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

CLC Files Complaint Alleging Illegal Payment Set-Up for Trump Legal Fees

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding an arrangement between the 2024 presidential campaign of Donald Trump, four other Trump-affiliated political committees, and Red Curve Solutions (Red Curve), an accounting and compliance firm. The arrangement seems designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump’s legal bills and, in doing so, seems to violate federal law. 

Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company (LLC) that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees. 

According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid — and how much they are being paid — through this arrangement.  

The arrangement also appears to have violated the federal ban on corporate political contributions: Red Curve is an LLC, which — if treated as a corporation for federal tax purposes — would be legally barred from making any contributions, such as an in-kind contribution or advance, to Trump’s campaign and any other “hard money” committee — even if that payment or advance is fully reimbursed. 

“Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money. When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot,” said Erin Chlopak, senior director for campaign finance at Campaign Legal Center. “The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump’s legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures — and the FEC must investigate immediately.”     

Between December 7, 2022, and March 18, 2024, Red Curve received 108 disbursements from these five committees — virtually all of which are described as “Reimbursement for Legal Fees” or “Reimbursement for Legal Expenses” — totaling $7,206,474.55. This appears to show that Red Curve was the largest single recipient of legal payouts from Trump since he left office in 2021. 

Without complete information about how the campaign of the presumptive Republican nominee for president is spending donors’ money on legal expenses, voters lack crucial information they have a right to know.

The FEC should investigate this urgent matter immediately.  

Issues
Campaign Finance

Campaign Legal Center Files FEC Complaints Alleging Scam PACs Defrauded Thousands of Donors

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed two complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that “Patriots for American Leadership” and “Campaign for a Conservative Majority” fraudulently misrepresented that they were raising money for or on behalf of former President Trump’s reelection campaign. By using Trump’s voice on their fundraising robocalls and falsely claiming to support Trump’s reelection efforts, these “scam PACs” defrauded thousands of donors — many of whom were small donors giving less than $200. In reality, little to none of the money these PACs raised was used to engage in electoral advocacy — i.e., expenditures in support of, or contributions to, federal candidates or committees.

The fraudulent use of Trump’s voice to solicit funds presents a clear violation of federal campaign finance laws that prohibit engaging in fraudulent misrepresentation. CLC also plans to refer these matters to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.  

Saurav Ghosh, CLC’s director of federal campaign finance reform, said, “Scam PACs like these harm the public by fraudulently using a candidate’s name, image or voice to convince donors that their money will be used to support the candidate, when in reality these schemes funneled virtually all of the money they raised back into fundraising or into the scam PAC operators’ own pockets. The FEC must not delay in investigating this serious matter.”  

Federal campaign finance laws require political committees to accurately report their financial activity. But “Patriots for American Leadership” and “Campaign for a Conservative Majority” seem to have falsified their disclosure reports, and have failed to file required reports, in an apparent attempt to cover up their fraudulent activity. These efforts to conceal illicit activity support the conclusion that both scam PACs and their operators knowingly and willfully violated the law, such that more stringent penalties are needed to hold them accountable.  

Federal authorities have a strong track record of holding individuals who engage in scam PAC schemes accountable, and it is imperative that the FEC investigate “Patriots for American Leadership” and “Campaign for a Conservative Majority” for engaging in blatant violations of law that harmed the public.  

Issues
Campaign Finance

VICTORY: Federal Court Affirms That Tennessee Election Officials Cannot Deny Voter Registration to Eligible Tennesseans with Past Felony Convictions, Must Inform Potential Voters of Eligibility

Date
Body

Tennessee voters achieved a victory when a federal judge affirmed that Tennessee election officials cannot deny voter registration to eligible Tennesseans who have past felony convictions and that they must inform potential voters of eligibility requirements for voting after a felony. Campaign Legal Center represented voters in this lawsuit against Tennessee’s unequal, inaccessible voting rights restoration process.

 

“The Tennessee NAACP is pleased with the federal judge’s ruling,” said Gloria Sweet-Love, president of the Tennessee NAACP. “It takes us a step closer to removing barriers for formerly incarcerated Tennesseans who are seeking free and fair access to the ballot box. We must do all that we can — and we urge the courts and the state Election Division to do all they can — to guard against democratic backsliding, and ensure that all Tennesseans have voter protections.”

 

"This court decision marks a significant victory in our ongoing battle for voting rights restoration for those silenced by felony disenfranchisement, said Keeda Haynes, senior legal counsel at Free Hearts. "While we celebrate today, we remain vigilant in our fight against the evolving challenges and barriers to voting that have emerged since we first filed this lawsuit. Our commitment to 'free the vote' remains unwavering until every disenfranchised voice is heard."

 

“For too long, Tennessee has maintained policies designed to confuse, mislead, burden and shut out fully eligible voters who never lost the right to vote at all,” said Blair Bowie, director of Campaign Legal Center’s Restore Your Vote program. ”Yesterday’s ruling is a win for Tennesseans who have been wrongly denied a voice in their government for too long — and a step in the right direction.”

 

“This ruling is an important development towards the goal of ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote gets to vote,” said Charles Grant, shareholder at Baker Donelson.    

 

Tennessee has the second-largest disenfranchised population in the country, more than 470,000, second only to Florida, and disenfranchises over 20% of its Black citizens, the highest rate of Black disenfranchisement in the country.

