Challenging the FEC’s Delay in Enforcing the Law Against the GEO Group — CLC v. FEC (GEO Group Contractor Contribution)

At a Glance

This case is a challenge to the FEC’s delay in enforcing federal campaign finance law against GEO Group, one of America’s largest private prison companies, which illegally made $225,000 in contributions to a super PAC supporting then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In August 2016, the Obama administration announced that it would be phasing out federal private prison contracts like those held by GEO. The announcement sent GEO’s stocks tumbling. The next day, GEO contributed $100,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now, and it made another $125,000 contribution just one week before the election. At the time, Mike Pence was telling donors that giving to the super PAC was “one of the best ways to stop Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump our next president!” After Trump won, GEO gave $250,000 to the Trump Inaugural Committee.

GEO did not have to wait long to see its investment start to pay off. On Feb. 23, 2017, during his second full week on the job, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a one-paragraph memo reversing the Obama administration’s private prison phase-out, instead ordering officials to continue using for-profit facilities for federal inmates.

In April 2017, the Trump Administration awarded GEO a $110 million, 10-year federal contract to build and administer a new 1,000-bed immigration detention center in Texas. GEO expects $44 million a year in revenue from the facility. GEO also has enjoyed a soaring stock price; its stock shot up 21 percent the day after Trump won, and has continued to grow since then.

CLC filed an FEC complaint, which alleges that the contributions — made through a wholly-owned subsidiary, GEO Corrections Holdings, Inc. — violated the ban on federal contractors giving money in federal elections. This law has been in place for 75 years to protect the integrity of the contracting process.

CLC filed this case against the FEC on January 10, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after waiting more than a year for the FEC to resolve this complaint. CLC hopes the lawsuit will compel the FEC to act. 

There is recent precedent for the FEC taking action against government contractors for giving to super PACs. In September 2017, the FEC responded to a CLC complaint and found that the Massachusetts-based Suffolk Construction Company violated campaign finance law by making two $100,000 donations to a Hillary Clinton-affiliated super PAC in 2015. That company agreed to pay a $34,000 fine.

The reason that federal contractors have been barred from making contributions for the past 75 years is to prevent pay-to-play in the contracting process. Public officials are supposed to make contracting decisions based on what is best for the public, not based on who spent the most money getting them elected. GEO Group’s illegal donations have the appearance of a pay-to-play: since Trump was elected with GEO’s backing, the company has reaped enormous political and financial benefits, including a new $110 million taxpayer-funded contract.

The FEC is critical to the enforcement of the contractor contribution ban and in preventing pay-to-play politics. It is incumbent upon the FEC to enforce the longstanding federal contribution ban and take action against GEO Group to deter future violations. Without the contractor ban, the government contracting process becomes an obvious way for officials to reward friends and political donors.

In a separate but related case, CLC filed a lawsuit on June 15, 2017 seeking to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to disclose requested records that would gather information about how DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind official policy to phase-out the use of private prisons in the administration’s contracting process. Almost nine months later, the public still has not seen any documents that show how DOJ reached its decision to change course on its private prison policy.

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Associated Cases & Actions

Exposing Pay-to-Play Scheme Enacted by the GEO Group

Doe v. FEC

At a Glance

Doe v. FEC is a case about a mystery donor's attempt to maintain secrecy around a $1.7 million donation to a super PAC whose spending was meant to influence the 2012 election. 

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Doe v. FEC is a case about a mystery donor's attempt to maintain secrecy around a $1.7 million donation to a super PAC whose spending was meant to influence the 2012 election. The nonprofit group Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) brought the original complaint against the super PAC, called Now or Never PAC, in February 2015 alleging that an unknown person made a contribution to Now or Never, violating the prohibition on contributions made in the name of another person.



CLC filed a motion to intervene in support of CREW's quest for transparency on January 3, 2018.



On March 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court issued an opinion that upheld the right of the Federal Election Commission to uphold its own disclosure policy and give the public the right to know the names of donors.



Importance of Case



Disclosure is critical because voters deserve to know the names of donors that are spending millions of dollars to influence their vote. Transparency is the foundation of an open democracy. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the FEC must be permitted to keep extensive recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of campaign contributions in order to remedy pay-to-play politics.

