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

Joint Statement from CLC, DDF and LULAC Regarding President Trump’s New Elections Executive Order

Date
Body

On March 31, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an anti-voter executive order that threatens Americans’ freedom to vote. Danielle Lang, vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following joint statement alongside Norm Eisen of the Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and Juan Proaño of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC):

"Our coalition defeated President Trump's last illegal anti-voter executive order in court, and we will defeat this unlawful and incoherent one, too. We are drafting the lawsuit right now. The Constitution gives authority over elections to the states and Congress. The president does not have the power he is claiming. We will see him in court."

###

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
Voting and Elections
The Rule of Law

VICTORY: Missouri Supreme Court Blocks Anti-Voter Provisions Targeting Nonpartisan Civic Engagement Groups

Date
Body

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — On March 24, 2026, nonpartisan civic engagement groups in Missouri secured a major victory after the state Supreme Court upheld a ruling blocking four unlawful anti-voter provisions from going into effect that would have chilled the critical work of civic engagement groups. Following this ruling, nonpartisan civic engagement groups in the state can continue exercising their right to engage in political speech by helping Missourians register to vote — without the threat of harsh criminal sanctions.

Missouri’s House Bill 1878 (HB 1878), passed in 2022, included many strict and confusing prohibitions that would have subjected volunteers to drastic penalties, including fines, imprisonment, and even a permanent loss of their own right to vote. Read more about the burdensome penalties of the law here.

The League of Women Voters of Missouri (LWVMO) and the Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Missouri NAACP) — represented by Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition (MOVPC) — filed a lawsuit to challenge these provisions.

The Cole County Circuit Court responded to this lawsuit by granting a preliminary injunction that temporarily halted enforcement of these provisions. The circuit court then ruled in 2024 that these provisions violated the right of civic engagement groups to engage in pro-voter messaging. The state appealed this decision, and the Missouri Supreme Court then upheld the 2024 ruling. These four provisions will now remain permanently blocked.

“This ruling is ultimately a win for Missouri voters,” said Dr. Kay Park, President of the League of Women Voters of Missouri. “We are proud of our vital role in educating Missouri voters and promoting participation in our democracy. Voter engagement is not a crime, and the League is thrilled the state supreme court has finally affirmed our right to do our important work without fear. The League is proud to continue to fight to preserve and protect the right to vote for every Missouri citizen.”

"We celebrate this win from Missouri’s highest court firmly establishing the rights of all Missourians to engage in registration and civic engagement activities in their communities,” said Nimrod Chapel Jr., President of the Missouri State Conference of the NAACP. “History shows us why community voter registration and civic engagement work is so important, and especially critical to closing the voter registration and voter participation gap in black and brown communities. During Jim Crow, they unleashed fire hoses on those doing voter registration in black communities. This law would have limited who could register people to vote and imposed criminal penalties, including even loss of voting rights. The court’s ruling is an important win to ensuring the NAACP can fulfill its mission to close the voter registration gap and ensure the voices of all Missourians can be heard."

“This week’s ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court affirms that nonpartisan civic engagement groups serve a vital role in upholding the freedom to vote, and attempts to limit their right to exercise political speech violate the state’s constitution,” said Danielle Lang, the vice president for voting rights and rule of law at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “The anti-voter provisions we challenged directly opposed the core principle that our democracy is strongest when voters can participate in the electoral process. Campaign Legal Center will continue to work alongside civic engagement groups in Missouri and nationwide to ensure that they can fulfill their mission of registering people to vote without fear of criminal prosecution simply for engaging in protected political speech.”

"This is a win for speech, democracy, and all current and future voters in Missouri," said Gillian Wilcox, Director of Litigation at the ACLU of Missouri. "The vital work of organizations like the League and the NAACP is necessary to help Missourians navigate a system that is deeply rooted with systemic barriers that unnecessarily impede Missourians from exercising their fundamental right to vote."

