Washington DC: In a strong reaffirmation of transparency and regulatory accountability, a United States federal court has held the Federal Election Commission (FEC) guilty of unreasonable delay for failing to act on a long-pending petition seeking clearer campaign finance disclosure rules.
In its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favour of election transparency watchdogs Campaign Legal Center and OpenSecrets, who had approached the court after the FEC failed to take a final decision on their petition for more than six years.
Petition Pending Since 2019
The dispute traces back to August 2019, when the petitioners urged the FEC to initiate formal rulemaking to codify disclosure requirements for three special-purpose political party accounts created under amendments to U.S. election law. These accounts permit parties to raise and spend funds separately for presidential nominating conventions, party headquarters expenses, and legal proceedings.
While the FEC issued notices, invited public comments, and even reopened the consultation process, it never concluded whether to accept or reject the proposed rules. The prolonged inaction led Campaign Legal Center and OpenSecrets to challenge the delay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that the regulator was effectively paralysing transparency by doing nothing.
Court Applies the “Rule of Reason”
The court examined the case using the well-established TRAC factors, a legal framework used to determine whether delays by government agencies are lawful. Applying these factors, the court found that the FEC’s delay violated the “rule of reason,” noting that regulatory inaction measured in years — not months — cannot be justified without compelling explanation.
Importantly, the court rejected the FEC’s argument that limited resources and competing priorities excused the delay. It observed that the commission had advanced other regulatory matters during the same period, undercutting its claim that it lacked the capacity to address the petition.
The court made it clear that an independent regulator cannot indefinitely defer decisions that go to the heart of public disclosure and democratic accountability.
What the Court Ordered
While the court stopped short of directing the FEC to immediately finalise the rules, it delivered a clear rebuke. It granted summary judgment in favour of the petitioners, denied the FEC’s request to dismiss the case, and ordered both sides to jointly submit a proposed timeline by March 2, 2026 for the commission to issue a final response to the petition.
The ruling signals that continued inaction will no longer be tolerated and that the regulator must either move forward with rulemaking or formally explain its refusal.
Why the Ruling Matters
The absence of clear, codified rules has resulted in inconsistent reporting practices among political parties, making it difficult for voters, journalists, and watchdogs to track how money is raised and spent — particularly on legal expenses that have surged in recent election cycles.
By stepping in, the court reinforced a crucial principle: regulatory independence does not mean regulatory inertia. Transparency laws lose their meaning when enforcement agencies delay action indefinitely.
India Angle: A Mirror for Electoral Transparency Debates
Though rooted in U.S. law, the ruling resonates strongly in India, where questions around electoral finance transparency and regulatory delays persist. From opaque political funding mechanisms to prolonged inaction on reform proposals, Indian election oversight has often faced criticism for lack of timely disclosure. The U.S. court’s insistence that regulators cannot escape accountability through delay offers a reminder that transparency is not merely a policy choice but a legal obligation — one that courts may increasingly be called upon to enforce.
