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: Section of Anti-Voter Executive Order Permanently Halted in Court

Date
Body

Washington, DC — Today, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted our motion for summary judgment and issued an injunction that permanently halts the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from implementing Section 2(a) of the president’s March 25, 2025 executive order, which ordered the EAC to add a documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) requirement to the National Mail Voter Registration Form. 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 EAC from taking any action to implement Section 2(a) of President Trump’s anti-voter executive order. In its opinion, the court held that Section 2(a) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.  

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:  

“This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress — not the president — the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections. We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections.”

Follow our action against the administration’s unlawful executive order. Read more about our lawsuit.

###

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.

Lawsuit Filed Against Trump Administration for Concealing Records About Shadowy Voter Data Maintenance Efforts

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, American Oversight and Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed suit against the Trump administration for failing to release records about new federal voter data maintenance efforts, including the Department of Homeland Security’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which has evolved into a federal voter data system using various sources to flag potential noncitizens on state voter rolls — changes that could be used to justify large-scale voter purges and disenfranchise eligible voters. To date, the Trump administration has provided no explanation of how the system operates or what safeguards exist to protect Americans’ voter information from improper use. 

The set of three lawsuits seek to compel the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release emails and related records that could shed light on how the administration is using federal data systems to verify the citizenship of those on state voter rolls. The records could also reveal how agencies are coordinating to build or operate a shared voter-maintenance database. 

“The Trump administration has quietly built a federal voter-roll program that could strip power from the states and silence millions of voters, yet it has offered virtually no explanation for how the system operates or how they will safeguard voters’ rights and protect the integrity of future elections. Given this administration’s record of weaponizing federal agencies to advance false claims of voter fraud, the public has every reason to be concerned,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight. “The impact will fall hardest on those already forced to fight for access to the ballot — Black, brown, immigrant, low-income, disabled, and young voters — under the false banner of ‘fraud prevention.’ The public has a right to know what this system is, what data is being used, and whether proper safeguards are in place to protect voters. Transparency is essential to protecting the integrity of our elections and combating dangerous voter fraud conspiracies intended to disenfranchise marginalized communities.” 

"Federal agencies appear to be collecting and sharing the highly sensitive personal information of millions of Americans with little to no public oversight or clarity into their purpose, and under the guise of so-called 'voter roll maintenance,’ which is a function entrusted to the states," said Jonathan Diaz, Director of Voting Advocacy and Partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. "These efforts are part of a troubling pattern of actions by the Trump administration to insert the executive branch into election processes that the Constitution assigns to Congress and the states, which could undermine Americans' freedom to vote. We will keep pushing for the federal government to be transparent on where this data is coming from and how it is being used so that every voter can vote with confidence that their voice will be heard in our elections.” 

Louisiana was the first to use a new federal system to check the citizenship status of registered voters. However, Louisiana officials have reported that the system flagged just 79 instances of voting by suspected noncitizens in at least one election since the 1980s — a figure that represents only 0.0027 percent of the state’s 2.9 million registered voters, and may include some individuals who are in fact eligible to vote. 

The lawsuit asks the court to order DHS, USCIS, and SSA to release all nonexempt, responsive records, including communications with DOGE and state election officials, contracts with outside entities, and any guidance or training materials related to implementation of the program. 

Since returning to the White House, Trump has repeatedly used federal power to influence the 2026 midterm election cycle. With a history of punishing states that refuse to do his bidding, he has publicly pressed states to redraw congressional maps ahead of the midterms, intervening directly in the redistricting process in states like Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina to lock in additional Republican seats rather than wait for the usual post-census period. 

Additionally, Trump ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate ActBlue, the main online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates, while ignoring its GOP counterpart, WinRed. The DOJ has also demanded detailed voter registration data from states, threatening legal action against some Democratic-led states that have not complied. Furthermore, Trump has also indicated he will sign an executive order outlawing voting machines and mail-in ballots, despite courts blocking his earlier executive actions that sought to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

League of Women Voters of Michigan Seeks to Protect Voters in Justice Department Lawsuit to Obtain State Rolls

Date
Body

Washington, DC — The League of Women Voters of Michigan, represented by Campaign Legal Center, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, and the Michigan law firm Goodman Acker, filed a motion late yesterday to intervene on behalf of voters in U.S. v. Benson, a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Michigan for failing to comply with the department’s demand for the state’s complete voter file. The Department of Justice hasn’t provided a sufficient justification for seeking this data, which includes sensitive information such as driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. 