 

Yet not every Tennessean with a prior felony conviction has lost the right to vote. For example, between 1973 and 1981, Tennessee did not have felony disenfranchisement, so felony convictions from that period did not take away the right to vote. Moreover, people whose felonies were reversed or expunged have the right to vote. And, even with the most complicated and error-ridden voting rights restoration process in the country, thousands of Tennesseans have successfully restored their right to vote.

 

However, for years, Tennessee’s voter registration form plainly misinformed potential voters on the law, incorrectly stating that a person with a felony conviction could not register if they had not received a pardon or restored their voting rights — even if they received a felony in the "grace period" mentioned above or had their conviction reversed or expunged. 

 

Additionally, the policy of elections officials was to deny voter registration forms from anyone with a felony, even if that person indicated that they had never lost the right to vote. 

 

In 2019, the Tennessee NAACP and Campaign Legal Center informed the Elections Division that these policies violated the National Voter Registration Act and in 2020, the groups, as well as Free Hearts and Baker Donelson, brought a lawsuit.

 

In August 2023, after being on notice of these violations for years, the Elections Division made a last minute attempt to come into compliance with the law and then asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. However, on April 18, 2024, the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that the Election Division’s policies violate the National Voter Registration Act. 

 

Additionally, the Court expressed skepticism that the state would not go back on its recent policy changes if the case were dismissed, writing that “[t]he timing of Election Division’s policy change also raises suspicions that its cessation is not genuine.” 

 

The Court’s ruling does not change the reality that, currently, Tennessee Election Officials have unlawfully created a “two-step” voting rights restoration process that makes it just one of three states that effectively permanently disenfranchises citizens with prior felony convictions. This process resulted from a major, bad faith misinterpretation of the law by the Elections Division last summer requiring all Tennesseans to restore their “full citizenship rights” before they can restore their voting rights — in addition to filling out the Certificate of Restoration (COR) form. 

 

Then, earlier this year, TN Elections Division confirmed that it wrongly interprets Tennessee law to conclude that, if a person who was convicted of a felony doesn’t or cannot get their full gun rights restored, they won’t ever be able to restore full citizenship and, thus, their voting rights in Tennessee — a policy that threatens to preclude Tennesseans with many types of felonies, including anyone with a felony drug conviction, from ever restoring their right to vote.

 

Learn more about Tennessee’s felony disenfranchisement regime.

 

Learn more about Campaign Legal Center’s lawsuit against TN’s unequal, inaccessible voting rights restoration process, TN NAACP v. Lee.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Limits on Coordinated Spending by Political Parties (NRSC, et al. v. FEC)

At a Glance

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) filed suit to challenge longstanding limits on how much political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates. CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the coordinated spending limits, arguing the lawsuit is foreclosed by a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court to uphold these federal limits.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In November 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and two Republican officeholders filed suit to challenge the federal limits on how much political parties can spend in “coordination” with candidates to advocate their election.

These limits had been previously upheld in a 2001 Supreme Court decision, but the NRSC is now asking the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to disregard this controlling precedent because, it alleges, both the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and the “factual backdrop” have changed in the intervening 20 years.

CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the coordinated spending limits, arguing that neither the law nor the political context has changed in any significant way that would undercut the utility — or constitutionality — of the party coordinated spending limits at issue.

Federal law has long considered the money a donor spends at the direction or suggestion of a federal candidate to be the equivalent of a contribution to that candidate because this type of “coordinated” spending is “as useful to the candidate as cash.” A coordinated expenditure is consequently subject to federal contribution limits and reporting requirements to ensure that it does not corrupt candidates in the same way a large contribution might.

The Supreme Court upheld the limits on party coordinated spending in its 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee — known as the “Colorado II” decision. In so holding, the Court was less worried that the party itself would corrupt candidates, and more concerned that unlimited party coordinated expenditures would make political parties an attractive vehicle for donors seeking to circumvent the individual contribution limits in order to buy influence with candidates and officeholders.  

The route of circumvention is simple: instead of giving their chosen candidate only the $3,300 allowed by the individual contribution limit, a deep-pocketed donor could give another $41,300 annually to the national party committee with the understanding that the party would allocate these funds to their chosen candidate. If the party could spend all this money in coordination with the candidate, then this donor — and countless future donors — could effectively give the candidate a $45,000 contribution.  

If, however, the party must spend this money independently of the candidate, then this spending may well “provide little assistance to the candidate’s campaign,” as the Supreme Court has recognized, greatly diminishing the possibility that the money will secure the donor a quid pro quo. The party coordinated spending limits thus act as a “brake” on the money that would otherwise run through this route of circumvention.

What’s at Stake?

Since the party coordinated spending limits were enacted in the 1970s, these limits have checked the corruptive effect of large contributions flowing through party committees to candidates and prevented the quid pro quo exchanges that such contributions would otherwise facilitate.  

As the Supreme Court explained in Colorado II, if the party coordinated spending limits were eliminated, “the inducement to circumvent would almost certainly intensify”: The individual contribution limits would be greatly “eroded” by donors exploiting the much higher party contribution limits to route over 10 times the amount of the base contribution limits to the party to spend in coordination with their preferred candidates.

Because the limits allow political parties to spend only a prescribed amount of their money in direct coordination with a candidate, however, they moderate the risk that a party committee could effectively pass on every big donation — or six-figure check collected via joint fundraising — to the donor’s chosen candidate in the form of coordinated expenditures. 

Subscribe to