Federal Election Commission

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares179 Views

    Federal Election Commission Chair Says Trump Has Moved to Fire Her

    by

    Ellen L. Weintraub, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, said on Thursday that President Trump had moved to fire her.Ms. Weintraub, who has served as a Democratic commissioner on the bipartisan panel since 2002, posted a short letter signed by Mr. Trump on social media that said she was “hereby removed” from the commission effective immediately. She said in an interview that she did not see the president’s move as legally valid, and that she was considering her options on how to respond.“There’s a perfectly legal way for him to replace me,” Ms. Weintraub said on Thursday evening. “But just flat-out firing me, that is not it.”The F.E.C., the nation’s top campaign watchdog agency, is made up of six commissioners, three aligned with Democrats and three with Republicans. That structure has contributed to repeated partisan deadlocks over elections investigations that scrutinize one party or another. Ms. Weintraub’s term as commissioner expired in 2007, but she has continued to serve on the board. The position of chair rotates every year. Ms. Weintraub took up the post again in January.A commissioner is removed only after a replacement is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and Ms. Weintraub said that the president did not have the power to force her off the commission before that. Mr. Trump did not name a successor to Ms. Weintraub in his letter, and it would take weeks at least for his choice for commissioner to be approved by the Senate.Trevor Potter, a former commissioner and chairman of the commission nominated by President George H.W. Bush, denounced the move to fire Ms. Weintraub in a statement, saying that doing so would violate constitutional separation of powers.“Congress explicitly, and intentionally, created the F.E.C. to be an independent, bipartisan federal agency whose commissioners are confirmed by Congress,” said Mr. Potter, who is now the president of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign watchdog. He added: “As the only agency that regulates the president, Congress intentionally did not grant the president the power to fire F.E.C. commissioners.”The White House did not respond to requests for comment.Ms. Weintraub was the chief architect of a novel strategy to further paralyze the commission in partisan deadlocks in order to compel enforcement of the nation’s election laws through the courts. She previously described it as a last resort after years of enforcement efforts being stymied by the three Republicans on the commission.Ms. Weintraub on Thursday also pointed to her public statements about F.E.C. complaints focused on Mr. Trump’s presidential campaigns as one reason she may have earned the president’s ire.“There have been dozens of complaints filed against the president,” Ms. Weintraub said, noting that the commission has not been able to pursue them because of the 3-to-3 partisan deadlock.She added, “I have pointed that out. I’ve written about this. So I’m not really surprised that I am on their radar.” More

    More stories

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Donors Who Give at Least $1 Million or Raise $2 Million Get Inaugural Access

      by

      President-elect Donald J. Trump is raising money for his inauguration in increments as high as $2 million, according to materials from fund-raisers for the inauguration.A flier titled “Trump Vance Inaugural Committee Benefits” lists the perks of donating $1 million or raising $2 million for the event. Donors who reach that elite level receive as many as a half-dozen tickets to eight inaugural events from Jan. 17 to Jan. 20.After a divisive election, donors and corporations typically put big money into presidents’ inaugural committees as a way to support the president and also to curry favor with an administration that will be in power for four years. There are no limits on the donations that can be made to the Trump committee, which is structured as a political nonprofit for tax purposes, but gifts over $200 are disclosed to the Federal Election Commission.Highlights of the schedule of events for the elite donors and fund-raisers include a reception with cabinet picks and a dinner with Vice President-elect JD Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, on Jan. 18, and an “elegant and intimate dinner with President Donald J. Trump and Mrs. Melania Trump” on Jan. 19, described as “the pinnacle event.” Before the dissemination of this flier, Mrs. Trump had not confirmed her plans to attend the inaugural festivities, which include a Sunday morning interfaith service that the materials say she plans to attend with Mr. Trump.On Monday, Jan. 20, the big donors will receive six tickets each to attend the inauguration itself.Mr. Trump’s first inaugural committee, which was investigated by federal prosecutors for illegal foreign donations and resulted in a 12-year prison sentence for one donor, raised $107 million in 2016 and 2017. The current inaugural committee is being led by Steven Witkoff, a billionaire real estate mogul who has given nearly $2 million to Mr. Trump’s political causes over the past decade and who has been named a special envoy to the Middle East, and Kelly Loeffler, a former Republican senator from Georgia.Mr. Trump is continuing to raise money for his political efforts, too. On Dec. 19, he is expected to headline an event at his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, for a pro-Trump super PAC, MAGA Inc., where tickets cost $1 million a person, according to a copy of the invitation seen by The New York Times. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Allows Unusual G.O.P. Strategy to Pump Money Into Senate Races