The League of Women Voters of Maine and the League of Women Voters of New York State recently filed motions to intervene in similar cases brought by the Department of Justice against their states. Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice represented them. The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, League of Women Voters of Minnesota, and League of Women Voters of California also filed motions to intervene in similar cases brought by the Department of Justice. 

The organizations commented on yesterday's motion, filed in the U.S. Western District Court of Michigan, as follows:

“Our democracy works best when every voter has a chance to participate in the electoral process. The Justice Department’s efforts to access voter data from states nationwide, including Michigan, is an act of federal overreach that risks violating voters’ privacy and potentially disincentivizing people from casting ballots. The Constitution is clear that the states and Congress have the power to administer and regulate elections. We will keep fighting to protect Americans from the Trump administration’s attempts to limit the freedom to vote.” — Brent Ferguson, Director of Strategic Litigation, Campaign Legal Center. 

“We will not stand by while a federal fishing expedition puts the information of millions of Michiganders at risk and encourages voter intimidation. There is no reason for the federal government to seize control of voter data that they do not need and have no right to possess. We are seeking to intervene to send a clear message to the administration and voters: we will fight to protect our members’ and voters’ data from unlawful seizure. We are proud to stand with our partners in defending the integrity of our democracy.” — Lynne Kochmanski, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Michigan. 

"The Department of Justice’s relentless crusade to demand sensitive voter data from states, now landing in Michigan, is a flagrant power grab that tramples critical voter privacy laws and undermines the trust in our democratic processes. The League has already sought to intervene in five other cases, and we will not back down until we ensure that Michigan’s voter files remain shielded from political interference. No voter deserves to be intimidated by their own government.” — Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States. 

“The Justice Department’s case against Michigan is part of an effort to collect voter files — including drivers’ license and social security numbers — from every state. This push is part of the administration’s campaign to undermine our elections. The department may manipulate the data in service of false claims about our elections or to pressure states to remove eligible voters from the rolls. The states have been protecting voters’ personal information and running reliable elections for decades and decades. Yet the federal government is now trying to amass a trove of sensitive information about American voters that would put their privacy at risk.” — Eileen O’Connor, senior counsel, Brennan Center for Justice.

###

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.

DDF and CLC Demand Investigations into Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Concerns Grow

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. — Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) and Campaign Legal Center (CLC) are demanding the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) launch investigations into Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s continued failure to divest from numerous financial holdings, including his financial stake in High Plains LLP, which reportedly holds up to $25 million in North Dakota farmland. Because Secretary Bessent is making policy decisions that could affect these holdings, this is a clear and unacceptable conflict of interest.

Over the past several weeks, it has become clear that Secretary Bessent has been deeply involved with bilateral trade negotiations and tariff decisions involving China that affect the value of soybeans, one of the primary crops produced by High Plains LLP, meaning that Secretary Bessent could be financially benefiting from his insider knowledge and direction.

“Secretary Bessent has himself admitted, on national television no less, that he has a significant financial interest in decisions affecting soybean prices through his ownership of High Plains LLP,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anti-corruption at Democracy Defenders Fund. “But the law is clear. Federal officials can’t participate in decisions in which they have a financial interest. Treasury OIG must take action immediately to address the blatant corruption.”

Before his confirmation, Bessent pledged to Treasury ethics officials that he would divest at least two dozen assets within 90 days of assuming office to avoid violating ethics rules, but he has yet to provide documentation showing he has done so, the DDF and CLC complaint noted. When he failed to meet that deadline, DDF and CLC called the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and OIG to investigate Secretary Bessent’s apparent failure to comply with his ethics agreement and subsequently filed a formal complaint.

“Secretary Bessent initially agreed to end his ownership stake in High Plains LLP because of the conflicts of interest — yet he continues to hold that stake while apparently participating in decision-making that could impact its value,” said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Executive branch officials are required by law to take immediate action to either recuse themselves from the matter at hand or divest from their personal holdings if a conflict of interest arises. An investigation is needed to determine whether Secretary Bessent’s public work in trade negotiations that could directly impact his assets is an attempt to enrich himself."

Executive branch officials hold some of the most powerful positions in government, and it is their responsibility to prioritize the best interests of the American people, not their own personal interests. DDF and CLC call on OIG to promptly initiate a thorough investigation into whether or not Bessent violated the law and release a report on their findings.

