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

Campaign Legal Center Shines a Light on the Trump Administration’s Transactional Approach to Governing

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has published a new resource that tracks and analyzes specific instances in which President Donald Trump’s administration has rewarded big donors with benefits, exposing the overtly and unprecedentedly transactional nature of President Trump’s second term. This tracker is not only a valuable resource that catalogs the benefits the Trump administration has effectively put up for sale, but it also offers a full slate of political and legal solutions that demonstrate that this corruption is not just preventable, but reversible. 

CLC researchers and legal experts highlight and contextualize dozens of the most egregious instances of wealthy individuals, CEOs, corporations and foreign governments trading contributions and investments for huge political favors in return — including everything from dropped federal investigations to high-level political appointments. 

“Allowing money to dominate our political process creates a breeding ground for corruption. President Trump has repeatedly shown that those who financially support his interests will be rewarded in turn, while his administration ignores ethics requirements and serves his wealthy donors ahead of everyday Americans,” said Saurav Ghosh, director for federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “To help hold our elected officials accountable, Campaign Legal Center is highlighting the most egregious examples of pay-to-play corruption while explaining how these transactions are hurting the American public.” 

This resource is the first of its kind to offer a full picture of the pay-to-play corruption in the current administration. CLC will continue to update this tracker with the latest instances of these transactions as they occur. 

If you have any questions or would like to speak further to the team behind this project, do not hesitate to reach out. The tracker can be found here.

Issues
Campaign Finance
Ethics

Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause Urge SCOTUS to Uphold Decades-Long Protections Against Big Money in Campaigns

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Yesterday, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside the League of Women Voters (LWV) and Common Cause, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, which urges the justices to uphold party coordinated spending limits in the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC case.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is challenging critical, long-standing limits on how much money political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these limits in 2001 as an important barrier to preventing donors from funneling massive amounts of funds to the candidates of their choosing through political parties.

A key principle of campaign finance law, reinforced by the Court, is that an expenditure that is “coordinated” with a candidate is functionally the same as a contribution given directly to the candidate. Therefore, limits on both are important to preventing quid pro quo corruption in our federal elections.

“For over 50 years, party coordinated spending limits have been integral to reducing the corruptive impact of large contributions moving through party committees to candidates and potentially facilitating quid pro quo exchanges between donors and candidates,” said Tara Malloy, senior litigation strategist at Campaign Legal Center. “As the amount of money being raised and spent in elections continues to rise and break records — and campaign finance violations remain unchecked due to poor enforcement of the law by the Federal Election Commission — it is crucial that the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of federal limits.”

“What’s at stake in this case is the very integrity of our elections," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters. “Lifting limits on coordinated party spending would open the door to more corruption that ultimately allows big money to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. In a time when money already plays an outsized role in our politics, removing this safeguard would be yet another step towards total deregulation of campaign finance. The League proudly supports this limit as a crucial protection for fair and accountable elections.”

"The size of your wallet should never determine the size of your voice in an election about the future," said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of Policy and Litigation at Common Cause. "When big money flows unchecked in our politics, everyday people suffer. Spending limits are the last line of defense to prevent our elections from becoming auctioned to the highest bidder."

CLC first filed an amicus brief with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in support of federal limits back in 2024 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court upheld these limits last year.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether to maintain its own 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee — known as the “Colorado II” decision — that affirmed the constitutionality of these limits. At that time, the Court expressed concern that removing these limits would provide donors with the opportunity to bypass individual contribution limits by funneling larger sums through the parties in order to buy influence with candidates and officeholders. 

Voters need to have confidence that wealthy special interests cannot simply buy influence and political favors by routing big contributions through political parties. Our nation’s highest court should affirm the limits on coordinated spending by political parties in order to protect our democracy.

Follow the latest updates on our efforts to defend spending limits through this case page.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) 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
Campaign Finance

Campaign Legal Center’s Kedric Payne Responds to White House Move to Defund Key Inspectors General Watchdog Group

Date
Body

Tomorrow, the Trump administration plans to end funding for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, an independent entity within the executive branch created by bipartisan support tasked with overseeing 72 inspectors general across the government.  

In response to yet another drastic move by the Trump administration to undercut ethics enforcement, Kedric Payne — senior vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center — released the following statement:

“In the Trump administration’s latest move to tear down ethics guardrails and allow unchecked corruption, it is now dismantling one of the last truly independent ethics enforcement mechanisms.

“Inspectors general exist to protect taxpayer money by rooting out corruption, fraud, waste and mismanagement. Across party lines and throughout the country, Americans want a government that is transparent and held to high ethical standards.

“Without this accountability, members of the executive branch apparently have no one to answer to but the president. The public was only made aware of numerous ethics violations in President Trump’s first term through IG investigations into at least eight of his appointees and Cabinet secretaries.  

“This is not just another violation of ethics norms — it is a blatant attack on the very idea of a government accountable to the people it serves. Each quiet move the government makes to chip away at ethics enforcement is a foothold for corruption to grow during this administration and beyond.

“The Office of Management and Budget must listen to bipartisan calls to fund the Council of the Inspectors General and refute any attempt to weaken our rule of law.”

###

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
Subscribe to