Washington, DC — Today, the League of Women Voters of New York State — represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (Brennan Center) — filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain the complete list of all registered voters in New York without proper basis and purpose. The DOJ is attempting to obtain voters’ sensitive data, including private information such as driver’s license numbers or partial Social Security numbers — data beyond what’s typically publicly available.

This filing comes on the heels of an earlier motion to intervene, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Maine in United States v. Bellows, et al., where the DOJ is seeking the same data regarding Maine voters.

"Maine elections are safe, secure, transparent, and accessible," said Jill Ward, president of the League of Women Voters of Maine. "The action initiated by the Department of Justice to access voter data would only serve to erode trust in the democratic process. It would needlessly compromise voter privacy and open the door to abuse of these sensitive records. We are committed to protecting Maine voters’ information and preserving the integrity of Maine elections."

“New Yorkers take pride in our state’s long commitment to fair and transparent elections,” said Erica Smitka, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New York State. “The Department of Justice’s attempt to collect sensitive voter data without cause undermines that trust and puts every voter’s personal information at risk. The League of Women Voters of New York is proud to stand up for voters—to protect their privacy and trust in the democratic process.”

“The Department of Justice should be protecting voters, not putting their personal information at risk,” said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters of the United States. “There is no justification for the federal government to demand access to sensitive voter data under the guise of election security. These actions erode public trust and undermine democracy. The League will always work to protect voters’ privacy and ensure every American can cast their ballot free from intimidation or misuse of their data.”

The DOJ has a responsibility to protect the freedom to vote, but its recent actions would infringe upon these freedoms. The DOJ’s improper overreach into state data at the behest of the Trump administration would not make our elections any safer or more secure. It could instead jeopardize voters’ personal information and discourage them from participating in the democratic process.

As recent reporting shows, this threat to voters is compounded by the potential for this requested information to be misused by other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration enforcement.

Our elections already have numerous safeguards in place to make sure only U.S. citizens participate — a responsibility that election officials take seriously.

“This overreach by the federal government is an attempt to seize personal information and take control over our elections when the Constitution gives the power to regulate and administer elections to the states or Congress,” said Brent Ferguson, director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “Voters should have confidence that their information is secure. Attempts by the DOJ to retrieve sensitive voter data are an attack on Americans’ privacy and freedoms, including the freedom to vote.”

“The DOJ’s demands for the voter files are one element of the Trump administration’s concerted effort to undermine American elections,” said Eileen O’Connor, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. “If its requests succeed, the department could amass a federal database of personal information about every registered voter in the country. The government could misuse this data to concoct more false claims about election fraud, target political opponents, or try to force states to remove voters from the rolls.”

Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can exercise their freedom to vote, and the League of Women Voters, Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center intend to work 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. 

Washington, DC — Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has published a new resource that tracks and analyzes specific instances in which President Donald Trump’s administration has rewarded big donors with benefits, exposing the overtly and unprecedentedly transactional nature of President Trump’s second term. This tracker is not only a valuable resource that catalogs the benefits the Trump administration has effectively put up for sale, but it also offers a full slate of political and legal solutions that demonstrate that this corruption is not just preventable, but reversible. 

CLC researchers and legal experts highlight and contextualize dozens of the most egregious instances of wealthy individuals, CEOs, corporations and foreign governments trading contributions and investments for huge political favors in return — including everything from dropped federal investigations to high-level political appointments. 

“Allowing money to dominate our political process creates a breeding ground for corruption. President Trump has repeatedly shown that those who financially support his interests will be rewarded in turn, while his administration ignores ethics requirements and serves his wealthy donors ahead of everyday Americans,” said Saurav Ghosh, director for federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “To help hold our elected officials accountable, Campaign Legal Center is highlighting the most egregious examples of pay-to-play corruption while explaining how these transactions are hurting the American public.” 

This resource is the first of its kind to offer a full picture of the pay-to-play corruption in the current administration. CLC will continue to update this tracker with the latest instances of these transactions as they occur. 

If you have any questions or would like to speak further to the team behind this project, do not hesitate to reach out. The tracker can be found here.

Washington, D.C. — Yesterday, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), alongside the League of Women Voters (LWV) and Common Cause, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, which urges the justices to uphold party coordinated spending limits in the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC case.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is challenging critical, long-standing limits on how much money political parties can spend in “coordination” with federal candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld these limits in 2001 as an important barrier to preventing donors from funneling massive amounts of funds to the candidates of their choosing through political parties.