      by

      Democrats had claimed that the advertising strategy may have violated federal election laws establishing strict limits on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates.A federal judge ruled on Friday that Senate Republicans may continue to pump tens of millions of dollars into key swing state races in the final days of the 2024 campaign by employing an unusual advertising strategy that Democrats had claimed was potentially illegal.By reclassifying campaign ads as fund-raising appeals, Republicans have been able to avoid strict limits Congress has placed on spending by national party committees to aid individual candidates, helping to offset a significant fund-raising deficit they face in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.House Democrats’ campaign arm sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and sought to either ban the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.But Judge Randolph D. Moss, of the U.S. District Court in Washington, wrote Friday that he was “unpersuaded” to outlaw a practice that the commission had not. He said Democratic and Republican campaign committees — those that support Senate and House candidates — are “all on an even playing field” and the lack of action taken by the Federal Election Commission had not tilted it.His ruling could give Republicans a last-minute boost in the fierce contest for the Senate, where they are favored to pick up the one or two seats they need to regain control of the chamber, but where polls show that several races are close.Sean Cooksey, the Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, also welcomed the ruling. “This is a huge win for the rule of law and political speech!” he wrote on social media.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      In Election’s Final Days, Dark Money and ‘Gray Money’ Fund Hidden Agendas

      by

      Big-money operatives are taking advantage of lax rules at the end of the campaign to hide the true source of their money until after the election is called — or for forever.The campaign literature that landed in Republican mailboxes in North Carolina this week was jarring. On one side was a sonogram image of a human fetus, with this message: “Her heart is beating. We all know it. Only the courageous few will protect her.” On the other side was a call to action: “You have the courage and the conviction to vote for Randall Terry.”But the mailer did not come from supporters of Mr. Terry, a third-party presidential candidate and longtime leader in the anti-abortion movement.Rather, the fine print showed it was the work of a nascent super PAC with the anodyne name of Civic Truth Action that was funded by millions of dollars in difficult-to-trace money linked to Democrats trying to elect Vice President Kamala Harris as the next president.The final days of a high-stakes election are often a time of political mischief. The message pushed by Civic Truth Action — purportedly to help Mr. Terry but aimed at siphoning votes from former President Donald J. Trump — may be among the most cynical. But it is far from unique. Across the country, supporters of Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump are taking advantage of a patchwork of lax laws that allow partisans to funnel millions of dollars through daisy chains of opaque entities into hard-hitting campaign tactics, all to try to sway the tiny slice of swing-state voters who could make the difference.Campaign operatives and donors have long deployed creative accounting to mask the flow of money into politics. But in the decade and a half since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision paved the way for unlimited spending on political advertising, it has become particularly difficult to follow the big-money flow in the weeks before Election Day, despite the majority opinion’s assertions that “prompt disclosure” of political spending would enable voters “to make informed decisions.”“Now it’s sort of undeniable that the court was wrong with those predictions,” said Ian Vandewalker, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit that works to reduce the influence of big money in politics. Mr. Vandewalker published an analysis this week of the increase in difficult-to-trace funding to super PACs. “The ability to hide funding for those types of things is attractive for people who want to engage in dirty tricks,” he said in an interview.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Late Lawsuit Could Shape Political Ad Wars in Final Days of Campaign

      by

      House Democrats are suing to stop Republicans from using a legal loophole to bolster their Senate candidates.A legal battle is playing out in D.C. federal court that could determine how much money the Democratic and Republican Parties can pump into advertising in pivotal congressional races in the final week of the 2024 campaign and beyond.At issue is what Democrats say is a potentially illegal political advertising strategy that Republicans have used in recent weeks to try to overcome a significant fund-raising deficit in states with critical Senate races, such as Arizona and Pennsylvania.With less than two weeks until Election Day, House Democrats’ campaign arm has sued the Federal Election Commission for failing to stop the Republicans and are seeking a ruling to either bar the practice or clear the way to use it themselves.A hearing on the matter is set for Monday, and both parties expect a ruling as soon as Tuesday, either blocking or allowing the practice in the critical last stretch before Election Day.Here’s what to know:Democrats have been dominating Republicans in fund-raising in key Senate races.Continuing a recent trend, Democratic Senate candidates have been trouncing their Republican rivals in fund-raising battles in pivotal races across the country.In Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown has raised about four times as much money as his Republican challenger, Bernie Moreno. In Montana, Senator Jon Tester has raised about three times as much as Tim Sheehy. And in Arizona, Representative Ruben Gallego has raised more than twice as much as Kari Lake.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Miriam Adelson Goes Searching for More Trump Donors

