15 years

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) was founded in 2002 with a generous initial grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts. CLC began with a small staff and a focused mission: to advance the goals of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as McCain/Feingold), which was a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that took five years for Congress to pass.

The law was challenged almost immediately after its passage in the landmark case McConnell v. FEC. CLC was part of a legal team that successfully defended BCRA before the U.S. Supreme Court. In its early days, CLC also played a lead role in watchdogging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as it implemented and enforced BCRA.

Over the last several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC and Shelby County v. Holder, that have undermined our democracy in the areas of money in politics and voting rights. The FEC has deadlocked on every important issue before it, proving incapable of enforcing the law, while the current administration takes positions threatening ethics norms and voting rights. Transparency in our government is under attack.

In the face of these challenges, the CLC team has grown to more than 35 people, working every day to protect and strengthen democracy across all levels of government. Most recently, CLC argued Gill v. Whitford, the groundbreaking Supreme Court case seeking to end extreme partisan gerrymandering. In addition, CLC plays a leading watchdog role on ethics issues, providing expert analysis and helping journalists uncover ethical violations. We continue to participate in legal proceedings across the country to defend the right to vote.

CLC is adamantly nonpartisan, holding candidates and government officials accountable regardless of political affiliation. We will continue in the fight for democracy reform until the United States’ political process is accessible to all citizens, resulting in a representative, responsive and accountable government.

Develop solutions that enhance our democracy:

CLC works with state and local governments, Congress, national organizations and grassroots advocates to draft model legislation and offer legal advice on how to pass the most effective and sound laws and regulations.

Demand enforcement of laws protecting our democracy:

CLC serves as a watchdog, applying pressure to governmental agencies that fail to enforce campaign finance laws and voting protections.

Defend and advance our democracy in court:

CLC’s lawyers litigate cases across the nation protecting voting rights, fighting unconstitutional gerrymandering and defending against attacks on campaign finance and disclosure laws.

Disseminate educational materials highlighting ongoing threats to our democracy:

CLC issues reports, fact sheets and other materials to educate reporters, partner organizations and the general public about current laws protecting our democracy and any threats to these laws.

Since its inception, CLC has been a leader in its efforts to ensure vigorous and fair enforcement of federal campaign finance laws and to hold candidates and political committees accountable for violating those laws. In 2002, as the Federal Election Commission began to develop regulations to implement BCRA, CLC worked to ensure that the agency drafted robust rules interpreting the law – and filed lawsuits when those rules were inadequate. Due to continuous political gridlock, the FEC often fails to take any action against candidates and political committees that violate the law. Hoping to expose the agency for its failure to act, CLC files complaints to draw public attention through the media. If the FEC ultimately fails to take action on a complaint, CLC files proactive lawsuits to hold the FEC accountable.

Voting rights are more imperiled today than at any time since brave marchers gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965 to begin the trek from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, leading to states passing a flood of discriminatory voting restrictions. Now, the only way to stop these unconstitutional and discriminatory laws is to challenge them in court. CLC is working to defend the rights of voters nationwide by litigating cases challenging voter suppression laws and cases seeking to affirmatively restore voting rights to all American citizens.

In addition, partisan gerrymandering, or the drawing of electoral district lines to benefit one political party, has become one of the largest impediments to a functioning democracy. Both major parties have long histories of redistricting for their own interests, but the practice of partisan gerrymandering is getting worse, decade by decade.

In the last major case on partisan gerrymandering, all nine Supreme Court justices agreed that extreme partisan gerrymandering is inconsistent with our democratic ideals and violates the Constitution. But the Supreme Court has yet to agree on a standard for determining when a partisan gerrymander crosses the line. CLC is aiming to provide this standard through groundbreaking litigation, seeking to end extreme and unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering nationwide.  

CLC has played a leading watchdog role on ethics issues, and often provides expert analysis to journalists to help uncover ethical violations. For example, in January 2017, CLC worked with reporters on a story related to President Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, Rep. Tom Price. In 2016, Price purchased shares in a medical device manufacturer a day before introducing legislation that would have directly benefited the company – raising ethics concerns.  By assisting journalists in their reporting, CLC played an instrumental role in an investigation into this issue.

Since CLC’s founding, we have served as the law firm for the democracy movement, assisting in passing strong campaign finance protections at all levels of government, calling for enforcement of the laws on the books and defending campaign finance laws when challenged.

When comprehensive campaign finance reform passed Congress in 2002, CLC was on the front lines, and played an integral role in securing a victory in McConnell v. FEC, the first major challenge to BCRA. At the trial level, CLC worked to help select, prepare and defend witnesses in the sprawling case – which ultimately encompassed 77 plaintiffs and 17 defendants in 11 consolidated challenges, and amassed an evidentiary record totaling well over 100,000 pages – and worked with a pro bono legal team to plan the legal strategy and assist in the drafting of party briefs. We served a similar strategic role when the litigation reached the Supreme Court, helping prepare briefs and participating in moot courts to prepare our advocates for argument before the justices. We also led public education efforts around the case and organized the coalition’s friend-of-the-court briefing strategy.

