Eric Petry

The need for reforms to ensure the pardon power isn't perverted for corrupt, self-dealing purposes has never been clearer. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

While pardons are a crucial tool to correct injustices in the legal system, selling them to fraudsters, tax cheats, and corrupt politicians is a blatant abuse of presidential power.

NYT reports pardons going to the wealthy and politically connected who can pay $$ for insider lobbyists. nytimes.com/2026/03/06/us/…

Important point just now in NRSC v. FEC: the Court's assumptions and predictions in past campaign finance cases have turned out to be wrong in practice. That's a big reason why Citizens United and other decisions have caused such harmful consequences for American politics.

Discussion in NRSC v. FEC keeps returning to how the rise of super PACs has harmed parties. That's clearly true and underscores the need for reform, including ways to strengthen parties. But that's a job for Congress. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

The justices' questions in NRSC v. FEC about future challenges to other campaign finance laws highlights why this is an issue for Congress to address. Money in politics is a complex problem with many facets. But courts consider these laws in isolation.

Interesting to see justices at NRSC v. FEC press Noel Francisco on future challenges to campaign finance rules. This is making explicit how the dynamic at the Court has worked. Each challenged law is usually treated in isolation, but the reality it’s a progressive chipping away of the rules.

Powerful point from Justice Sotomayor in today’s oral argument in the NRSC v FEC argument at SCOTUS: “every time we think with Congress’s design [for campaign finance law] we make things worse.” Indeed. For the last 15 years there has been one unintended consequence after another, including the explosion of dark money in elections. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

NRSC v. FEC, happening now: Important point from Justice Sotomayor that the Court's interventions in campaign finance cases have caused more harm than good. Exactly right! As the Brennan Center argued in our amicus brief. brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

NRSC v. FEC, happening now: Justice Alito asks who is helped and who is hurt by party coordinated spending limits. That's an important policy question, but it's for Congress to consider, not the courts! It does not weigh on constitutional analysis under the First Amendment.

NRSC v. FEC, happening now: Challengers say donors don't "launder" candidate contributions through parties because it's easier to write a massive check to a super PAC. Corruption is still corruption, even if there are easier paths for corruption.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a challenge to campaign finance rules aimed at guarding against political corruption. @eepetry explains what’s at stake: brennancenter.org/our-work/analy…

These consequences of the Court's interventions show why judges are poorly suited to evaluating the complex policy considerations involved in regulating campaign spending. Lawmakers are much better suited to the task, and it's time for Congress to act!

The Supreme Court's track record in campaign finance cases since Citizens United has been the explosion of dark money, super PAC corruption, and cratering confidence in American democracy. brennancenter.org/our-work/analy…

A number of Trump’s actions in his second term potentially violate the Emoluments Clauses — which bar the president and other federal officials from receiving benefits from foreign governments, as well as federal or state governments. Join us for a Reddit AMA:

The question isn’t hypothetical: the president now oversees regulators with power over his own business interests. That’s a structural threat to democratic accountability that Congress can and should fix.

I broke down how this kind of self-dealing is possible and what reforms are needed in this Brennan Center report: brennancenter.org/our-work/resea…

Trump is launching a branded mobile phone and cell service, with profits going to the Trump Organization. This isn’t just a business move—it raises serious concerns about conflicts of interest. washingtonpost.com/business/2025/…