Rebuttal to Federal Election Commission
by: Hans A. von Spakovsky

Rebuttal to Federal Election Commission by Hans A. von Spakovsky

Hans A. von Spakovsky’s proposal to weaken the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in Project 2025 poses a serious threat to the transparency, fairness, and integrity of U.S. elections. Spakovsky argues for reducing the FEC’s regulatory authority over campaign finance, claiming that such deregulation would remove burdens on political speech and participation. However, this vision ignores the essential role the FEC plays in ensuring accountability and protecting elections from corruption and undue influence. DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? Weakening the FEC would open the door to unchecked political spending, corporate influence, and a lack of transparency that could undermine the democratic process.

The Importance of the FEC in Protecting Democracy

The Federal Election Commission was established in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal to oversee and enforce campaign finance laws. Its mission is to ensure that political campaigns operate with transparency, holding candidates, political action committees (PACs), and other political groups accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC’s oversight helps prevent corruption by ensuring that campaigns disclose their sources of funding and that contributions do not exceed legal limits.

By weakening the FEC, Spakovsky’s proposal would make it easier for special interest groups and wealthy individuals to influence elections without sufficient oversight. This would allow for an influx of “dark money” into the political system, where donors can remain anonymous and spend unlimited amounts to sway elections. Such unchecked spending erodes the public’s trust in the democratic process, as voters cannot fully understand who is funding candidates or what interests are shaping their campaigns.

Transparency in political donations is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy. Without the FEC’s enforcement of disclosure rules, the public would be left in the dark about who is financing political campaigns, creating opportunities for corruption and undue influence by powerful donors and special interests.

The Dangers of Deregulating Campaign Finance

Spakovsky’s vision for reducing the FEC’s regulatory role includes limiting its ability to enforce campaign finance laws and oversee political spending. This would weaken the commission’s power to investigate violations, levy fines, and ensure that candidates and political groups comply with the law.

One of the most concerning aspects of this proposal is its potential to exacerbate the already significant influence of money in politics. The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC lifted restrictions on independent political spending, allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on elections. This ruling has led to a dramatic increase in political spending by Super PACs and other outside groups, often funded by anonymous donors.

By further weakening the FEC, Spakovsky’s plan would make it even easier for these groups to flood elections with money, drowning out the voices of ordinary voters. Without effective enforcement of campaign finance laws, wealthy individuals and organizations would have free rein to influence elections, creating an uneven playing field where money, not ideas, dictates political outcomes. This shift toward unregulated political spending would undermine the principle of “one person, one vote,” making it harder for everyday Americans to compete with the financial power of corporate interests and billionaires.

Maintaining Accountability and Fair Elections

The FEC is tasked with enforcing rules that ensure political campaigns operate within the bounds of the law. This includes enforcing limits on individual contributions, preventing foreign interference in elections, and ensuring that political advertisements are properly disclosed and reported. These rules help level the playing field by preventing candidates from receiving disproportionate support from a few wealthy donors.

Spakovsky’s proposal to weaken the FEC’s ability to enforce these rules would reduce accountability in the electoral process. Without adequate oversight, candidates and political groups could violate campaign finance laws with little fear of consequences. This could lead to increased corruption, as candidates would be more likely to accept illegal contributions or coordinate with outside groups that are supposed to remain independent. The FEC’s enforcement role is essential for preventing these kinds of abuses and maintaining the integrity of elections.

Additionally, the FEC plays a key role in preventing foreign interference in U.S. elections. Under current law, foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or influencing elections. The FEC investigates and enforces violations of this rule, ensuring that U.S. elections are not subject to foreign influence. Weakening the FEC’s enforcement capabilities could open the door to foreign entities exerting greater influence over U.S. elections, undermining national sovereignty and democratic accountability.

The Need for Stronger, Not Weaker, Oversight

While Spakovsky argues that reducing the FEC’s power would benefit free speech and political participation, his proposal would actually weaken the integrity of the democratic process. The influence of money in politics is already a significant problem, with wealthy donors and special interests having outsized power over political outcomes. Rather than weakening the FEC, there is a need for stronger campaign finance regulations to curb the influence of money in politics and restore trust in the electoral system.

Public opinion consistently shows that Americans are concerned about the role of money in politics and support greater transparency and accountability in campaign finance. Weakening the FEC would move in the opposite direction, reducing the commission’s ability to regulate political spending and enforce disclosure rules. This would make elections less transparent and less fair, eroding public trust in the political system.

Instead of reducing the FEC’s authority, reforms should focus on strengthening the commission’s ability to enforce campaign finance laws and increasing transparency in political spending. This could include measures such as requiring full disclosure of all political donations, closing loopholes that allow dark money to influence elections, and empowering the FEC to investigate and penalize violations more effectively. Strengthening the FEC would help restore public confidence in the electoral process and ensure that all candidates and political groups play by the same rules.

Conclusion: Preserving the Integrity of U.S. Elections

Hans A. von Spakovsky’s proposal to weaken the Federal Election Commission would have far-reaching consequences for the transparency, fairness, and integrity of U.S. elections. By reducing the FEC’s regulatory authority, Spakovsky’s plan would make it easier for wealthy donors and special interest groups to exert unchecked influence over elections, undermining the democratic process.

The FEC plays a critical role in ensuring that political campaigns operate with transparency and accountability. Its enforcement of campaign finance laws helps prevent corruption, maintain fair elections, and ensure that voters know who is funding political campaigns. Weakening the FEC would lead to an increase in dark money, reduce accountability, and allow powerful interests to dominate the political system.

Rather than dismantling the FEC, policymakers should focus on strengthening the agency’s ability to enforce campaign finance laws, promote transparency, and protect the integrity of elections. Strong oversight is essential to ensuring that democracy works for all Americans, not just those with the deepest pockets.