In 2011, Republican legislators in Wisconsin redrew the state Assembly districts to maintain Republican control. They did this in a secret office – away from the Capitol, the public and the press – and then rushed the passage of their plan through the Assembly. Their strategy paid off, with Republicans gaining 60 percent of the seats in the State Assembly, despite receiving only 49 percent of the statewide vote in 2012. CLC is part of a litigation team representing 12 Wisconsin voters who have challenged the state’s Assembly district lines as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in Gill v. Whitford. Our case is the first purely partisan gerrymandering case to go to trial in 30 years, and through this litigation, CLC and its plaintiffs seek to establish for the first time a manageable standard by which courts nationwide can analyze partisan gerrymandering claims. The Whitford case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

MeetWendy Sue Johnson

Plaintiff in Gill v. Whitford

Wendy Sue Johnson lives in Wisconsin’s 91st State Assembly District.  In 2011, the district was redrawn to include almost the entire city of Eau Claire, which contains a large percentage of Democratic voters. Map drawers drew the district this way in order to “pack” Democratic voters into Johnson’s district, making the surrounding districts significantly easier for Republicans to win. As a result, many of Johnson’s neighbors live in a different district, as the district line literally divides her from her neighbors across the street. Johnson believes that because she was packed into the 91st district, her vote does not matter as much as if she lived across the street, a consequence intended by the Republicans legislator who drew the district map in 2011.

Longstanding law requires that broadcasters inform viewers of the identity of ad sponsors, so that viewers and listeners know who is trying to persuade them. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required to regulate and enforce this law, and broadcast stations must maintain a “public file,” which contains, among other things, information about the political advertising the station runs. Until 2012, broadcast stations kept public files in the station’s main studio in paper form, accessible to the public only during working hours. Working with the Public Interest Public Airwaves Coalition, CLC led a campaign calling on the FCC to order broadcasters disclose public files on the web. CLC achieved a victory when the FCC updated its regulations in response to CLC’s call, requiring broadcasters (and later satellite and cable, too), to upload these files to an online FCC database.  

CLC has always made an investment in young lawyers and advocates interested in carrying the torch for democracy reform.

CLC staff partners with law schools, including by teaching clinics and courses, and speaking as panelists and guest lecturers.

In addition, each year, CLC welcomes an intern class from the nation’s best law schools. Some of our interns have returned to work as fellows or staff at CLC, and even more have gone on to serve the public interest, using the skills and knowledge they gained at the Campaign Legal Center along the way gained at CLC.

Across the nation, citizens with past felony convictions – who work and pay taxes – are unable to fully participate in their communities because of laws that deny them the right to vote. Broad felony disenfranchisement laws, which are largely remnants of the Jim Crow era, silence the voices of nearly 6 million citizens who are banned from the polls today. Alabama has one of the nation’s strictest disenfranchisement laws and one of the most convoluted systems for restoring the right to vote to these individuals. In Alabama, the restoration of the right to vote hinges on whether individuals can afford to pay court fines and fees, which amounts to a modern-day poll tax. Currently, the law disenfranchises nearly 15 percent of Alabama’s black population. CLC represents Alabamians with past felony convictions seeking the right to vote in the groundbreaking case, Thompson v. Alabama, now before a federal district court. Through this litigation, CLC has developed a number of legal theories and claims that will create a legally viable pathway for ending excessive fees and fines associated with restoring rights to citizens with past felony convictions in Alabama and possibly nationwide.

MeetTimothy Lanier

Plaintiff in Thompson v. Alabama

Timothy is a U.S. citizen living in Birmingham, Alabama. He served 18 years in prison, and now works as a truck driver and wants to fully engage in his community. He would like to register to vote but is not sure whether his convictions disqualify him from voting again under Alabama law. He is a plaintiff in CLC’s case challenging Alabama’s broken system preventing citizens with past felony convictions from voting.

“The psychological impact of not being able to vote is astounding,” Timothy said. “I lived 18 years in below-par conditions and was treated as less than human. I get out and realize that I am still considered less than human – not a true citizen. Decisions are still being made for me, but I am expected to prove myself with both hands tied behind my back. I believe the biggest form of voter suppression is mass incarceration. There are over 5 million people in the U.S. that are unable to vote due to their prior conviction record. The overwhelming majority are black men – like me.”

In 2014, recognizing the demand for voting rights litigation expertise in the coming decades, CLC joined with American Constitution Society and Georgetown University Law Center, thanks to a generous $1 million grant from the MacArthur Foundation, to create the Voting Rights Institute (VRI). The VRI is working to prepare the next generation of attorneys, experts and activists to preserve our democracy and protect the ability of all Americans to vote. By providing resources, litigating, educating, training and conducting new and original research, the VRI is growing the pool of voting rights attorneys and experts at this crucial time.

In 2011, the Texas legislature enacted Senate Bill 14, the nation’s strictest voter photo ID law, which threatened to prevent more than half a million eligible voters from participating in the democratic process. The types of ID required under the law left out large swaths of the population, particularly minorities and the elderly, who often cannot afford or otherwise access IDs. CLC represents Texas Congressman Marc Veasey and a group of Texas voters who challenged the law as unconstitutional and discriminatory. Federal courts in Texas, including a full panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, have repeatedly ruled that the law is discriminatory. The law was not in effect for the 2016 election – thanks to CLC’s legal advocacy. The case is ongoing.