Plaintiffs

John Doe

Defendant

Federal Election Commission

Non-Compact, Gerrymandered Congressional Districts Upheld by Missouri State Trial Court

Date
Body

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Today, a Jackson County Circuit Court judge ruled that a new gerrymandered congressional map passed by the Missouri General Assembly as House Bill 1 can stay in place, after a lawsuit by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and the ACLU of Missouri — on behalf of individual Missouri voters — was filed challenging the state’s unlawful and unprecedented mid-decade redistricting effort following pressure from President Donald Trump.

Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Missouri together issued the following statement:

“We respectfully disagree with the trial court’s ruling, which misapplied the law and overlooked overwhelming evidence that the state’s unprecedented mid-decade congressional map violates the Missouri Constitution’s compactness requirement. Drawn under direct pressure from the Trump administration, the map divides the Kansas City area across multiple sprawling districts in clear violation of that constitutional mandate. If allowed to stand, it would represent a significant setback for fair representation in Missouri.
 
“Moreover, the General Assembly’s recent effort to redraw congressional district lines was unconstitutional from the start. That is because the Missouri Constitution also forbids mid-decade redistricting. A separate challenge to the map on this basis is currently before the Missouri Supreme Court, and we have submitted an amicus brief urging the high court to rule in accordance with the state constitution and find the map invalid.
 
“Voters have the right to choose their elected officials under fair maps. Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and the ACLU of Missouri will continue to fight on behalf of voters in Missouri to ensure that they have an equal say on which elected officials represent them and the issues that matter most to their communities.” 


BACKGROUND:

Missouri’s state Constitution requires redistricting be done only once a decade following the U.S. decennial census, and that maps must be drawn in a “compact” manner — rather than have far-flung, unconnected communities in one district — to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
 
In September 2025, the Missouri General Assembly responded to President Trump’s redistricting push in numerous states by passing a congressional map that broke Kansas City’s metropolitan area into three parts to drown out the urban residents’ political voice. Campaign Legal Center, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, and the ACLU of Missouri filed a lawsuit on behalf of individual voters on the grounds that this map violated the Missouri state Constitution and its compactness requirement.
 
The state trial court misapplied the law to rule that Kansas City’s metropolitan area under this redrawn map met the state’s compactness requirement, and declined to strike down the map. If the new map is allowed to stand, hundreds of thousands of Missouri voters will lose fair representation.

Follow the latest updates via Campaign Legal Center’s case page. 
 

Issues
Redistricting

Demanding Disclosure from Dark Money Nonprofits (Freedom Path v. IRS)

At a Glance

Social welfare nonprofits, known as 501(c)4s, receive tax-exempt status designated by Congress for groups operating “exclusively” for “social welfare.” The IRS’ lax interpretation of the law has enabled 501(c)4s to become major conduits for undisclosed election spending. Campaign Legal Center and CREW have filed an amicus brief urging the court to enforce the statute as Congress intended. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) grants tax-exempt status to nonprofits organized and operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Despite this unambiguous requirement, the IRS has long permitted 501(c)(4) groups to engage in political campaign activity, so long as election spending isn’t their “primary” purpose. The IRS’ standards for determining the amount of permissible election spending by 501(c)(4) groups have been inconsistent and unclear — with the IRS at times suggesting the answer is as high as nearly half of an organization’s total expenditures.

This case involves a long-running dispute between the nonprofit Freedom Path, Inc. and the IRS over whether Freedom Path’s extensive electoral activities, including a major spending campaign on a Utah senatorial reelection campaign in 2012, disqualify it from 501(c)(4) status.

In the fall of 2025, a D.C. federal district court ruled that the IRS’ standards for determining 501(c)(4) eligibility were unconstitutionally vague and ordered the parties to submit new standards “appropriately rooted in the statutory and regulatory scheme, and constitutional principles.”

That invitation provides a significant opportunity to correct a major cause of the dark money problem in American elections. As Campaign Legal Center (CLC) argues in our brief with CREW, 501(c)(4) groups have spent billions on federal elections since 2010 while shielding their donors from public view. This flood of “dark money” undermines the disclosure requirements that form the backbone of federal campaign finance law, and it deprives voters of information essential to evaluating political messages and detecting corruption.  

The IRS bears significant responsibility for this crisis. Although section 501(c)(4) requires qualifying organizations to operate “exclusively” for social welfare, the IRS has interpreted this mandate to permit significant political activity — paving the way for these organizations to devote as much as 49% of their expenditures on election-related spending.  

