stock here: a valid concern, is these entrenched Federal leeches, when they go away….what are they going to do? How could they become part of a productive society.
My response to the AI “support” for this beast of a woman, who has presided over decades of Election abuses and shenanighans was this, the AI support is below.
If as quorum is 4 and there are 5 remaining, then that is just throwing stuff against the wall, and not a valid reason. It seems that if the president appoints them, then they should clearly be able to remove them. If that is not explicitly stated in the founding document, then what does the founding document state about process for removal? It’s seems clear that trumps next move should be to appoint her replacement, she she is serving 17 years past her 2002 6 year term.
First AI response:
The recent attempt by President Donald Trump to remove Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub has raised significant legal questions regarding the authority and process for dismissing FEC commissioners.
Legal Framework Governing FEC Commissioners:
Appointment and Tenure: The FEC comprises six commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, each serving staggered six-year terms. Commissioners may continue to serve beyond their term's expiration until a successor is confirmed.
Independence of the FEC: Established by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1974, the FEC is designed as an independent regulatory agency to enforce campaign finance laws. Its structure aims to insulate it from political influence, ensuring impartial oversight of federal elections.
Legal Considerations in Weintraub’s Dismissal:
Lack of Explicit Removal Provisions: The FECA does not explicitly grant the President authority to remove commissioners. This omission suggests that commissioners are intended to operate independently, free from executive branch interference.
Historical Precedent: There is no known instance of a President removing an FEC commissioner prior to the completion of their term. Weintraub, appointed in 2002 and serving beyond her term's expiration in 2007, has remained due to the absence of a confirmed successor.
Legal Challenges: Weintraub contends that her removal is unlawful, stating, "There's nothing in the Federal Election Campaign Act that suggests that that is an option." Legal experts, including former FEC Chair Trevor Potter, have echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that such an action violates the law and undermines the agency's independence.
campaignlegal.org
Implications of the Attempted Removal:
Potential Legal Disputes: This unprecedented move is likely to lead to legal challenges concerning the President's authority to dismiss commissioners of independent agencies.
Operational Impact on the FEC: The FEC requires a quorum of at least four commissioners to conduct official business. Weintraub's removal could jeopardize this quorum, hindering the agency's ability to enforce campaign finance laws effectively.
In summary, the attempt to remove FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub raises complex legal issues about the autonomy of independent regulatory agencies and the extent of presidential authority over such entities.
———————— AI response to my pushback (at top)
The recent attempt by President Donald Trump to remove Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub has sparked significant legal debate regarding the President’s authority in this context. Let’s delve into the legal framework governing the appointment and removal of FEC commissioners.
Appointment and Tenure of FEC Commissioners:
Appointment Process: FEC commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving staggered six-year terms.
fec.gov
Holdover Provision: According to 52 U.S.C. § 30106(a)(2)(B), commissioners may continue to serve beyond their term's expiration until a successor has been appointed and confirmed.
uscode.house.gov
Removal Process:
Lack of Explicit Removal Provisions: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) does not explicitly outline a process for the removal of commissioners. This omission has led to differing interpretations regarding the President's authority to dismiss commissioners.
Legal Precedent: In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court addressed the appointment process of FEC commissioners but did not provide a definitive ruling on the removal process. This leaves the question of removal authority somewhat ambiguous.
Current Situation:
Ellen Weintraub's Tenure: Appointed in 2002, Weintraub's term expired in 2007. She has continued to serve under the holdover provision, as no successor has been confirmed.
fec.gov
President's Attempted Removal: President Trump issued a letter dated January 31, 2025, stating that Weintraub was "hereby removed" from her position. Weintraub has contested this action, asserting that there is a legal process to replace FEC commissioners and that the President's action does not align with it.
businessinsider.com
Legal Considerations:
Independence of the FEC: The FEC is designed to function as an independent regulatory agency, insulated from direct political influence. Allowing unilateral removal by the President could undermine this independence.
Potential for Legal Challenge: Given the lack of explicit statutory guidance, Weintraub's removal could be subject to legal challenges, potentially resulting in a judicial determination of the President's removal authority in this context.
Path Forward:
Nomination of Successor: The President has the authority to nominate a successor for Weintraub. However, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate before assuming the role. Until such confirmation occurs, Weintraub is legally permitted to continue serving.
In summary, while the President appoints FEC commissioners, the process for their removal is not explicitly defined in the governing statutes, leading to legal ambiguities and potential challenges.
Provide a summary of this, and a link to the full ruling
Legal Precedent: In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court addressed the appointment process of FEC commissioners but did not provide a definitive ruling on the removal process
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Favicon
BUCKLEY v. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
fec.gov
In the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of various provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974. The Court’s decision addressed several key aspects:
Contribution Limits: The Court upheld limits on individual contributions to political campaigns, recognizing the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.
Expenditure Limits: The Court struck down limits on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, as well as limits on candidate expenditures from personal funds, citing First Amendment concerns.
Disclosure and Reporting Requirements: The Court upheld mandatory disclosure and reporting provisions, emphasizing transparency in the electoral process.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) Appointments: The Court found that the method of appointing members to the FEC, which involved appointments by Congress, violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This led to changes in how FEC commissioners are appointed, ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements.
Notably, while the Court addressed the appointment process of FEC commissioners, it did not provide a definitive ruling on the process for their removal. This omission has led to ongoing debates regarding the extent of presidential authority in removing FEC commissioners.
For a comprehensive understanding, you can access the full text of the ruling here: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/Buckley.pdf