1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

Written Testimony of James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Judiciary, it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the critical issue of jurisdictional

overreach in the prosecution of federal campaign finance law, specifically regarding the actions

taken by Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney of New York County, in his prosecution of former

President Donald Trump. I will also highlight the inaction by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to

defend federal jurisdiction and reiterate the alarm I sounded last September to the House

Committee on Administration regarding the growing criminalization of political participation in

our country.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971

The relevant sections of FECA clearly articulate this exclusive jurisdiction. Specifically, 52

U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1) grants the FEC the authority to initiate civil enforcement actions, while 52

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5) outlines the procedures for handling alleged violations, including the role

of the DOJ in criminal prosecutions. This bifurcation of authority is designed to harness the

expertise and resources of federal agencies, thereby maintaining the integrity and consistency of

campaign finance law enforcement.

However, the recent actions by District Attorney Alvin Bragg in prosecuting former President

Donald Trump represent a significant deviation from this established legal framework. By

11

, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.

2

York has violated the well-established legal principle of field preemption crafted by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

2

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, expertly examined the

Constitutional pitfalls of what has taken place in the New York Court. He explained that the U.S.

Supreme Court has made clear in cases such as New York v. United States

, Printz v. United

The fact that U.S. Supreme Court precedent is so decidedly in favor of jealously guarding the

ability of federal agencies to enforce federal law leaves us to wonder why Attorney General

Merrick Garland and the DOJ did not intervene in the prosecution of Donald Trump. The DOJ

often touts its Memorandum Regarding Election Year Sensitivities as a reason for inaction on

certain matters of a political nature. However, the purpose of the policy is to mitigate the affect

legal actions have on providing an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.

I posit that if the DOJ had intervened early to protect the jurisdiction of the FEC and itself to

prosecute federal campaign finance laws, we would not be here discussing this matter today and

it wouldn’t be the preeminent topic of the 2024 presidential election. That is to say, the legal

unredacted FEC documents

investigations being conducted by the FEC into the supposed $130,000 payment that was alleged

to be misreported on a campaign finance report. Those eight matters involved Michael Cohen,

Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump for President and its treasurer, Trump Organization, LLC,

Timothy Jost, and Essential Consultants, LLC. The public now knows that on July 31, 2018, the

FEC, at the request of DOJ, voted to provide certain documents from the matters to DOJ and

hold those matters in abeyance. Then, on June 5, 2019, the Commission voted, again at the

behest of DOJ, to continue holding those matters in abeyance. Finally, on July 15, 2019, the

United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York informed the United

3

DOJ inserted itself so fully into an ongoing FEC investigations that, once the abeyance request

was lifted, the Commission faced a statute of limitations bar on prosecuting the matters. Clearly,

the DOJ knows a great deal about the federal campaign finance issues that Alvin Bragg has

prosecuted. DOJ counsel knew the extent to which they themselves had exercised federal

jurisdiction, investigated, and found no illegal activity by anyone other than Michael Cohen.

However, they have sat idly by and allowed a state officer to assert federal jurisdiction where

issue are profound. If local district attorneys are permitted to initiate prosecutions based on their

interpretations of federal campaign finance laws, we risk eroding the uniformity and

predictability that FECA aims to provide. This could lead to a fragmented enforcement landscape

where political motivations and local biases influence the application of laws meant to govern

national elections and provide public transparency into the financing of campaigns.

The actions by the Supreme Court of New York, at the behest of a local official, belie a long-

standing concern that has existed for the State of New York since the earliest days of our

Republic. Writing under a pseudonym, Alexander Hamilton, in his 1784 Letter from Phocion to

the Considerate Citizens of New York spoke to the then prevailing practice of state government

will be deterred from seeking public office, fearing that their political activities, past and present,

might be subjected to disparate legal standards depending on the locality. It is essential to

preserve the centralized enforcement mechanism that FECA envisions to ensure fair and

impartial oversight of federal campaign finance regulations.

As I have previously testified to the House Committee on Administration, the process is

becoming the punishment. Alvin Bragg has laid the framework, however misguided, for other

rogue prosecutors to tear after political opponents that cannot be defeated in the marketplace of

ideas. This is clear manifestation of Saul Alinsky’s blueprint, outlined in Rules for Radicals, of

federal campaign finance laws, as mandated by FECA. The integrity of our electoral system is at

stake. The dangerous precedent of local prosecutorial overreach in matters of federal concern

must not be left unaddressed.

4

Thank you, Chairman Jordan, and Members of the Committee, for your time and attention. I

look forward to your questions.