Read the full letter 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

Defending Nonpartisanship in the Civil Service (American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Department of Education)

At a Glance

At the start of the 2025 government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) altered employees’ “out-of-office” email autoreply messages to include explicitly partisan language without their consent. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in support of the employees, emphasizing the importance of a nonpartisan civil service in ensuring trust in our government. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
About This Case/Action

When U.S. Department of Education (DOE) employees were told to stop working during the 2025 government shutdown, they set out-of-office messages to inform anyone who contacted them via email that they would not be able to respond during the duration of the shutdown. Without the employees’ knowledge or consent, leadership at DOE changed employees’ individual out-of-office messages to include partisan talking points criticizing the Trump administration’s political opponents.

These DOE employees objected to the co-opting of their individual email accounts for the purposes of partisan politics. The employees’ union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), represented by Public Citizen and Democracy Forward, sued DOE to restore the email messages to their original, nonpartisan form.

Congress requires government employees to act in a nonpartisan manner while on the job. For example, in 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act to prohibit federal employees from engaging in certain partisan political activities during their public service. CLC has filed multiple complaints against Trump administration officials for violations of the Hatch Act in Trump’s first term. Laws like the Hatch Act help the government to work effectively and bolster public trust in institutions by ensuring that civil servants are hired based on merit and not on partisan favors.

Civil servants carry out the everyday tasks of government. These include actions like processing Social Security payments, making sure our nation’s airports are safe and measuring air and water pollution. The nuts-and-bolts of governing done by civil servants prioritizes service to all the American people, not advancing a partisan agenda.  

CLC filed an amicus brief explaining the importance of nonpartisanship in the civil service. CLC’s brief explains that the rules banning partisan activity on the job came into existence because a corrupt “spoils” system had emerged, where the only way to get a government job was to perform political favors for powerful officials.  

Norms of nonpartisanship in the civil service are decades old. However, the Trump administration has repeatedly ignored the basic idea that official government resources should not be aimed at affecting the outcome of partisan elections. The DOE’s recent action politicizing its employees’ official emails without their consent erodes this important cornerstone of nonpartisanship.

In our brief, CLC argues that the Hatch Act and related laws establish that nonpartisanship is a cornerstone of the civil service, and, as such, partisan politics cannot be a part of a civil servant’s official duties. And forcing a civil servant to engage in political speech against their will violates the civil servant’s right to engage in the First Amendment speech of their choosing in their private life. Therefore, CLC argues that the Trump administration’s actions violated the employees’ First Amendment rights to free speech.

CLC urges the court to require the Trump administration to remove these partisan out-of-office messages from the accounts of Department of Education employees. 

The FEC Can Still Hold George Santos Accountable

Date
Body

On October 23, 2025, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sent a letter to Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioners Shana Broussard and Dara Lindenbaum urging them to hold former Rep. George Santos accountable for his brazen, admitted violations of federal campaign finance laws.

As an independent agency, the FEC has civil enforcement authority to pursue violations of federal campaign finance laws. In light of President Donald Trump's commutation of Santos’ criminal sentence, the FEC can still fulfill its duty and provide accountability in this matter.

Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement:

Commuting the sentence and restitution obligations of former Rep. George Santos — who was expelled from Congress, convicted of defrauding his campaign donors, sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay more than $370,000 in restitution to the people he defrauded — undermines government accountability and threatens to further erode public confidence in our democracy.

"Despite President Trump’s commutation, the Federal Election Commission, as an independent agency capable of enforcing civil complaints, can still hold him accountable. By enforcing federal campaign finance laws, as outlined in CLC's 2023 complaint against Santos, the FEC can show voters and the public at large that there are consequences for candidates who enrich themselves at the public’s expense.”

Challenging the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Voter Data Collection

At a Glance

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a responsibility to protect Americans’ freedom to vote, but recent actions by the DOJ are instead endangering these freedoms by attempting to seize sensitive voter information from states in what is an improper overreach by the federal government. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

Despite its limited role of enforcing federal election laws in elections, the U.S. Department of Justice has demanded expansive voter information from at least 39 states. DOJ is now attempting to use the federal courts to require states to comply with those unlawful demands, by suing eight states for personal, private voter data.  

DOJ is not investigating specific potential violations of the law, but rather, is attempting an extraordinary expansion of federal collection of sensitive voter data, without adhering to state and federal protections for voters’ data or respect for the state’s primary role in election administration.

The U.S. Constitution clearly gives the power to regulate and administer elections to the states or Congress, not the executive branch. These actions by DOJ trample on our government’s separation of powers and system of federalism.

Campaign Legal Center filed motions to intervene in two of these cases on behalf of the League of Women Voters chapters in Maine and New York, to push back on this unlawful federal encroachment and protect sensitive voter data.