CLC’s brief urges the court to enforce the statute as written: A genuine social welfare organization must operate exclusively — not just primarily or substantially — for social welfare. Groups that want to spend money on elections have a transparent alternative Congress already created —  section 527 political organizations, which are subject to disclosure requirements. There is no legal basis for allowing 501(c)(4)s to do what 527s do while avoiding the accountability that comes with it.  

The brief also addresses how courts should determine what kinds of electoral spending count against a 501(c)(4)’s tax-exempt status. Freedom Path argues for a narrow test that would allow groups to spend freely on election advertising while keeping their donors secret. Campaign Legal Center urges the court to apply a broader standard, already upheld by multiple courts, that captures the full range of communications designed to influence elections. 

What’s at Stake?

If the court adopts a standard that permits 501(c)(4)s to continue engaging in significant political spending, the dark money problem will persist and likely worsen. Nearly $2 billion in dark money flowed through the 2024 election cycle alone, the most in U.S. history, with hundreds of millions spent by 501(c)(4) groups whose donors remain hidden from the public.

However, if the court enforces the statute’s plain meaning, it could mark an important course correction — closing a loophole that the IRS created through decades of regulatory drift and restoring the transparency that voters are entitled to when powerful interests seek to shape their elections. The stakes extend well beyond this one case since the standard the court sets could affect whether Americans can learn who is funding efforts to influence their votes.  

Abuse of the Presidential Pardon Power

At a Glance

Presidential pardon power is meant to correct injustice, not reward wealthy donors or political loyalists. Campaign Legal Center is working to protect equal justice under law by exposing abuses of the pardon power and advocating reforms that promote transparency, accountability and fair standards in the clemency process. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
The Rule of Law
Ethics
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

The Constitution gives the president broad authority to grant pardons and commutations for federal crimes. Historically, this power has served as a safeguard against unfair punishment — offering clemency in exceptional cases and correcting injustices.

For decades, presidents of both parties typically relied on clemency recommendations from the Department of Justice’ (DOJ) Office of the Pardon Attorney, where career officials evaluate petitions using established criteria.

Past presidents have occasionally skirted that system, but President Trump has seemingly abandoned it altogether in his second term. Instead of using criteria to evaluate petitions, his administration has created an entirely separate clemency pipeline — one driven not by fairness or rehabilitation, but instead by wealth and political connections. When clemency decisions appear tied to influence rather than merit, public confidence in equal justice under law is weakened.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) analyzes and exposes threats to democratic accountability, including the misuse of government powers that can shield corruption or undermine public trust. CLC’s work in this area focuses on documenting troubling patterns of pardon abuses and promoting reforms that ensure clemency functions as a tool of justice and mercy — not as a mechanism for political or financial favoritism. 

Victory! In Response to Lawsuit, Secretary Galvin Agrees to Issue Jail-Based Voting Report

Date
Body

BOSTON — In a victory for democratic transparency, today the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ordered the secretary of the commonwealth to release long-overdue data on jail-based voting. This settlement marks the end of a year-long delay that kept the public in the dark about ballot access for incarcerated voters.

The favorable settlement resolves a lawsuit brought by voting rights and prisoners’ advocates and requires the secretary of the commonwealth to release reports on jail-based voting as mandated by the VOTES Act, a 2022 Massachusetts law designed to increase voting access and transparency. The SJC issued an order approving the settlement and requiring the secretary of the commonwealth to submit the two delayed reports to the Court and the Legislature “[b]y no later than June 1, 2026.”

“This is a win for voting rights and for detained voters across Massachusetts,” said Brooke Simone, attorney at Lawyers for Civil Rights and lead counsel in the case. “The reports will show whether State and local officials are providing access to the ballot box for those in jail, as the Massachusetts Legislature intended. With this information, advocates can work more effectively to ensure that every eligible voter who wants to participate in our democratic process is given an opportunity.”

Passed in 2022, the VOTES Act places obligations on both correctional facilities and the secretary of the commonwealth to increase access to the ballot box for eligible people in jail, including those detained on misdemeanor charges and held pre-trial. A key component of the VOTES Act is the secretary’s reporting requirement, which provides transparency and accountability to ensure these obligations are met. The secretary is required to publish a report on jail voting that includes the number of eligible incarcerated voters — and how many voted or tried to vote — for every statewide election. The deadline for the first of these reports passed more than a year ago, and the secretary failed to submit anything, prompting the lawsuit.

