Cornell Law School welcomed alumnus Michael Toner ’92, partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C., and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, for a wide-ranging fireside chat on October 2. Moderated by Jens David Ohlin, Allan R. Tessler Dean and Professor of Law, the discussion traced Toner’s career across private practice, government service, and national campaigns, while exploring the evolving landscape of election law and administrative governance. The event was sponsored by Cornell Law’s Federalist Society.

Reflecting on his tenure as an FEC commissioner from 2002 to 2007, Toner described an era defined by the implementation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms. “I really enjoyed the policy side of implementing a statute like that,” he said, “where you have to balance the statutory regime against critical constitutional norms.” The bipartisan structure of the FEC—with six commissioners, three Democrats and three Republicans—he added, required consensus building that distinguished it from other administrative agencies. “You can’t act without four votes,” he explained. “That forces you to find common ground.”

Turning to the future of the administrative state, Toner discussed the Supreme Court’s growing scrutiny of the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on the president’s ability to remove commissioners of independent agencies such as the FEC, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission. He noted that if the Court were to overturn or narrow the precedent, “it would be a sea change in Washington,” allowing presidents to dismiss commissioners at will and potentially reshaping how agencies operate. “You could wake up one morning to an email saying you’ve been terminated,” he said. “It would influence decision-making and lead to wild swings in agency action from administration to administration.” While Toner acknowledged that such changes might enhance political accountability, he cautioned that they would also erode the bipartisan stability that has long characterized independent regulatory bodies.

Drawing on his earlier roles as chief counsel of the Republican National Committee and general counsel for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign, Toner recounted lessons from practice and politics alike. At the RNC, he learned that effective counsel meant distilling complex legal advice for non-lawyers: “They’re not interested in a treatise. They want to know ‘yes, no, or do you need more information’?” His experience managing teams during the contested 2000 election, culminating in Bush v. Gore, underscored the importance of judgment, writing, and leadership. “There’s no substitute for polished writing,” he said. “You never send a draft that isn’t thematic and organized.”

Turning to professional development, Toner urged students to cultivate networks early and to view business development as integral to legal practice. “Every day, you’re planting seeds,” he said. “The smartest associates invest in themselves from day one.”

In closing, Toner and Ohlin reflected on the decline of civil discourse in public life and the lawyer’s role in reversing it. “We’re not in a good place as a society on these issues,” Toner observed, emphasizing the duty to engage across ideological divides. Ohlin agreed, noting that open dialogue demonstrates confidence in one’s principles. “It’s the marketplace of ideas,” Toner replied. “Not moving away from it—embracing it.”