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

Campaign Legal Center and Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) Challenge Laws in Louisiana that Disenfranchise First-Time Voters in Jail

Date
Body

EAST BATON ROUGE, La. — On Thursday, December 11, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) and an incarcerated first-time voter, filed a lawsuit challenging contradictory Louisiana laws that deny ballot access for first-time voters in jail, despite explicit constitutional protections guaranteeing them the right to vote.
Under the Louisiana Constitution, every eligible voter has the right to cast a ballot. That includes people in jail who are awaiting trial and presumed legally innocent, as well as those serving sentences for misdemeanor convictions that do not affect their voting rights. But Louisiana’s conflicting laws make that constitutional promise impossible to fulfill.

Here’s the issue:

  • One set of state laws requires first-time voters to cast a ballot in person.
  • Another set of state laws requires voters in jail to vote absentee.
  • The combination of these laws means that first-time voters in jail have no way to cast a ballot.

This is an impossible bind. First-time voters in jail can’t vote in person, and they can’t vote absentee. They are locked out entirely.

Louisiana’s first-time voting requirement is not unique to jailed voters. Many other people may struggle to vote in person, like those with disabilities or students away at college. The law allows for these individuals to vote absentee for the first time if they provide paperwork showing their identity and the reason why they can’t vote in person. But there’s no such exception for jailed voters, even though the sheriff can verify their identity and incarceration status.

“Most folks don’t even know they still have the right to vote if they are in jail. Once they find out they’re eligible, they take the effort to be a civically engaged citizen because they want to be part of their community, and they want their voice heard,” said Checo Yancy, policy director at VOTE, who has organized registration drives attended by over 100 people in East Baton Rouge Parish Prison (Jail). “The men and women in the jail are excited to vote in elections that impact them, but then Louisiana blocks them if it’s their first time voting. That makes no sense. It should not be this hard for people who are eligible and trying to do the right thing.”

“When we talk about voting rights for people in jail, we’re talking about real people in our communities who want to participate and are being denied because the state won’t fix a problem it has known about for years,” explains Norris Henderson, executive director at VOTE. “Louisiana’s Constitution is clear: if you’re eligible to vote, you have the right to vote. But first-time voters in jail have no way to cast a ballot. This lawsuit is about making Louisiana keep its word and treating every voter with dignity. Democracy doesn’t stop at the jailhouse door.”

“The Louisiana Constitution is clear that all eligible voters have a right to exercise their freedom to vote, but Louisianans in jail who are voting for the first time have no avenue to do so,” said Kate Uyeda, legal counsel for voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “Restricting access to the ballot denies voters the ability to make their voices heard. Campaign Legal Center and VOTE will be working to close this loophole because our democracy works best when everyone can participate.”

Louisiana should advance a democracy that includes all eligible voters, not one that systematically excludes people based on their circumstances. The Louisiana Constitution already affirms this principle; now the state must live up to it.

Follow the latest updates on this lawsuit 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

Challenging Louisiana’s Illegal Barriers for First Time Voters in Jail

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing Voice of the Experienced (VOTE) and an incarcerated first-time voter in a case challenging laws which bar eligible, first-time voters in East Baton Rouge jail from voting. 

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

In Louisiana, a set of conflicting state laws operate together to completely bar certain first-time voters in jail from voting, even though they are totally eligible. One set of laws requires individuals voting for the first time to cast their ballots in person. Another set of laws require voters in jail to vote absentee and prohibit polling places in jails.

Because of these laws, first-time voters in jail face a Catch-22. They can’t vote absentee because they are first-time voters, but also can't vote in-person because they are incarcerated.

VOTE regularly conducts voter registration drives. However, many voters are caught in this Catch-22 and will be denied their right to vote in upcoming elections.

These laws also undermine VOTE’s ability to achieve its mission of engaging with and mobilizing as many eligible justice-impacted voters as possible to ensure that this constituency’s voice is heard and that the government is responsive to it.  

CLC filed the lawsuit in state court in partnership with Louisiana attorneys William Most and Bill Quigley. 

Campaign Legal Center Releases Report on Threats Facing State Ethics Commissions in 2025

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has released a new report, “Threat Assessment 2025: Risks and Challenges Facing State Ethics Commissions,” which takes a close look at the patterns of threats mounted against these agencies by lawmakers and others seeking to impede their mission, diminish their authority or dismantle the commission. Continuing a CLC analysis from previous years, this report offers considerations on how state commissions can best prepare for predicted threats to their work.

