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

FBI Director Kash Patel Faces Inquiry from Campaign Legal Center for Multiple Personal Trips on Government Aircraft

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On March 4, 2026, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), urging them to investigate the use of government aircraft for at least 10 personal trips by Kash Patel, director of the FBI, without reimbursement. Patel may have violated federal travel rules and the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch by misusing taxpayer-funded government resources.  

“The public has a right to know that government resources used by officials like the FBI director are done in service of the public’s best interest, and not for personal reasons,” said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “We urge the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General to investigate the multiple personal trips the FBI director has taken on government aircraft and inform the public if he complied with the legal requirement to pay for that travel himself.”

FBI directors are required to use taxpayer-funded government aircraft for both official and personal travel. If an FBI director needs to use government aircraft for personal reasons, then they are required to reimburse the government for these expenses.  

Multiple media reports and publicly available data show that over the span of a year, Patel took at least 10 trips that appear recreational in nature — including a recent trip to the Milan Winter Olympics in February 2026.

A prior FBI director was investigated and fired for similar personal use of government aircraft. Campaign Legal Center urges the DOJ’s OIG to investigate Kash Patel and determine if he should also be held accountable.

### 

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
Ethics

VICTORY: Federal Court Upholds Right to Fair Congressional Map in Utah

Date
Body

SALT LAKE CITY — Today, a federal court ruled that a fair congressional map proposed by the League of Women Voters Utah (LWVUT), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual voters — all represented by Campaign Legal Center — will remain in place ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. This is a major victory for voters and fair maps in the state of Utah.

State courts in Utah have repeatedly ruled in favor of a fair congressional map despite opposition from the Utah State Legislature. On February 2, 2026, a group of plaintiffs — including U.S. Representatives Celeste Maloy and Burgess Owens, and several local elected officials — filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the current map violated the federal constitution’s elections clause. They asked the federal court to reinstate a map passed by the Utah State Legislature back in 2021 that was already ruled by state courts to be in violation of the Utah Constitution and Proposition 4.

Campaign Legal Center — on behalf of LWVUT, MWEG, and individual Utahns — intervened in the federal lawsuit to defend the fair map, asked the Court to dismiss the lawsuit, and opposed the request to block use of the fair map in the 2026 election. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state courts have the power and obligation to impose lawful congressional maps when the state legislature fails to. That is exactly what happened here.

While anti-voter advocates have spent years trying to keep an extreme partisan gerrymander in place, this new ruling in the federal case ensures that voters in Utah will have a map that allows them to fairly choose their elected officials. Today’s ruling affirms that Judge Dianna Gibson had the power to impose the plaintiff's map.  

“The court recognized what the League has long emphasized, that last-minute attempts to disrupt election processes—particularly with rejected legal theories—risk creating confusion for voters and administrators alike,” said Caren Short, director of legal and research for the League of Women Voters. “Protecting access to the ballot includes ensuring stability and certainty as elections approach. We are thrilled that Utah’s fair maps are one step closer to being solidified.”

“Utah voters should not have to navigate uncertainty to participate in their elections,” said Katharine Biele, president of the League of Women Voters of Utah. “We are pleased the court protected this fair map and we remain focused on protecting voters’ ability to make their voices heard. We only wish that the futile attempts to undermine this fair map would cease so we could focus on what is important to Utahns.” 

“Today’s federal court decision is a significant win for Utah voters,” said Emma Petty Addams, co-executive director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government. “This federal lawsuit sought to undo a lawful, court–ordered congressional map. The court’s decision to reject that effort is an important affirmation that the rule of law matters. Utah voters deserve fair representation, and this victory is about protecting those voters - not politicians. 

“Today’s ruling affirms that Judge Gibson had the power and obligation under federal law to impose a lawful congressional map. The Utah Legislature chose not to do so and so the court was required to,” said Mark Gaber, senior director for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center. “We are proud to see Utahns’ continued efforts fighting for their right to fair maps and representation result in another major legal victory for our democracy. Both the state and federal courts have made it clear: Elections in Utah should be determined by voters, and not politicians who can manipulate voting maps.”

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

###

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