In a move that’s sending ripples through Washington’s regulatory landscape, two Federal Election Commission commissioners announced their unexpected resignations yesterday, leaving the agency without the legally required quorum to conduct most of its core oversight functions. This development comes just as the 2026 midterm election cycle begins to ramp up.
I’ve covered the FEC for over a decade, and I’ve never seen a situation quite like this. The timing couldn’t be more consequential for American democracy’s guardrails.
The simultaneous departures of Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub and Independent Commissioner Steven Walther effectively paralyze the six-member commission, which requires at least four commissioners to enforce campaign finance laws, issue advisory opinions, or make rules. The FEC is already notorious for deadlocks along partisan lines, but without a quorum, it cannot even reach the voting stage.
“When we lack a quorum, we can’t hold hearings, issue advisory opinions, or take enforcement actions against those who violate campaign finance laws,” explained former FEC Chair Ann Ravel in a phone interview yesterday. “The agency essentially becomes toothless at the very moment when political money starts flowing most aggressively.”
President Trump wasted no time announcing his nominees to fill the vacancies. His selections – Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow – signal a rightward shift for the commission that could reshape campaign finance enforcement for years.
The nominees’ backgrounds raise significant questions about the future direction of the agency. Leo, widely known as an architect of the conservative transformation of the federal judiciary, has advocated for fewer restrictions on campaign spending. Von Spakovsky has repeatedly claimed voter fraud is widespread despite minimal evidence, according to a comprehensive 2017 Brennan Center for Justice study that found fraud rates between 0.0003% and 0.0025%.
Senate confirmation hearings could begin as early as next month, according to sources on Capitol Hill who spoke on condition of anonymity. The nominations come at a time when the FEC faces mounting criticism for its inability to address the unprecedented influx of money into American politics.
The consequences of an inactive FEC extend far beyond Washington. When I visited Des Moines during the last election cycle, local officials expressed frustration with the lack of clear guidance on emerging campaign finance issues. “We’re operating in a gray area,” Iowa Election Director Jane Matthews told me. “Without FEC advisory opinions, state election officials are flying blind on new campaign finance questions.”
This resignation crisis marks the second time in recent years the FEC has lost its quorum. Between August 2019 and December 2020, the commission was similarly hamstrung, creating a backlog of over 400 enforcement cases that remains partially unresolved.
According to the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, the practical effect of these vacancies will be immediate. Campaigns and political committees may feel emboldened to test boundaries knowing the commission cannot take enforcement actions. Their recent report documented a 37% increase in campaign finance violations during the previous period without a quorum.
“The American public deserves a functional FEC that can enforce the law,” said Meredith McGehee, executive director of Issue One, a cross-partisan political reform organization. “Without it, the floodgates open even wider for secret money and foreign interference.”
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows dark money groups spent over $1 billion in the last election cycle – money whose sources remain undisclosed to voters. Without FEC enforcement, that figure will likely increase substantially in 2026.
I remember covering the FEC during its 2019-2020 quorum loss. The practical effects were striking – complaints languished, advisory opinion requests went unanswered, and campaigns operated in an environment with diminished accountability
