WASHINGTON, D.C. – Brendan Fischer, director federal reform, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), released the following statement in response to the announcement of a FBI investigation into Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s fundraising activities following a complaint filed by CLC with the Federal Election Commission (FEC):

“Last year, CLC uncovered several instances between 2015 and 2018 where DeJoy employees and DeJoy family members contributed to the same candidate or committee during the same period of time, often in similar amounts. The individual political contributions in question were then allegedly reimbursed by the company in the form of bonuses. The Washington Post had earlier reported that, through 2014, there was a similar scheme in place and former employees at DeJoy’s company also allegedly received bonuses as reimbursement for their political contributions, but the activities arguably fell outside of the 5-year statute of limitations.

Louis DeJoy's reimbursement scheme disguised the true source of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions, which denied voters the right to know who is giving money to influence their vote and our government. These are serious violations, and we are pleased that CLC's research and complaint triggered the Department of Justice to investigate.

However, this is yet another example of the Department of Justice taking the lead on investigating campaign finance violations, rather than the FEC, the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of political campaigns.  

This is the second reported FBI investigation apparently triggered by a CLC complaint in recent weeks. The FBI is also investigating a defense contractor's illegal contribution to a super PAC that supported Susan Collins' election, following a 2020 CLC complaint. We need a stronger FEC to enforce campaign finance laws and hold political candidates and their donors accountable.”

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

KANSAS CITY – Today, two voting organizations filed suit today in federal court in Kansas against Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe to block anti-voter provisions in HB 2332. The lawsuit, filed by VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center, two nonprofit charitable organizations focused on encouraging voters to vote by mail, seeks to block enforcement of a new law restricting the distribution of mail ballot applications to voters in the state.

Earlier this year, the Kansas Legislature overrode the Governor’s veto and passed HB 2332, an omnibus elections bill that prohibits out-of-state entities from mailing advance mail ballot applications to any voter in the state, in violation of the organizations’ ability to engage in voter engagement efforts that constitutes core political speech under the First Amendment. HB 2332 also criminalizes the mailing of advance mail ballot applications personalized with the voter’s name, address and other information, even if the voter provided that information and specifically requested an advance mail ballot application. Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Lathrop GPM LLP are representing VoteAmerica and the Voter Participation Center.

“Kansas’s new law is the latest in a nationwide trend by state legislatures moving to restrict the freedom to vote,” said Paul Smith, Vice President for Litigation and Strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “Beyond just targeting voters, however, laws like HB 2332 specifically take aim at the ability of nonpartisan, public interest organizations to help people navigate confusing systems and encourage them to exercise their ability to vote by mail. HB 2332 is unconstitutional, and we hope the court will strike it down.”

“More Americans than ever voted by mail last year, which meant that even during a pandemic there was record high turnout, which is a sign of a healthy democracy,” said VoteAmerica Founder and CEO Debra Cleaver. “State legislators in Kansas and across the country apparently think more people exercising their right to vote is a bad thing and instead prefer lower turnout elections where they can better dictate who can and cannot vote.  And now they want to want to block nonpartisan charitable organizations like VoteAmerica from simply helping voters - regardless of their political affiliation -- request mail in ballots. It’s intentionally voter suppressive, it’s undemocratic, and that’s why we’re suing.”

“HB 2332 is dangerous: it makes voting more difficult for Kansans by threatening their ability to vote-by-mail,” said Tom Lopach, president and CEO of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Voter Participation Center (VPC). “In the 2020 election, we saw firsthand the urgency of vote-by-mail in the midst of the pandemic. That’s why we’re fighting back today to protect Kansans from this assault on our democracy and will keep working to ensure every American can make their voice heard.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

NEWARK—Today, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey and Salvation and Social Justice, represented by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice and Campaign Legal Center, filed an amicus curiae brief in Conforti v. Hanlon, a case challenging New Jersey’s use of “the line” and other misleading features in its ballot design.

New Jersey is the only state in the country that organizes its primary election ballots by bracketing together a county-supported group of candidates in a column or row (“the line”), rather than listing each office and the candidates for that office in separate sections from one another. These bracketing rules in addition to other ballot design defects not only mislead and confuse New Jersey voters, but also disproportionately harm voters and candidates of color.

“Fair voter access is about more than just drop boxes and early voting hours. New Jersey’s primary ballot layout confuses voters, leading to decreased participation and keeping voters from having their voices heard,” said Jesse Burns, executive director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. “We cannot accept the disproportionate effect that our ballot design has on voters and candidates of color. New Jersey must do away with this overly-complicated ballot layout in favor of one that displays all candidates equally and provides voters with a straightforward ticket.”

Fair and clear ballot design is vital to a healthy democracy. Using “the line” not only grants bracketed candidates favorable positions on the ballot and systematically biases voters toward those candidates, it also, as today’s brief argues, negatively impacts voters because the manipulation of ballot position to capitalize on the bracketing bias undermines voter choice and the integrity of the democratic process.

“During a time when democracy is under attack and we must do everything possible to strengthen and expand it, New Jersey is instead subverting it by maintaining an outmoded primary ballot design that misleads and confuses voters and interferes with their right to vote,” said Henal Patel, director of the Democracy and Justice Program at the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. “These ballot design flaws disproportionately burden Black and other voters of color and make it more difficult for candidates of color to win office, undermining the goal of fair representation. This is exactly the opposite of what our state should be doing during these pivotal times.”

Ballot design studies demonstrate that when basic usability principles are ignored in ballot design, as is the case with “the line,” the affected voters will disproportionately be Black and other voters of color.

“In order to achieve fair representation, there must be fair ballot design,” said Jade Ford, an attorney for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Ballot design impacts voters, not just candidates for office. These types of defects also disproportionately affect voters of color and lower-income communities. It is time for New Jersey to address these systemic threats to the democratic process.”

Because candidates on “the line” are most often incumbents or party operatives, who in New Jersey are overwhelmingly white despite the state’s 45% population of color, it is also more difficult for candidates of color to win electoral office, negatively impacting fair representation. The New Jersey State Assembly is currently 70% white, and the State Senate is 75% white.

“Salvation and Social Justice is committed to fair and just elections in New Jersey. This case presents an opportunity for our state to align with jurisdictions across the country to safeguard a healthy democracy for all. New Jersey’s current ballot structure unfairly burdens communities and candidates of color. Without a fair opportunity to run for office, our entire state suffers. The time is now for New Jersey to do what’s right. Our democracy depends on it,” said Rev. Dr. Charles Boyer, founding director of Salvation and Social Justice.

Plaintiffs in the 2020 case include New Jersey House, Democratic Committee, Township Committee and County Clerk candidates, as well as New Jersey Working Families. Defendants are county clerks from Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Bergen, Atlantic, and Hudson counties. After defendants, along with Intervenor-Defendant Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, moved to dismiss the case, plaintiffs filed an opposition to that effort. The amicus brief supports plaintiffs’ opposition to having the case dismissed.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.