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
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

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
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 and OpenSecrets Applaud Federal District Court Ruling on Transparency of Political Party Megadonors

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On January 30, 2026, Campaign Legal Center and OpenSecrets won their lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over the FEC’s failure to provide transparency of the largest donations to political parties. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the FEC has illegally failed to act on a formal petition to set rules for reporting money in the parties’ “special purpose” accounts. This decision is a major step forward for protecting transparency and accountability in election spending.

In 2014, Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to allow wealthy donors to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to certain political party accounts. Collectively, that means an individual can now contribute upwards of $1.8 million to a single party over a two-year election cycle.

OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center formally petitioned the FEC to set rules for how political parties must publicly report these transactions. But more than a decade after Congress changed the law, the FEC has still failed to issue rules — in response to the rulemaking petition submitted by OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center or otherwise. The FEC’s inaction deprives voters of meaningful transparency regarding how national party committees are using these supercharged accounts.

The court found that the FEC has violated the law by failing to act on OpenSecrets and Campaign Legal Center’s petition. The court started the process of setting a deadline for FEC action and is retaining jurisdiction to monitor the agency’s progress going forward.

“Voters have a right to know who is giving huge amounts of money to political parties, and where that money is going. For more than a decade, the FEC has done nothing to provide this transparency, and so has failed its public mission,” said Adav Noti, executive director for Campaign Legal Center. “The federal District Court ruling is a step in the right direction, and we will make sure the FEC complies with the court’s order by providing full transparency of the billions of dollars raised and spent by our nation’s political parties.”

“For more than a decade, over a billion dollars has moved through the national parties’ special accounts with minimal oversight, effectively creating a shadow campaign finance system,” said Hilary Braseth, executive director of OpenSecrets. “You cannot hold power accountable if you cannot follow the money. This ruling makes clear that the FEC cannot sidestep its responsibility to the electorate, and we look forward to a reporting framework that finally allows the public to see the full picture.”

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

Holding Massachusetts Accountable by Ensuring Jail Voting Protections Are Implemented (Hobbs v. Galvin)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing six jail voting advocates in Massachusetts to compel the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth to publish statewide jail voting data, as required by state law. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

In 2022, Massachusetts passed the VOTES Act, a wide-ranging bill improving protections and ballot access for voters across the state, including some of the nation’s strongest protections for voters in jail. Among its provisions, the VOTES Act requires the secretary of the commonwealth to publish reports after each statewide election detailing jail voting data, including how many people requested to vote and whether they were able to vote.

Many people in jails across the country remain eligible to vote while in local jails. In Massachusetts, the right to vote is only taken away while someone is serving time for a felony conviction. As such, individuals who are pre-trial or serving misdemeanors in county jails may be eligible, so long as they meet the other eligibility criteria.

However, the secretary has failed to publish the required reports even though two statewide elections have occurred since the law went into effect.

Campaign Legal Center, alongside Lawyers for Civil Rights and with pro bono support from Anderson & Kreiger and the Law Office of John Reinstein, represent six jail voting advocates in this mandamus-style action to enforce this provision.  

These mandated reports allow for critical monitoring of VOTES ACT implementation and ensure officials provide the required ballot access for those in jail. The public has a right to this information, and the law requires the secretary to provide the reports on a strict timetable.

Without this information, petitioners are impeded in their efforts to conduct oversight and advocate for necessary changes to ensure all eligible voters in jails can vote. Campaign Legal Center, our partners and our clients are asking the secretary to speedily compile a report to the Legislature with the required information about jail-based voting in the commonwealth.  

Our democracy works best when every voter can participate. Voters in jail are too often overlooked, ignored or cast aside simply because they are incarcerated. The secretary must comply with this mandate to increase transparency and ensure effective implementation of the VOTES Act so that every eligible voter in Massachusetts’ jails can have their voices heard at the ballot box. 

Voting Rights Advocates Sue Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth for Failing to Disclose Information on Jail-Based Voting

Date
Body

BOSTON — Today, voting rights and prisoners’ rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts’ highest court seeking an order compelling Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin to release reports on jail-based voting, as required by a landmark state law enacted to expand voting rights protections. Since the enactment of the VOTES Act in 2022, Secretary Galvin has failed to file any reports on jail-based voting, shielding this data from disclosure and impeding public awareness. Without jail-based voting data, Massachusetts residents, community organizations, and the state legislature cannot hold public officials accountable for implementing the VOTES Act.