      by

      Miriam Adelson has been spending the final few weeks of the general election campaign doing something that might be unexpected for one of the richest people in the world: asking other people for money.Ms. Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate with a net worth of $35 billion, has put $100 million into her pro-Trump super PAC, Preserve America, this year. The super PAC was totally funded by her, and it spent almost all of her money throughout the summer and fall. The super PAC, established in June when President Biden was the nominee, initially did not anticipate spending money to air television ads in October when it expected the Trump campaign or other groups to be shouldering much of the advertising load. Ms. Adelson was not eager to commit even more money, group officials have said.Yet Ms. Adelson, a physician and a conservative megadonor, and her operatives have been eager to keep Mr. Trump on television in the battleground states of Wisconsin and Michigan, especially given that he is being outspent by Vice President Kamala Harris and her allies. So other donors have said that beginning in early October, Ms. Adelson has been soliciting other billionaires to help bridge the gap to keep the group on the air through Election Day.“We had an initial $100 million,” said Dave Carney, a senior adviser to the group. “We’re trying to raise more, and Dr. Adelson has been a fund-raising star getting more people on board.”Super PACs formed by a single rich donor can struggle to raise outside money as fellow billionaires wonder why the patron won’t foot the whole bill. Ms. Adelson has raised over $10 million for her super PAC over the last few weeks, a spokesman for her said. Supporters of the group who will be made public in a Thursday filing with the Federal Election Commission include the conservative billionaires Liz Uihlein, Ronnie Cameron and Diane Hendricks, who gave $3 million, $2 million and $1 million, respectively. Mr. Carney said the group now had over 100 donors.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Leans On Creative Bookkeeping to Keep Up in Cash Race

      by

      Donald J. Trump’s political operation has been taking extraordinary measures in a bid to stay financially competitive with Vice President Kamala Harris, deploying aggressive and creative accounting strategies that test the legal limits of how far a candidate can go to offload the core costs of running for president.The most startling example is the official payroll of the former president’s campaign committee.He had only 11 people on it, as of August.That is a tiny fraction of the more than 200 people Mr. Trump had on his campaign payroll four years ago and the more than 600 people on Ms. Harris’s campaign payroll in August, federal records show.The reason Mr. Trump now has so few on the payroll is that he is shuffling costs from his campaign committee to other accounts allied or shared with the Republican Party. The goal of the seemingly arcane accounting maneuver is to free up millions of dollars, which would otherwise be locked up in party and fund-raising accounts, to spend on television ads for Mr. Trump.And the shifting of payroll is just one piece of the financial puzzle.Mr. Trump has also not been using his campaign committee to pay for many of the big rallies that are the signature events of his campaign, according to two people with knowledge of his accounting who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters. Instead, the Trump team is, for accounting purposes, treating those events as fund-raisers by including backstage photo lines for contributors or donor round tables.Mr. Trump and Senator JD Vance of Ohio greeting supporters backstage before a campaign rally in Asheboro, N.C., in August.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk Shares Manipulated Harris Video, in Seeming Violation of X’s Policies

      by

      Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, has waded into one of the thorniest issues facing U.S. politics: deepfake videos.On Friday night, Mr. Musk, the billionaire owner of the social media platform X, reposted an edited campaign video for Vice President Kamala Harris that appears to have been digitally manipulated to change the spot’s voice-over in a deceptive manner.The video mimics Ms. Harris’s voice, but instead of using her words from the original ad, it has the vice president saying that President Biden is senile, that she does not “know the first thing about running the country” and that, as a woman and a person of color, she is the “ultimate diversity hire.”In addition, the clip was edited to remove images of former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, and to add images of Mr. Biden. The original, unaltered ad, which the Harris campaign released on Thursday, is titled “We Choose Freedom.”The version posted on X does not contain a disclaimer, though the account that first uploaded it Friday morning, @MrReaganUSA, noted in its post that the video was a “parody.” When Mr. Musk reposted the video on his own account eight hours later, he made no such disclosure, stating only, “This is amazing,” followed by a laughing emoji.Mr. Musk’s post, which has since been viewed 98 million times, would seem to run afoul of X’s policies, which prohibit sharing “synthetic, manipulated or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Raises Just $2.6 Million

      by

      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign has depended heavily on contributions from Nicole Shanahan, his vice-presidential pick, who did not make major new donations in May.Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign raised just $2.6 million in May, a paltry sum that speaks to how reliant his bid has become on his running mate, the wealthy Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan.The Kennedy campaign raised less in May than it had in any previous month in 2024, according to filings on Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. That was in large part because Ms. Shanahan, who has poured millions into their independent presidential campaign, barely contributed any additional money in May.The total raised by Mr. Kennedy was essentially the same as what he raised in April, not counting Ms. Shanahan: He brought in $10.7 million that month, but $8 million came from her. Earlier, when he announced her as his running mate in March, she almost immediately threw $2 million behind the campaign.Mr. Kennedy ended May with $6.4 million on hand. And yet that figure is only somewhat revealing about his financial position because of the looming possibility that Ms. Shanahan, at a moment’s notice, could inject more money into their bid. She has been able to do so directly because while campaign finance laws bar people from donating more than $3,300 to a campaign, candidates themselves can give unlimited sums of their own money.And Ms. Shanahan, a philanthropist who was once married to the Google co-founder Sergey Brin, is said to have access to over $1 billion. She has not signaled if there is a limit to how much she might spend.Mr. Kennedy and his allies have some unique costs associated with their campaign — primarily ballot-access work that can be expensive.His campaign spent about $6.3 million in May, but almost half of that was routed through a limited liability company that focuses on ballot access. The money laid out was labeled “campaign consulting,” making his precise expenditures somewhat opaque. More