“This is an important victory for our democracy,” said Denise Lieberman, Director and General Counsel of the Missouri Voter Protection Coalition. “Community-driven voter registration and engagement activities are critical to helping voters have a voice, and the Missouri Supreme Court got it right that limiting who can participate and what they can say violates their right to political expression. Missourians should feel empowered to engage in a wide array of voter registration and civic engagement activities without fear of prosecution.”

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
The Rule of Law

Defending Against the Unlawful Seizure of Ballots (Cervantes v. Bianco)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California in support of a lawsuit challenging the unlawful seizure of thousands of ballots from the October 2025 special election by the Riverside County (California) Sheriff’s Office.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

On February 26, 2026, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is currently running for Governor of California, executed a search warrant on the Riverside County Registrar of Voters and seized more than 650,000 ballots from the November 2025 special election in California relating to a ballot initiative on redistricting.  

In a press conference, Sheriff Bianco announced that the seizure of ballots is related to a criminal investigation by his office into alleged and unsubstantiated discrepancies in Riverside County’s vote count. The investigation is based on information submitted to his office by a group of private individuals who claimed to have done an audit of the election results and allegedly found a discrepancy of more than 45,000 votes in Riverside County’s totals.  

Those claims were publicly refuted by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in a presentation that highlighted flaws in the private group’s analysis, as well as the public, but incomplete, data on which they relied.  

California law provides a robust post-election civil process to resolve any challenges to election results or concerns about election procedures. But the Riverside County Sheriff instead bypassed those procedures and used his position to abuse the criminal system by seizing ballots based on claims that were already proven to be baseless.  

Sheriff Bianco’s actions violate California law requiring public officials to maintain clear chain of custody over sensitive election materials, including ballots, and ensuring that only trained election officials conduct recounts, audits and other important post-election procedures.

On March 25, 2026, a group of Riverside County voters filed a petition with the California Supreme Court asking that they order Sheriff Bianco to return the seized ballots to the custody of the Riverside County Registrar of Voters.  

Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California in support of the voters’ petition. Our brief made three key arguments:  

The seizure of ballots and other sensitive materials by law enforcement is part of a growing and extremely troubling trend already seen in Georgia, Arizona and Minnesota. Sheriff Bianco’s seizure of ballots from a 2025 election in Riverside County, California, is a clear escalation of this unlawful intrusion by law enforcement into the electoral process.  

The seizure of ballots and election materials by law enforcement outside of clearly established laws and procedures undermines our democracy and the rule of law. Law enforcement actions like those taken in Riverside risk breaking chain of custody over ballots, endangering sensitive voter data and amplifying baseless claims, all of which undermine the freedom to vote.  

This seizure was conducted less than three months before California’s primary in June. Courts must send a clear signal to law enforcement agencies that efforts to disrupt elections will not go unchecked. The California Supreme Court must act now to ensure the timely return of these unlawfully seized ballots.

Texas’ Illegal Voter Purge Challenged by Lawsuit from Voting Rights Advocates

Date
Body

AUSTIN, Texas — On March 26, 2026, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) — on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Texas LULAC, LULAC Council 102, and Common Cause, as well as LULAC and Common Cause members — filed a lawsuit to stop an illegal voter purge program in Texas.

The state used the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to conduct this purge in a discriminatory and non-uniform way in violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Texas’ use of this system, without any investigation or further checks into even the state’s own records that could confirm these voters’ citizenship, puts voters at risk of being illegally purged from the voter rolls.

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

“Every American citizen should have the freedom to vote, including naturalized citizens.  

“Recently naturalized citizens are disproportionately targeted in this unlawful program that Texas has implemented because the data that the state is relying on from SAVE is often outdated and may still mark them as noncitizens. Texas has instructed counties to remove people without any further check or investigation, even though the state itself has data showing that many of these voters are U.S. citizens.

“Our elections have numerous safeguards in place that are regularly analyzed and updated to make sure only U.S. citizens participate. The court must stop Texas from continuing this voter purge and ensure that all voters can make their voices heard at the ballot box this year.”

Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of LULAC, issued the following statement:

"Texas’ decision to rely blindly on stale and unreliable data, without even cross-checking it with their own, puts the voting rights of countless Texans at risk.

“These actions are not only discriminatory, but a clear violation of the National Voter Registration Act. To comply with the law and to better serve their citizens, we are calling for an immediate end to this illegal voter purge program.”

Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, senior director of litigation at Common Cause, issued the following statement:

“We will not allow unlawful voter purges to become the new norm for our elections. What happens in Texas will not stay in Texas if these discriminatory tactics are left unchecked. Across the country, we will continue to defend Americans' fundamental right to vote, whether through legislation or litigation.”

Anthony Gutierrez, Common Cause Texas executive director, issued the following statement:

“Every Texas voter deserves to cast a ballot without fear of being wrongly targeted or removed from the rolls. When naturalized citizens are singled out, it not only creates barriers, but puts people’s voices at risk, both of which threaten trust in our system. No one should have to fear discrimination when they show up to vote, not in Texas, not anywhere in the U.S.”

Background: On October 21, 2025, the office of Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson sent a mass email to voter registrars and elections administrators to notify them that their office had begun “sending voter records to counties as part of a continuing process for identifying and removing non-United States citizens from the State’s voter rolls.” The email stated that the process was being conducted in accordance with the “Secretary of State’s Memorandum of Understanding with United States Citizenship Services (USCIS)” to compare state voter registration lists with USCIS’ SAVE system.

Of particular concern is the fact that Secretary Nelson’s office failed to cross-check data obtained from the SAVE system against any other data including the state’s own citizenship data through the Department of Public Safety before putting voter registrations on the chopping block. In addition, each county is handling the voter purge differently, creating a non-uniform application of the purge throughout the state.

On January 15, 2026, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Texas LULAC and LULAC Council 102, as well as their members, sent a notice letter to Secretary Nelson to notify her office of this violation. We filed this lawsuit after no attempt was made by Secretary Nelson’s office to remedy the violation.

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
Voting and Elections

Advocating for Government Transparency Regarding Immigration and Voting Policies (Campaign Legal Center v. U.S. Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and American Oversight (AO) filed a lawsuit on behalf of CLC to advocate for government transparency around two policies announced and expanded in 2025 that impact voters and visa holders.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
The Rule of Law
About This Case/Action

In 2025, the federal government quietly expanded two policies: A program that changes visa status based on social media posts the government disagrees with and a new policy that limits who can conduct voter registration at naturalization ceremonies.  

CLC and AO filed a lawsuit on behalf of CLC challenging the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failure to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents on these programs. CLC filed these FOIA requests in October 2025.

Despite legal deadlines, the agencies that received these FOIA requests have failed to produce the requested records or provide final determinations, forcing the groups to file suit.  

In June 2025, the federal government announced that it would begin reviewing the social media accounts of foreign citizens who apply for certain visas to enter the United States, for the purpose of altering — and in some cases revoking — the relevant visas if the individual had made a statement that could be perceived as expressing “hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”

In December 2025, the federal government expanded this social media vetting program to include additional types of visas.

USCIS also implemented a new rule prohibiting anyone other than state or local election officials from registering new voters at administrative naturalization ceremonies. Campaign Legal Center has already sued to block this policy.

The State Department and USCIS have not provided any documents in response to CLC’s FOIA requests, despite laws and deadlines that require them to do so.

Transparency is at the heart of a healthy democracy: CLC’s lawsuit seeks to compel the U.S. Department of State and USCIS to produce records that could shed light on how these policies are being implemented and the dangers they pose to fundamental rights and democratic participation.

The requested records could reveal how federal officials are evaluating individuals’ speech, what standards are being applied, whether there are safeguards to prevent abuse, and how the administration is limiting access to voter registration at the very moment many new citizens become eligible to participate in the democratic process.

Associated Cases & Actions

Defending Civic Engagement Groups Against Restrictions on Voter Registration at Naturalization Ceremonies (League of Women Voters of the United States et al. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al.)
Subscribe to