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.

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. 

SALT LAKE CITY, U.T. — Today, Utah’s Supreme Court rejected a stay request from the Utah state legislature to pause the drawing of a fair congressional map. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWV Utah), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual Utah voters, challenged the Utah state legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4, or Prop 4 — a ballot initiative passed by Utah voters that aimed to prohibit partisan gerrymandering by establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and creating fair, neutral criteria and procedures for adopting district maps. 

The Utah state trial court ruled that not only was the repeal of Prop 4 unconstitutional, but the current gerrymandered congressional map passed by the legislature may not be used in future elections. A new map that complies with Prop 4’s neutral criteria must now be drawn and used for the 2026 election. 

Mark Gaber, senior redistricting director for CLC, issued the following statement in response to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision: 

“Fair voting maps are essential for ensuring that every voter has an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Today’s decision affirms that in America, voters should choose their politicians — not the other way around. 

“The plaintiffs that we represented in this case have been working for nearly a decade to have an independent redistricting process. 

“It was Utahns across the political spectrum who initially formed a citizen initiative, known as Proposition 4, working to ensure that they have the right to choose their elected representatives. Despite challenges from their own state legislature, the Utah Supreme Court has affirmed that Utahns have the right to vote under fair maps.

“Campaign Legal Center will keep fighting in Utah and nationwide to ensure that all voters can participate equally in the political processes directly impacting their lives.”

Follow the latest updates on this lawsuit through our 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.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. – A group of Missouri voters filed a legal challenge today to the state’s mid-decade redistricting effort, arguing that state officials’ attempt to implement a new congressional map for the 2026 midterm elections violates the Missouri Constitution.

The voters are residents of Kansas City and currently reside in Congressional District 5, which is the target of the unprecedented mid-decade redistricting effort, but would be split into three separate districts under the new map. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Missouri, and Campaign Legal Center (CLC).

“Kansas City has been home for me my entire adult life. Voting is an important tool in our toolbox, so that we have the freedom to make our voices heard through a member of Congress who understands Kansas City’s history of racial and economic segregation along the Troost divide, and represents our needs. If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives,” said plaintiff and Missouri Workers Center leader Terrence Wise.

In late July 2025, President Trump and his staff began pressuring Missouri lawmakers to enact a new congressional district map to dismantle Congressional District 5, which covers Kansas City and the surrounding area and has been represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver since 2005. On Aug. 29, Gov. Mike Kehoe called for a special session of the General Assembly for this purpose, claiming that the current congressional map “may be vulnerable to a legal challenge under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, due to a lack of compactness in certain districts.”

Yet, President Trump, Gov. Kehoe, and other Missouri officials made it clear that the true intention was to secure Republicans an additional seat in Missouri’s delegation. The state House and Senate both passed the new map.

The lawsuit alleges that the new map violates the Missouri Constitution because congressional redistricting may occur only once every decade and because the new districts are not compact.

“Instead of standing up for their constituents, Missouri officials are caving to President Trump’s demands by passing this unconstitutional map,” said Ming Cheung, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. No matter how the state spins it, Kansas City voters will have worse representation in Congress if this map is allowed to take effect.”

The Missouri Constitution provides no basis for mid-decade redistricting, the lawsuit emphasizes. It authorizes congressional redistricting only following a decennial census, and once the districts have been enacted those districts remain in place until the next census.

“The new map drawn by Missouri lawmakers openly defies key constitutional requirements intended to keep the state’s map-drawing process fair. Missouri’s Constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting. It also prohibits non-compact congressional districts. The map enacted by the Missouri legislature dismantles Kansas City’s fifth congressional district, submerging metro area residents into meandering rural districts with no close connection to their communities of interest. Both urban and rural Missourians deserve dedicated representation in Congress, and the Missouri Constitution guarantees that right as a way to prevent exactly this type of egregious gerrymandering,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center.

The lawsuit further argues that the 2025 map violates the Missouri Constitution’s compactness requirement. Congressional District 5, which under the 2022 map covered Kansas City and the surrounding suburbs, has several commonalities that align with compactness. These include that these communities have similar economic industries, follow urban and suburban city planning, are more multicultural than other parts of the state, and have a higher proportion of renters to homeowners than other parts of the state.

Under the new map, the current Congressional District 5 is split into three districts, with each encompassing a part of the Kansas City metropolitan area as well as rural parts of the state. The lawsuit alleges that dividing Kansas City this way separates closely united communities, denying them coherent representation in Congress.

Furthermore, the state’s rationale that it must redraw the districts to avoid legal challenges does not hold up. There were no legal challenges to the existing districts. The state is using the Voting Rights Act as a pretext, because the new map does not actually increase electoral opportunity for minority voters. Moreover, the dividing line in Kansas City starkly segregates Black and white neighbors, making the new districts more likely to be challenged as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.

In rushing the map through the legislative process, state officials also failed to properly allocate population between the new districts.

"In a blatant illegal and unconstitutional power grab, the governor bowed to the whims of Washington while sacrificing representation in both urban and rural populations of Missouri," said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. "The splitting of Kansas City into three separate congressional districts will not only diminish the representation of a major population center but will leave smaller rural towns' interests to compete against the interests of the residents of the KC metropolitan area."

###

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.