A key principle of campaign finance law, reinforced by the Court, is that an expenditure that is “coordinated” with a candidate is functionally the same as a contribution given directly to the candidate. Therefore, limits on both are important to preventing quid pro quo corruption in our federal elections.

“For over 50 years, party coordinated spending limits have been integral to reducing the corruptive impact of large contributions moving through party committees to candidates and potentially facilitating quid pro quo exchanges between donors and candidates,” said Tara Malloy, senior litigation strategist at Campaign Legal Center. “As the amount of money being raised and spent in elections continues to rise and break records — and campaign finance violations remain unchecked due to poor enforcement of the law by the Federal Election Commission — it is crucial that the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of federal limits.”

“What’s at stake in this case is the very integrity of our elections," said Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters. “Lifting limits on coordinated party spending would open the door to more corruption that ultimately allows big money to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. In a time when money already plays an outsized role in our politics, removing this safeguard would be yet another step towards total deregulation of campaign finance. The League proudly supports this limit as a crucial protection for fair and accountable elections.”

"The size of your wallet should never determine the size of your voice in an election about the future," said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of Policy and Litigation at Common Cause. "When big money flows unchecked in our politics, everyday people suffer. Spending limits are the last line of defense to prevent our elections from becoming auctioned to the highest bidder."

CLC first filed an amicus brief with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in support of federal limits back in 2024 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court upheld these limits last year.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether to maintain its own 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee — known as the “Colorado II” decision — that affirmed the constitutionality of these limits. At that time, the Court expressed concern that removing these limits would provide donors with the opportunity to bypass individual contribution limits by funneling larger sums through the parties in order to buy influence with candidates and officeholders. 

Voters need to have confidence that wealthy special interests cannot simply buy influence and political favors by routing big contributions through political parties. Our nation’s highest court should affirm the limits on coordinated spending by political parties in order to protect our democracy.

Follow the latest updates on our efforts to defend spending limits through this case page.

###

The nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center (CLC) 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.

Tomorrow, the Trump administration plans to end funding for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, an independent entity within the executive branch created by bipartisan support tasked with overseeing 72 inspectors general across the government.  

In response to yet another drastic move by the Trump administration to undercut ethics enforcement, Kedric Payne — senior vice president, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center — released the following statement:

“In the Trump administration’s latest move to tear down ethics guardrails and allow unchecked corruption, it is now dismantling one of the last truly independent ethics enforcement mechanisms.

“Inspectors general exist to protect taxpayer money by rooting out corruption, fraud, waste and mismanagement. Across party lines and throughout the country, Americans want a government that is transparent and held to high ethical standards.

“Without this accountability, members of the executive branch apparently have no one to answer to but the president. The public was only made aware of numerous ethics violations in President Trump’s first term through IG investigations into at least eight of his appointees and Cabinet secretaries.  

“This is not just another violation of ethics norms — it is a blatant attack on the very idea of a government accountable to the people it serves. Each quiet move the government makes to chip away at ethics enforcement is a foothold for corruption to grow during this administration and beyond.

“The Office of Management and Budget must listen to bipartisan calls to fund the Council of the Inspectors General and refute any attempt to weaken our rule of law.”

###

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. 

SALT LAKE CITY, U.T. — Today, Utah’s Supreme Court rejected a stay request from the Utah state legislature to pause the drawing of a fair congressional map. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWV Utah), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and individual Utah voters, challenged the Utah state legislature’s repeal of Proposition 4, or Prop 4 — a ballot initiative passed by Utah voters that aimed to prohibit partisan gerrymandering by establishing the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission and creating fair, neutral criteria and procedures for adopting district maps. 

The Utah state trial court ruled that not only was the repeal of Prop 4 unconstitutional, but the current gerrymandered congressional map passed by the legislature may not be used in future elections. A new map that complies with Prop 4’s neutral criteria must now be drawn and used for the 2026 election. 

Mark Gaber, senior redistricting director for CLC, issued the following statement in response to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision: 

“Fair voting maps are essential for ensuring that every voter has an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Today’s decision affirms that in America, voters should choose their politicians — not the other way around. 

“The plaintiffs that we represented in this case have been working for nearly a decade to have an independent redistricting process. 

“It was Utahns across the political spectrum who initially formed a citizen initiative, known as Proposition 4, working to ensure that they have the right to choose their elected representatives. Despite challenges from their own state legislature, the Utah Supreme Court has affirmed that Utahns have the right to vote under fair maps.

“Campaign Legal Center will keep fighting in Utah and nationwide to ensure that all voters can participate equally in the political processes directly impacting their lives.”

Follow the latest updates on this lawsuit through our 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.