The complaint was filed against Secretary Galvin by Lawyers for Civil Rights and Campaign Legal Center, with pro bono support from Anderson & Kreiger and the Law Office of John Reinstein, on behalf of Franklin Hobbs, eleni kalfus, DeAnza Cook, Alan Tanner, Kadeem Foreman, and Justin “Rico” Rodriguez, highlighting that at any given time, up to 9,000 incarcerated citizens in Massachusetts are eligible to vote. These include people serving misdemeanor sentences, individuals awaiting trial, and those who are civilly committed. These individuals have the right to vote and should not be disenfranchised.

“This is an urgent moment to hold people in our democracy accountable,” petitioner Pastor Franklin Hobbs stated. “The jail voting provisions of the VOTES Act were written by and advocated for by incarcerated people, who are too often left out of the democratic process. This report is imperative to tell us where we are in the implementation process, so that we can improve it moving forward and take seriously voting access for this population.” Hobbs is the founder of Healing Our Land, Inc., which facilitates and supports voter registration initiatives in the Suffolk County House of Corrections and Nashua Street Jail.

Petitioner eleni kalfus, who works with the coalition Empowering Descendant Communities to Unlock Democracy, regularly visits the two Boston jails to assist eligible incarcerated individuals to register to vote and apply for absentee ballots so they can participate in local, state, and federal elections. “When I go to the jails to talk to incarcerated voters, they tell me about the issues they’ve had when trying to vote,” said kalfus. “I want them to know we’re fighting for them and doing what we can to hold the state accountable.”

To ensure these voters are not excluded from the democratic process, the VOTES Act requires Secretary Galvin to submit public reports within six months of each statewide election detailing the number of eligible incarcerated voters and whether they were able to vote by mail or absentee ballot. Two statewide elections have occurred since the VOTES Act took effect — one seventeen months ago — yet no reports have been released by Secretary Galvin.

“These reports are crucial for transparency and accountability,” said Brooke Simone, an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights. “The VOTES Act was designed to make sure that eligible voters in jail are not shut out of our democracy. When Secretary Galvin fails to release this data, it doesn’t just violate state law—it allows constitutional rights to be denied behind closed doors, with no public scrutiny or oversight.”

Petitioner Dr. DeAnza Cook, who teaches civic education classes to incarcerated individuals, shared that “incarcerated voters are part of our communities, our neighborhoods, and our democracy. When the state withholds basic information about their voting access, it sends a message about who is seen as belonging. We’re here to insist that they do belong.”

Petitioner Alan Tanner stated that “people’s voices need to be heard, and that can’t happen if information is being withheld. In order to empower people, we have to make sure there is transparency from our elected officials.”

The lawsuit was also brought by two individuals who were incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk, a state correctional facility, until late last month. Drawing on his firsthand experience in a correctional setting, Kadeem Foreman shared, “people inside are trying to stay connected to their communities. Voting is one of the few ways they can do that. If the state won’t even report whether those votes are possible, it tells you how little their connection is valued.”

Justin “Rico” Rodriguez shared, “my community has a long history of fighting for redress of the harms we’ve experienced when elected officials have failed us. This report is part of that fight, and I’m glad to be fighting for the people that I come from and the people that I love, including those still in prison who don't often get heard.”

The lawsuit asks the court to order Secretary Galvin to immediately issue the required reports and fulfill his statutory duty to ensure transparency and accountability in jail-based voting.

“We should be working to make our elections more inclusive and accessible, and that includes ensuring that reports on jail voting are filed as required by the VOTES Act,” stated Kate Uyeda, legal counsel for Campaign Legal Center. “These reports help ensure that fully eligible voters are not left out of the democratic process simply because they are detained during an election. We are asking the court to hold Secretary Galvin accountable and order him to issue the required reports.”

You can follow along with this case as it progresses with our case page here.

###

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.

VICTORY: Second Provision of Anti-Voter Executive Order Struck Down, Ruled Unconstitutional

Date
Body

WASHINGTON — On January 30, 2026, another key part of the president’s anti-voter executive order attempting to require burdensome registration requirements for military and overseas voters was permanently halted

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI) and Arizona Students’ Association (ASA) — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) — sought to prevent the secretary of defense from taking any action to implement Section 3(d) of the president's March 25, 2025, executive order. In its opinion, the court further determined that Section 3(d) violated the constitutional separation of powers and cannot be enforced. 

Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and the rule of law at Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement:

 “Our democracy works best when all Americans can participate, including members of our military and their families living overseas. Today’s ruling removes a very real threat to the freedom to vote for overseas military families and upholds the separation of powers. It is yet another legal victory affirming what we already know: The president does not have the authority to dictate who can vote or how our elections are run.” 

Read more about how Campaign Legal Center is holding the current administration accountable at this link.