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

Win for Oregonians: Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking to Seize Private Voter Data

Date
Body

EUGENE, Ore. — On January 26, 2026, a federal judge dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit seeking Oregon’s complete voter rolls, which contain Oregon voters’ private information. States, not the federal government, administer elections, including ensuring their voter rolls are up to date. Campaign Legal Center, alongside the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the ACLU, submitted an amicus brief in November 2025 on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Oregon and the ACLU of Oregon arguing that the DOJ’s actions undermine the freedom to vote and voter privacy.

“This is a clear victory for Oregon voters and for the principle that our personal information should not be treated as a federal free-for-all,” said Mark Kendall, president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon. “The court’s decision affirms Oregon’s strong privacy protections and sends an important message: Safeguarding voters’ private data is essential to maintaining trust in our democratic system. The League is proud to stand with Oregonians in defending these rights.”

“This ruling reinforces a fundamental principle for voters everywhere: Our democracy depends on protecting people’s personal information from unnecessary government intrusion,” said Caren Short, director of Legal and Research for the League of Women Voters. “By rejecting this attempt to compel states to hand over sensitive voter data, the court affirmed that voter privacy is not optional and cannot be overridden by federal overreach. The League is involved in several similar cases around the country and will continue to fight to protect voters, their data and our democracy.”

"Protecting the freedom to vote also means protecting voters from unnecessary government intrusion into their private lives,” said Theresa J. Lee, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “Voters participate when they feel safe, respected and protected, and this decision affirms that voter privacy is not negotiable. While the DOJ continues to attack voter privacy, we'll be defending it at every turn."

“This decision is a win for the rule of law, our constitutional structure and, most importantly, Oregonians,” said Brent Ferguson, director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The DOJ should be working to enforce hard-fought voter protections, not trying to abuse its power to force states to hand over the sensitive and personal information of their voters. Recent actions by the DOJ endanger Americans’ freedom to vote and trample on election processes entrusted to the states. This victory affirms the power of Oregon and other states across the country to regulate and administer their own elections without improper overreach by the executive branch.”

“The dismissal of the Justice Department’s case is a victory for Oregon voters’ privacy and for free and fair elections,” said Eileen O’Connor, former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and Brennan Center senior counsel. “States administer their elections, not the federal government.”

Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can meaningfully exercise their freedom to vote, and Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of Oregon, ACLU of Oregon, and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law are working together to protect that freedom.

###

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

New: Maurene Comey’s Dismissal Threatens First Amendment Rights for all Civil Servants, CLC Argues in Brief

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of Michael Feinberg and Justice Connection, filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a case brought by former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey claiming President Donald Trump ordered her dismissal because James Comey, former FBI director, is her father.

Ordering the removal of Comey because of her perceived political beliefs and familial connections, as CLC argues in our brief, is a clear act of unlawful retribution that violates her First Amendment rights and threatens the rights of more than two million civil servants working in the government. Civil servants must be free to hold and express political opinions without fear of reprisal, and political alliance with the president cannot be a requirement for public service.

"President Trump’s relentless attempts to politicize the federal workforce have reached new heights with yet another high-profile dismissal meant to instill fear and compliance across the federal workforce," said Danielle Lang, vice president for voting rights and rule of law at Campaign Legal Center. "Firing an accomplished civil servant for the crime of being related to a political adversary is a gross violation of the First Amendment. It is crucial that the court steps in with expediency and calls this firing what it is — unlawful political retribution."

Comey seeks to have her case heard by a federal court rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), arguing that the MSPB is no longer independent from the president, as it was designed to be, and cannot give her a fair trial. As CLC argues, the federal courts have a duty and responsibility to protect civil servants from gross abuses of executive power.

"No civil servant should be fired because of who they associate with — whether it be their father or a friend," said Stacey Young, executive director and founder of Justice Connection. "Congress recognized nearly 150 years ago that government tasks were too important to be performed by loyalists. The law states that hiring, promotions and terminations should be based on merit — not sycophancy to political leadership."

"Apolitical public servants are a necessary precondition for the rule of law in our nation, and this is particularly true in those agencies which have the power to investigate the citizenry and, at times, charge and convict them of crimes," said Michael Feinberg, former FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge. "I am hopeful that our judicial system will recognize this in Ms. Comey’s case, and begin to restore a sense of normalcy to our civil service procedures."

