The chapter’s significance lies in its attempt to downplay the potential for a conservative President to directly control the FEC while simultaneously outlining strategies to indirectly influence the agency’s enforcement of campaign finance laws. This approach raises concerns among Democrats about the potential for a weakening of campaign finance regulations, a reduction in enforcement against violations, and a greater influence of wealthy donors and special interests in elections.

2. KEY THEMES & FRAMEWORKS

  • Limited Presidential Authority, Strategic Influence: Von Spakovsky acknowledges the President’s limited direct authority over the FEC due to its independent status but emphasizes that a President can still exert influence through appointments and by directing the DOJ’s enforcement priorities.
  • Protecting First Amendment Rights: The chapter emphasizes the importance of protecting First Amendment rights in the context of campaign finance regulation, arguing that the FEC and DOJ should not “infringe on protected First Amendment activity.” This rhetoric could be used to justify a lax approach to enforcing campaign finance laws and to shield wealthy donors and special interests from scrutiny.
  • DOJ Deference to FEC: Von Spakovsky argues that the DOJ should defer to the FEC’s interpretations of campaign finance laws when making prosecution decisions, even if those interpretations are narrow or favorable to donors. This could limit the DOJ’s ability to prosecute campaign finance violations, particularly in cases where the FEC is deadlocked or has failed to act.
  • Defending the FEC in Litigation: The chapter criticizes Democratic FEC commissioners for refusing to authorize the agency’s general counsel to defend the FEC in lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs, arguing that the President should direct the Attorney General to defend the FEC in such cases. This could be seen as an attempt to shield the FEC from accountability and could undermine the ability of citizens to challenge the agency’s actions in court.
  • Maintaining the Bipartisan Structure: Von Spakovsky strongly opposes efforts to change the FEC’s structure, arguing that the current six-member, bipartisan commission is essential to prevent the agency from being “weaponized” for partisan purposes. This could perpetuate the FEC’s current gridlock and inaction, making it difficult to address campaign finance abuses. Democrats may favor a more independent and less partisan FEC structure that would be more effective in enforcing campaign finance laws.

3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN

3.1 Introduction: The FEC’s Role (894)

  • Von Spakovsky outlines the FEC’s role in administering and enforcing federal campaign finance laws, emphasizing its bipartisan structure and its independence from the executive branch.
  • He acknowledges the limitations on presidential authority over the FEC but suggests that a President can still influence its direction through appointments and by directing the DOJ’s enforcement priorities.
  • Quote: “The President’s authority over the actions of the Federal Election Commission is extremely limited. However, the President can influence the direction of the FEC through his appointments to the commission and by directing the Department of Justice to enforce campaign finance laws in a manner consistent with the FEC’s interpretations.”

3.2 Protecting First Amendment Rights (896)

  • Von Spakovsky emphasizes the importance of protecting First Amendment rights in the context of campaign finance regulation, arguing that the FEC and DOJ should not “infringe on protected First Amendment activity.”
  • He criticizes what he sees as overly broad interpretations of campaign finance laws, arguing that they can chill free speech and political participation.
  • Quote: “The First Amendment protects the right of individuals and groups to engage in political speech and to support the candidates of their choice. The FEC and the DOJ must be careful not to infringe on these rights.”

3.3 DOJ Deference to FEC (896)

  • Von Spakovsky argues that the DOJ should defer to the FEC’s interpretations of campaign finance laws when making prosecution decisions.
  • He contends that the DOJ should not prosecute individuals for conduct that the FEC has previously determined does not violate the law, even if the DOJ disagrees with the FEC’s interpretation.
  • Quote: “The DOJ should not second-guess the FEC’s interpretations of campaign finance laws. The FEC is the expert agency on these matters, and the DOJ should defer to its expertise.”

3.4 Defending the FEC in Litigation (897)

  • Von Spakovsky criticizes Democratic FEC commissioners for refusing to authorize the agency’s general counsel to defend the FEC in lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs.
  • He argues that the President should direct the Attorney General to defend the FEC in such cases, even if the FEC commissioners disagree.
  • Quote: “The FEC’s general counsel should be authorized to defend the agency in court. If the FEC commissioners refuse to authorize the general counsel to defend the agency, the President should direct the Attorney General to do so.”

3.5 Maintaining the Bipartisan Structure (898)

  • Von Spakovsky strongly opposes efforts to change the FEC’s structure, arguing that the current six-member, bipartisan commission is essential to prevent the agency from being “weaponized” for partisan purposes.
  • He claims that a more independent or less partisan FEC would be more likely to engage in “overzealous enforcement” and to “target” conservative groups and candidates.
  • Quote: “The FEC’s bipartisan structure is essential to ensure that the agency is fair and impartial. We must not allow the FEC to become a tool for partisan politics.”

3.6 Conclusion: A Fair and Impartial FEC (899)

  • Von Spakovsky concludes by arguing that his recommendations are necessary to ensure that the FEC is “fair and impartial” and that it “protects the First Amendment rights of all Americans.”

