President Trump’s executive order, aimed at increasing presidential control over independent regulatory agencies, has generated significant concern, particularly regarding its potential impact on the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This order mandates that approximately 80 independent agencies, which Congress had established to function autonomously of the White House, submit their new policies, rulings, and regulations for presidential oversight. Among these agencies are bodies related to electoral processes, provoking anxiety about the implications for campaign finance regulations.
Adav Noti, the executive director at the Campaign Legal Center and a former FEC official, emphasized the unique role of the FEC, which was designed to be bipartisan and independent, free from presidential influence, to enforce laws pertaining to the president both as a candidate and officeholder. Noti expressed concerns that bringing the FEC under direct presidential control contradicts its intended independence as structured by Congress.
In contrast, the Trump administration argues that directives from independent agencies involve costly and controversial policy matters that lack presidential review. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, remarked that the administration challenges the notion of independent agencies, asserting they should align with the president’s political agendas.
Trump’s actions have drawn scrutiny over potential interference with the election commission’s independence, following recent controversy over attempted dismissals of a Democratic member. Daniel Weiner, from the Brennan Center for Justice, warned that increasing presidential authority over the FEC endangers its mission and autonomy, posing significant risks to its regulatory functions.
Despite its establishment purpose, the FEC frequently faces criticism over procedural gridlock. The commission, comprised of six presidentially appointed commissioners confirmed by the Senate, often struggles with decision-making due to its structure necessitating bipartisan agreement. Karen Sebold, a political science assistant professor, highlighted the commission’s tendency toward deadlock, exacerbated by vacant and expired terms, affecting its operational efficacy.
While solutions for improving the FEC function exist, experts like Weiner argue that undermining its independence is not a viable remedy. Asserting control over entire agencies, rather than individual positions for cause, marks a new precedent within recent history, suggesting a shift toward centralizing executive branch authority under the president’s influence.