“This settlement comes at a crucial time for the people of Massachusetts,” said Kate Uyeda, legal counsel for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Data about jail voting is often opaque and incredibly burdensome for advocates to gather. In 2022, Massachusetts worked to solve that by making data collection and reporting on jail voting legally required, but laws are only as strong as their implementation. We will now head into the midterms equipped with these reports detailing jail-based voting access and patterns, allowing us to ensure that the VOTES Act is fully implemented.”

“These reports will aid our efforts to ensure every eligible voter incarcerated in Massachusetts has the opportunity to participate in our collective democracy,” petitioner eleni kalfus stated. “Incarcerated organizers, who lead our movement, will be analyzing this data to determine how we can improve our voting initiatives.”

The secretary has also agreed to implement improvements to existing processes and mechanisms for data collection and analysis before the next applicable statewide election on September 1, 2026, to streamline his office’s future reporting.

“Having the Secretary’s guarantee that he will make changes moving forward is one of the most important pieces of this agreement,” stated petitioner Justin “Rico” Rodriguez. “The upcoming midterms will be critical for eligible incarcerated voters. We need to know how many people try to vote in September and November, and how many are successful. We also need to know how many are unsuccessful and why, so that we can address whatever needs to be addressed and so that all voices are equally heard and equally represented.”

The complaint that resulted in the favorable settlement was filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights and Campaign Legal Center in the state’s highest court last month, with pro bono support from Anderson & Kreiger and the Law Office of John Reinstein.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Virginia Beach Voters Successful in Safeguarding Fair Election System

Date
Body

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — On March 9, 2026, Virginia Beach voters secured a hard-fought win for fair representation that ensures all voters in the city will continue to have a meaningful voice in local elections. An amendment to the city charter of Virginia Beach was officially adopted to codify a “10-1” election system — a fair, single-member district system that replaces a previous discriminatory partial at-large system — and ends a decades-long legacy of discrimination in how Black, Latino, and Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) voters elect their representatives in the commonwealth's largest city.

Following prolonged community advocacy to reform the election system, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) began representing Virginia Beach voters in their legal challenge for fair representation in 2018.

From 1966 until 2021, the city of Virginia Beach used an at-large method of elections to elect its City Council, which deprived Black, Latino and AAPI voters of the freedom to elect their preferred candidates to the City Council. In 2021, a federal court found that the city’s at-large election system was in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and ordered that all 10 members of the City Council be elected via single-member districts (with the mayor elected at-large), creating the 10-1 system.  

Following that ruling, a years-long series of twists and turns — including a public input process, a redistricting ordinance, an additional court ruling requiring a charter amendment, and further action from CLC — culminated in November 2025 when Virginia Beach voters successfully passed a referendum requesting the Virginia General Assembly amend the city charter to adopt the 10-1 system. Just months later, the 10-1 system is now officially law.  

“I first became involved in this case because I wanted our city to be a place where my children could have real, accountable representation, and this victory is proof that everyday people can make a difference. Now, with the 10-1 system in place, my children and the whole Virginia Beach community will have the opportunity they deserve to make their voices heard in our city government,” said plaintiff Latasha Holloway.

“In 2001, I stood before the Virginia Beach City Council and, alongside community partners, advocated for the 10-1 system of election. Now, 25 years later, that fair system of election is finally reflected in the Virginia Beach city charter. This victory took long, hard work, but it shows that we can make our voices heard if we continue to stand up and fight for our community,” said plaintiff Georgia Allen.

“Virginia Beach voters had to fight far too long for an election system that gives them an equal voice and fair representation,” said Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “After decades of discrimination by the previous at-large system — which a federal judge ruled denied Black, Latino and AAPI voters ‘equal access to the electoral and political process’ — and a winding legal path, Virginia Beach voters can rest assured that they will have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice in the upcoming election and for elections to come.”

Read more about Virginia Beach’s fair election system here. Learn more about our case here.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center advances democracy through law. We safeguard the freedom to vote, defend voters’ right to know who is spending money to influence elections, and work to ensure public trust in our elected officials.

Learn more about CLC. Don't miss out on our latest resources: Subscribe to President Trevor Potter's newsletter on LinkedIn or email, tune in to the latest season of our award-winning podcast, Democracy Decoded, and join our livestreamed events. 

Issues
Redistricting
Subscribe to