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Appoint Conservative Commissioners: Appoint conservative commissioners to the FEC who will interpret campaign finance laws narrowly and who will be less likely to pursue enforcement actions against conservative groups and candidates. (Implied throughout the chapter)
  • Direct the DOJ to Defer to the FEC: Direct the Attorney General to instruct DOJ prosecutors to defer to the FEC’s interpretations of campaign finance laws when making prosecution decisions. (896)
  • Defend the FEC in Litigation: Direct the Attorney General to defend the FEC in lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs, even if the FEC commissioners disagree. (897)
  • Maintain the Bipartisan Structure: Oppose any efforts to change the FEC’s structure, arguing that the current six-member, bipartisan commission is essential to prevent the agency from being “weaponized.” (898)

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

  • Weaken Campaign Finance Enforcement: Reduce the FEC’s enforcement of campaign finance laws, particularly against conservative groups and candidates.
  • Protect Wealthy Donors and Special Interests: Shield wealthy donors and special interests from scrutiny by the FEC and the DOJ.
  • Promote a Conservative Interpretation of Campaign Finance Laws: Ensure that the FEC and the DOJ interpret campaign finance laws in a way that is favorable to conservative interests.
  • Maintain FEC Gridlock: Preserve the FEC’s current bipartisan structure, which often leads to gridlock and inaction, making it difficult to address campaign finance abuses.

6. CROSS-REFERENCES

  • Agenda 47: The chapter’s emphasis on protecting First Amendment rights and limiting the DOJ’s role in prosecuting campaign finance violations aligns with the broader goals outlined in Trump’s Agenda 47, which seeks to reduce government regulation and to protect conservative interests.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 17: This chapter, focusing on the Department of Justice, complements Chapter 29 by advocating for a more politicized and less independent DOJ, which could be used to influence the enforcement of campaign finance laws.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 28: This chapter, focusing on the Federal Communications Commission, supports Chapter 29 by calling for a rollback of regulations on media companies, potentially making it easier for them to engage in political spending and to influence elections.

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

  • Weakening of Campaign Finance Laws: The chapter’s recommendations could lead to a weakening of campaign finance laws, as the FEC and the DOJ become less likely to pursue enforcement actions against violations, particularly those committed by conservative groups and candidates.
  • Increased Influence of Wealthy Donors and Special Interests: A less rigorous enforcement of campaign finance laws could allow wealthy donors and special interests to exert greater influence on elections, potentially undermining democratic accountability and fairness.
  • Erosion of Public Trust in Elections: A perception that campaign finance laws are not being enforced fairly and impartially could erode public trust in elections and undermine confidence in the democratic process.

8. CRITICISMS & COUNTERARGUMENTS

  • Undermining Campaign Finance Reform: Critics might argue that the chapter’s recommendations would undermine campaign finance reform efforts and would allow wealthy donors and special interests to buy influence in elections.
  • Politicizing the FEC and DOJ: Opponents might argue that the chapter’s proposals would politicize the FEC and the DOJ, making them less independent and more likely to be used for partisan purposes.
  • Shielding Corruption: Critics might argue that the chapter’s emphasis on protecting First Amendment rights is a smokescreen for shielding corruption and allowing wealthy donors to evade accountability.

9. KEY QUOTES

  • “The President’s authority over the actions of the Federal Election Commission is extremely limited. However, the President can influence the direction of the FEC through his appointments to the commission and by directing the Department of Justice to enforce campaign finance laws in a manner consistent with the FEC’s interpretations.” (894) This quote highlights the strategic approach that a conservative President could take to influence the FEC.
  • “The First Amendment protects the right of individuals and groups to engage in political speech and to support the candidates of their choice. The FEC and the DOJ must be careful not to infringe on these rights.” (896) This quote reflects the chapter’s emphasis on protecting First Amendment rights, which could be used to justify a lax approach to enforcing campaign finance laws.
  • “The DOJ should not second-guess the FEC’s interpretations of campaign finance laws. The FEC is the expert agency on these matters, and the DOJ should defer to its expertise.” (896) This quote emphasizes the chapter’s desire to limit the DOJ’s role in prosecuting campaign finance violations.
  • “The FEC’s general counsel should be authorized to defend the agency in court. If the FEC commissioners refuse to authorize the general counsel to defend the agency, the President should direct the Attorney General to do so.” (897) This quote reveals the chapter’s attempt to shield the FEC from accountability.
  • “The FEC’s bipartisan structure is essential to ensure that the agency is fair and impartial. We must not allow the FEC to become a tool for partisan politics.” (898) This quote reflects the chapter’s support for maintaining the FEC’s current structure, which often leads to gridlock and inaction.

10. SUMMARY & SIGNIFICANCE

Chapter 29 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” outlines a conservative approach to the FEC that emphasizes protecting First Amendment rights, limiting the DOJ’s role in prosecuting campaign finance violations, and maintaining the agency’s current bipartisan structure. While some of these proposals, such as protecting free speech, may find bipartisan support, others, such as limiting the DOJ’s role and maintaining the FEC’s current structure, are likely to be more controversial and could raise concerns among Democrats about the potential for a weakening of campaign finance enforcement.

This chapter, along with the previous chapters, highlights the conservative agenda to limit the role of government in regulating political activity and to protect the interests of wealthy donors and special interests. The proposals outlined in this chapter could have a significant impact on the integrity of American elections, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for a less fair and less democratic political system under a future conservative administration.