The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent U.S. government agency responsible for enforcing and administering federal campaign finance laws. Its primary purpose is to ensure transparency and fairness in federal elections by regulating the financing of political campaigns. The FEC oversees the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, enforces limits on donations, monitors compliance with campaign finance laws, and investigates violations. It also provides guidance to candidates, parties, and political committees on how to comply with campaign finance regulations.

“Because the FEC is an independent agency and not a division or office directly within the executive branch, the authority of the President over the actions of the FEC is extremely limited.” (Project 2025, Section 5.3: Federal Election Commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky, page 893, paragraph 2.)

I would argue that because a President was a candidate before he or she became President, the President shouldn’t have undue influence over the FEC.

I want to pause to point out that author of this section, Hans A. von Spakovsky, has basically built his entire career upon peddling election lies. The fact that he’s writing the section on Federal Elections oversight and enforcement should deeply concern you.

“Von Spakovsky has nonetheless been working tirelessly, often behind the scenes, to raise unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud throughout the course of his decades-long career as a conservative activist. “Election integrity” and the idea that US elections are vulnerable to mass, fraudulent voting, has become a centerpiece of conservative politics, with Von Spakovsky playing a key role in bringing the movement to that point.

“He probably is the single most important advocate, over a long period of time, persuading people to take this claim of fraud seriously,” said Paul Smith, the senior vice-president of the non-partisan voting rights group Campaign Legal Center. [Source]¹

The article continues:

“During cross-examination, Dale Ho, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, pointed out that the NBC outlet had revised their reporting, finding that at least 35 of the 100 voters originally identified as ineligible were actually US citizens. Von Spakovsky conceded that this was true. Ho also pointed to an article that Von Spakovsky had written in 2011 claiming a Missouri election had hinged on illegal votes cast by Somali residents. It hadn’t, Ho revealed: before Von Spakovsky’s article ran, a judge had found no fraud had taken place during the election.”

This article details von Spakovsky’s involvement with dark money groups² and the Heritage Foundation’s efforts to suppress voting rights and sow chaos by falsely claiming that fraud is endemic.

The truth? Election fraud is vanishingly rare.³

With those things in mind, we continue this section.

He begins by bitching on his own behalf:

“Thus, by convention, a Republican President will nominate a Republican and a Democrat for two open commission slots, including the choice of the Democrat Senate leader for his party’s seat. In turn, the senator will direct his party to vote to confirm both nominees. In the almost 50-year history of the FEC, this tradition has only been broken once—when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to approve one of George W. Bush’s nominees (Hans von Spakovsky) for a Republican commission slot.” (Project 2025, Section 5.3: Federal Election Commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky, page 894, paragraph 4.)

If I were literally the only FEC commissioner in history that the Senate refused to confirm, I’m not sure I’d mention it. Impressive grudge-holding, though. 

“The President assuming office in 2025 must ensure, if the three Republican commissioners do not wish to remain on the FEC past their terms, that nominees for these positions share the views of those commissioners.” (Project 2025, Section 5.3: Federal Election Commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky, page 895, paragraph 1.)

More arguments for staffing the federal government with regime loyalists, here.

“The President should direct the DOJ and the attorney general not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC—the expert agency designated by Congress to enforce the law civilly and issue regulations establishing the standards under which the law is applied—does not agree.” (Project 2025, Section 5.3: Federal Election Commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky, page 895, paragraph 6.)

So, we’re going to staff the government with loyalists, then decline to prosecute campaign finance violations. The reason this is important to point out, is that Trump is currently in violation of campaign finance laws, because he’s illegally using his campaign funding to pay his private legal bills.

The Trump campaign has also been accused in court of violating reporting requirements, contribution limits, and other requirements.⁵

“It is fundamentally unfair for the DOJ to prosecute an individual for supposedly violating the law when the FEC has previously determined that a similarly situated individual has not violated the law.” (Project 2025, Section 5.3: Federal Election Commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky, page 896, paragraph 1.)

von Spakovsky fails to provide any examples of what he’s talking about here.