Our 2025 report covers findings on the latest trends of threats against state ethics commissions, identifying three major types of threats nationwide:

  • Enforcement power threats: attempts to limit the ability of ethics commissions to investigate or penalize violations of law within their jurisdiction;  
  • Subject matter jurisdiction threats: attempts to limit the kinds of laws ethics commissions can administer and enforce, leading to less transparency and oversight; and
  • Existential threats: attempts to completely strip ethics commissions of their power altogether.

“For over 50 years, state ethics commissions have functioned on an independent and nonpartisan basis to administer and enforce ethics laws. Ongoing threats against them not only risk undermining the mission of these entities, but also risk making our democracy less transparent and accountable to the public,” said Delaney Marsco, director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Despite these challenges, state ethics commissions have the opportunity to enforce their authority by consistently and reliably performing their mission, which helps to uphold the integrity of government institutions nationwide.”

This report is the fifth in CLC’s annual report series designed to promote the successes of state and local government ethics offices, following 2021’s “Top Ten Transparency Upgrades for Ethics Commissions,” 2022’s “Top Ten Enforcement Upgrades for Ethics Commissions,” 2023’s “Top Ten Training Upgrades for Ethics Commissions" and last year’s "Threat Assessment 2024: Risks and Challenges Facing Ethics Commissions.”

Read CLC’s 2025 Ethics Commission Report

###

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

Campaign Legal Center, League of Women Voters Sue USCIS, DHS and Other Federal Officials Over Voter Registration Ban at Administrative Naturalization Ceremonies

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Today, the League of Women Voters (LWV) and five state and local Leagues (the League) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal officials for enacting — abruptly and without following required process — a new rule that bars nonpartisan civic engagement groups from providing voter registration and promoting civic engagement to new U.S. citizens at administrative naturalization ceremonies. The League is represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC).

The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan, grassroots, membership-based civic engagement group that has long exercised its constitutionally protected right to engage new Americans in registering to vote at administrative naturalization ceremonies. This joyful event is a core part of the League’s mission to empower voters and defend democracy. But a new USCIS rule announced in August 2025 reversed prior policy and now allows only government officials to provide voter registration to new citizens after certain naturalization ceremonies.

The League is suing USCIS, DHS and other federal officials for violating the First Amendment rights of the national League of Women Voters and state and local Leagues to engage in political speech and activities, and also for failing to adhere to provisions in the Administrative Procedure Act that require federal agencies to follow clearly defined and transparent procedures when adopting new policies, in order to avoid harming Americans.

“Purposely excluding groups like the League from administrative naturalization ceremonies is a deliberate move by this administration to deny new citizens access to the democratic process and attack the League’s very mission to register and support new voters,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States. “For decades, the League has been a fixture at naturalization ceremonies across the country, helping new Americans register to vote on the first day of their citizenship. Blocking our work with a sudden rule change is a direct attempt to prevent new voter registrations and blocks us from doing our critical work to provide new Americans the guidance and support they need to fully participate in civic life. The League will not be silenced.”

To read quotes from the individual state and local League plaintiffs, click here.

“Our democracy is strongest when every voter can participate easily and without barriers. Nonpartisan civic engagement groups like the League of Women Voters fill a critical public need by helping newly naturalized citizens access and exercise their freedom to vote,” said Alexandra Copper, legal counsel for strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “The federal government’s attempts to limit these groups’ efforts are a direct attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to participate in our political process. Civic-minded organizations and their members and volunteers who help Americans register to vote should not be targeted and punished, but instead should be supported and celebrated.”

The League of Women Voters has, over the course of decades, registered hundreds of thousands of new U.S. citizens to vote after naturalization ceremonies nationwide. As a result of USCIS’s rule change, however, state and local Leagues have already been forced to cancel at least 166 planned voter registration events, where League members and volunteers expected to register approximately 10,000 new voters.

Campaign Legal Center has litigated to protect the work of nonpartisan civic engagement groups in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri and Montana, and it is ready to defend the right of the League of Women Voters to assist new citizens in registering to vote.

Follow the latest updates on this lawsuit via CLC’s case page or the League’s legal center.

###

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
Subscribe to