The administration is attempting to deprive Comey of her day in court and argue that her case must be adjudicated by the compromised MSPB. The District Court should swiftly rule on this case and uphold First Amendment protections for civil servants as a fundamental principle of nonpartisan, representative government.

Follow the latest updates on this amicus brief via Campaign Legal Center’s case page.

Learn more about presidential overreach and the politicization of the federal workforce 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.

Issues
Ethics

Fighting for a Civil Service Free from Partisan Retaliation (Comey v. Department of Justice)

At a Glance

Maurene Comey was a prosecutor for the federal government. In July 2025, she was fired, seemingly because her father is James Comey, former director of the FBI and a vocal critic of the Trump administration. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in support of Comey’s case to return to her job, emphasizing the need to reject this scheme of political retribution and protect the First Amendment freedoms of civil servants. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

Maurene Comey prosecuted some of the most high-profile cases in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in recent years. She routinely received “Outstanding” performance evaluations and capably served as a nonpartisan civil servant. Nevertheless, without any performance-related justification or explanation, she was fired in July 2025.

Comey’s termination seemingly was politically motivated and intended to serve as retaliation against her father, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration. Congress has long protected civil servants from discrimination based on partisan affiliation and disciplinary actions based on employees’ speech or association outside of work.  

Comey sued the federal government seeking reinstatement to her position as a federal prosecutor. CLC, representing Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, filed an amicus brief in support of Comey’s case.  

Our clients, Justice Connection and Michael Feinberg, are committed advocates for the faithful, ethical and nonpartisan enforcement of federal law, and they have been important voices sounding the alarm on abuses of power within the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ).  

Justice Connection is composed of past DOJ employees concerned with the DOJ’s willingness to serve as a vehicle for unlawful political retribution.  

Michael Feinberg was an assistant special agent in charge with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In June 2025, Feinberg was informed he would not receive a promotion, and likely be demoted from his position at the bureau, seemingly because he maintained a private friendship with a former FBI colleague who FBI Director Kash Patel and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino deemed a political “enemy.”

In our amicus brief, CLC argues the district court should immediately decide Comey’s case to prevent a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of other civil servants, whether through associating with a friend or family member with outspoken political views or speaking out about important civic issues in their private lives.

Typically, civil servants must challenge their removals before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an adjudicatory body designed by Congress intended to be a “vigorous protector” of nonpartisanship and fairness in government employment policy. 

The Trump administration, however, has undermined the independence of the MSPB as an unbiased decisionmaker in numerous ways. The Trump administration wants to force civil servants to bring their cases of unlawful removals to the now-biased MSPB before they can get their day in court. CLC’s brief argues that the delay, expense and unfairness of the MSPB process would harm not only Comey, but other civil servants who are left to wonder whether any protection will be provided by the courts to stop such abuses of state power.

CLC’s brief argues that, when considering their jurisdiction over First Amendment cases, courts often consider harm to parties beyond the case. In the matter at hand, the consequences of Comey’s firing on the free speech rights of all civil servants is clear justification for swift intervention and ruling by the court.  

CLC Urges Return to Bipartisanship to Ban Congressional Stock Trading

Date
Body

Today, Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives announced new legislation that dramatically weakens a bipartisan, consensus proposal to prohibit members of Congress and their families from trading individual stocks. While this new legislation would stop lawmakers from buying additional stocks, it would fall short by allowing them to keep or sell the assets they already own — and retain the profits. It also would not prevent members of Congress from voting or acting in ways that benefit their existing holdings.  

Last month, House Democrats also jeopardized the bipartisan compromise on stock trading by introducing a separate proposal that does not have enough support to become law. That bill would have included the president and vice president in the stock trading ban.  

Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“Any legislation that allows lawmakers to hold onto their existing stocks is too narrow to address Americans’ real concern that elected lawmakers may make official decisions to benefit their pocketbooks instead of the public good. A bill that also bans trading by the president and vice president, meanwhile, is too broad because it undermines the chances of passing the reform voters care most about: stock trading by members of Congress.  

“Thankfully, there is a proposal on the table that strikes the balance for this moment: the Restore Trust in Congress Act. This consensus legislation was crafted during months of negotiations by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. It has more than enough support to pass, and it would make a significant improvement to our nation’s government ethics laws. Campaign Legal Center calls on Congress to return its focus to this bipartisan bill and set an example for the other branches of our government.”

###

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