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

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.

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

The Rule of Law

Hero
Issues
The Constitution guarantees the American people a system of government where each branch of government respects the powers and authority of the others and no one is above the law. We must preserve the guardrails that hold our government accountable.
Blindfolded Lady Justice holds scales over U.S. historical documents, including the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, symbolizing law and fairness.
Intro
Content

The Latest on The Rule of Law

Ultra Featured Article
Super Featured Article
CLC's Award-Winning Podcast

Featured Video

Recent Rule of Law Cases and Actions