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

Native American Voters in North Dakota Urge Eighth Circuit to Reinstate Voting Rights and Fair Maps

Date
Body

St. Paul, MN — The Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and several individual voters today filed an en banc petition urging the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to reconsider a recent decision that stripped voters of their right to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The panel’s ruling, if allowed to stand, would silence Native voters in North Dakota and disenfranchise millions across seven Midwestern states.

The unprecedented decision held that private citizens may no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA — a key provision used for decades to combat racially discriminatory voting laws — claiming the law does not create individual rights. The ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent and undermines hard-fought victories by Native communities.

“The fair map we secured led to a historic first – a Spirit Lake Nation member elected to the North Dakota legislature. This decision threatens that progress and weakens our voice in state government,” said Spirit Lake Nation Chairperson Lonna Jackson-Street.

“Turtle Mountain fought hard for a fair and legal map. When the state draws unlawful districts, Courts must step in to protect voters — not pave the way for injustice. We will continue to fight for fair representation,” said Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Chairman Jamie Azure.

"We went to court because the map the state passed made it harder for Native voters like me to have a real voice. The court agreed and gave us a fair chance to elect candidates. Now, the Eighth Circuit wants to take away my right to question maps that silence votes, not because we were wrong, but because they say the Voting Rights Act does not create rights. That’s not justice and we’re going to keep fighting for that,” said plaintiff and North Dakota Native Vote Board Member Wes Davis (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

“Throughout the redistricting process, we asked to be fairly represented. When the state adopted an unfair and illegal map, we challenged it — and we won. But now, the Eighth Circuit has erased that victory on a legal technicality that goes against decades of settled law. I will continue to stand with my community and demand fair representation in our legislature,” said plaintiff Collette Brown, North Dakota Representative for District 9.

“I joined this case because I saw firsthand how the state’s map silenced Native voters in our community. It split us up in ways that made it nearly impossible to elect people who understand our lives and will stand up for our interests. The lower court agreed and fixed that. Now the Eighth Circuit has reversed that progress. The court says that we never had the right to challenge it in the first place and that no North Dakota voter has that right anymore. That’s not just disappointing — it’s dangerous. Native voices matter, and we’re not done fighting to make sure they’re heard,” said plaintiff Zachery S. King (Turtle Mountain Chippewa).

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Native American Rights Fund (NARF), Robins Kaplan, LLP, and the Law Office of Bryan L. Sells, LLC — on behalf of Native American voters on the Turtle Mountain Reservation and Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota — filed the en banc petition arguing Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act/Klan Act of 1871 is and must remain a means to enforce the voting guarantees of Section 2 in every state of the nation. The current disputed map dilutes the voting power of North Dakota’s Native American voters.

“Two weeks ago, two Eighth Circuit judges ruled that the Voting Rights Act does not create voting rights enforceable by voters in court. The full Eighth Circuit should overturn that radical and unlawful ruling, which flouts Supreme Court precedent and congressional intent. Voters in the seven states of the Eighth Circuit — including Native American voters in North Dakota — should not be afforded fewer voting rights than those in the rest of the country,” said Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at CLC. “Campaign Legal Center and our partners have been in this fight for over three years, and we will see to it that Native American voters from the Turtle Mountain Band and Spirit Lake Tribe are able to make their voices heard and achieve fair representation without deliberate barriers.”

“This decision is a devastating blow to Native voters and to the Voting Rights Act itself. For decades, private citizens — especially in communities like Turtle Mountain and Spirit Lake — have relied on Section 2 to challenge racially discriminatory voting laws. The Eighth Circuit has now become the only federal appellate court to block those claims from being heard. It’s a dangerous precedent that denies voters across seven states the right to defend their most fundamental freedoms. We’re not backing down. NARF will continue to fight to ensure that Native people can have a voice in the political process,” said NARF Staff Attorney Lenny Powell.

If this decision stands, only the U.S. Department of Justice is authorized by the VRA to file lawsuits in the Eighth Circuit, which effectively closes off voters’ ability to challenge unfair maps as the department diminishes its Civil Rights Division. Native American voters in North Dakota have been fighting for a fair map since 2021. If this decision is left in place, their right to fair representation could vanish overnight.

###

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

Does the Rule of Law Still Matter in a Second Trump Administration?

Submitted by ekrug on

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump’s second term has been characterized by overreaching executive orders, troubling attacks on our electoral system, clear conflicts of interest, and a blatant disrespect for the rule of law, the Constitution and our system of checks and balances.  

These actions paint an alarming picture of a president attempting to consolidate power at all costs.

Demanding Transparency from DOGE (In re U.S. DOGE Service U.S. Supreme Court brief)

At a Glance

To avoid discovery, the government argues DOGE is not an agency subject to FOIA. On behalf of government transparency scholars, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a Supreme Court brief arguing courts should look at what DOGE is actually doing to determine whether FOIA applies, instead of relying on the government’s own representations.   

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Ethics
About This Case/Action

Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics (CREW) filed a lawsuit demanding that DOGE answer its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DOGE to respond to discovery to help determine whether DOGE is an agency covered by FOIA. 

DOGE has now appealed those orders to the U.S. Supreme Court. DOGE is arguing courts may only rely on executive orders that establish part of the Executive Office of the President to determine whether DOGE — or any other government entity established by the executive branch — is subject to FOIA.

CLC has joined the case with an amicus (or friend-of-the-court) brief representing government transparency professors whose research, teaching and writing focus on information and transparency law.  

CLC’s brief argues that the history of FOIA does not require courts to simply accept the government’s assessment of what is or is not an agency for purposes of FOIA, and how adopting such a rule would permit the government to evade the public’s right to transparency.  

What’s At Stake?

The government cannot decide for itself if it’s subject to FOIA or not. A legal test like this would undermine the purpose of FOIA and other transparency laws.  

This transparency law has historically been applied on the basis of a government entity’s activities, not just on what the government says.  

Accepting the government’s interpretation would allow and incentivize presidents to create more entities similar to DOGE that can operate within a black box and avoid transparency laws.

 

 

CLC's Bruce Spiva on Upholding FOIA and Holding DOGE Accountable to Transparency

Date
Body

Bruce V. Spiva, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement: 

"By refusing to answer basic questions about the nature of their organization, the U.S. DOGE Service (DOGE) is diminishing trust across our government.

"The Freedom of Information Act allows the American people full visibility into how the government operates. The government’s argument — that it may essentially choose which aspects of the federal government are subject to transparency laws — would erode the transparency at the heart of a healthy democracy. It would incentivize presidents to create more entities like DOGE that can operate in a black box and avoid transparency laws.

"To preserve public trust, the U.S. Supreme Court must uphold the D.C. District Court’s ruling and compel DOGE to answer questions from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) about their government activities."

Issues
Ethics
Subscribe to