In December 2019, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that Iowa Values, “a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by failing to register as a political committee and failing to report its contributions, expenditures, and debts.” CLC's administrative complaint provides clear evidence that Iowa Values' major purpose was to promote the reelection of U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst. 

In June 2020, after the FEC failed to take action on CLC’s administrative complaint for over 190 days, CLC sued the FEC over its delay. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a default judgement order against the FEC, finding that the agency’s failure to act on CLC’s administrative complaint against Iowa Values was contrary to law.  

What’s at Stake?

Transparency around who is spending money to support or oppose federal candidates is a cornerstone of the Federal Election Committee Act (FECA) and critical to our democracy. Under FECA, organizations that exist primarily to engage in political activity—including making expenditures to support their preferred candidates—must register as political action committees (PACs) with the FEC and disclose their donors, along with other information about their financial activities.

In its administrative complaint, CLC demonstrated that Iowa Values’ major purpose—as evidenced by its public communications, fundraising appeals and strategy documents—was to support the election of Sen. Joni Ernst. But Iowa Values failed to register as a federal PAC and has not filed the necessary reports disclosing its contributions and expenditures, as required by FECA.

By allowing organizations like Iowa Values to evade federal law, the FEC leaves the public in the dark about who is seeking to influence elections and undermines voters’ trust in our democratic process. The lack of consequence for illegal behavior encourages Iowa Values and others like it to continue to violate campaign finance laws.

The FEC has a responsibility to ensure there is transparency and accountability in our elections by investigating and acting on potential FECA violations like those alleged in CLC’s administrative complaint.

CLC, in partnership with the ACLU-Arizona, is suing the sheriff and recorder in Apache County, Arizona seeking transparency about how the county guarantees incarcerated citizens their constitutional right to vote.

While people who are convicted of felonies in Arizona lose their right to vote, those who are held in pre-trial detention or who are incarcerated for misdemeanors retain their voting eligibility. In practice, however, it can be incredibly difficult to cast a ballot in jail. Doing so depends on Arizona jail and election officials providing a means for incarcerated voters to cast their ballot.

To better understand how recorders and sheriffs in Arizona realize their obligation to enfranchise jailed voters, CLC is working on a statewide data collection project as a member of the Arizona Coalition to End Jail Based Disenfranchisement, which advocates to remove barriers to voter education and participation so that eligible individuals can be included in the process.

The coalition sent three records requests each to the recorders and sheriffs in all of Arizona’s 15 counties: one request following the March 2020 Presidential Preference Election; one following the August 2020 Primary Election; and one following the November 2020 General Election. In total, we sent 90 records requests to Arizona officials.

The overall response rate was abysmal: of 90 requests, 48 remain unfulfilled as of January 2021. That includes 16 requests that were sent in March 2020, meaning that they have gone unanswered for 10 months.

Arizona’s public record law requires the government to “promptly” disclose public records. The sheriff and recorder of Apache County—the worst culprits among many Arizona elected officials—have failed to meet that obligation. Thus, in January 2021, CLC and ACLU-AZ filed suit against these offices for their failure to provide the records CLC requested—much less deliver them “promptly”—or even any explanation for why the records are being withheld.

Transparency is one of the key components of a representative democracy, particularly when it comes to the protection of the constitutional rights held by its citizens. Without any information from county sheriffs or recorders, it is virtually impossible to determine whether incarcerated voters are being allowed to exercise their most fundamental right, the right to vote. This issue demands public oversight, as Apache County’s elected officials have evaded accountability for too long. CLC’s lawsuit demands that these offices provide the records needed to hold elected officials responsible and guarantee the rights of all citizens.

An organization called Empower Texans, Inc., and Michael Quinn Sullivan (“Appellants”) initiated a lawsuit seeking to prove that the enforcement powers granted to the Texas Ethics Commission by the state constitution and the state legislature are unconstitutional. Appellants argue that the Commission is a legislative branch agency, and therefore does not have the constitutional authority to enforce laws regarding political expenditures and lobbying.

CLC filed an amicus brief this month in support of the Commission. Our brief explains that the Commission's authority comes from the Texas Constitution that explicitly authorizes the state legislature to delegate to the Commission the “powers and duties” necessary to achieve its purpose of transparency and integrity of Texas state elections.

 Appellants’ contention that the Commission cannot enforce campaign finance and lobbying laws in the state has no basis. The Commission and the interests they serve are important and are closely aligned with its peers in other states. The trial court was right to reject Appellants’ argument, which attempts to undermine nearly 30 years of accountability and transparency in Texas. The circuit court should affirm the trial court to uphold transparency in election spending, sustain government accountability, and decrease the influence of wealthy special interests in Texas’s political system.  

What’s at Stake

State ethics commissions are instrumental in ensuring government accountability and have been a staple of American democracy for more than 50 years. The commissions help increase voter confidence in policymakers and political institutions. Forty-Six states have ethics commissions and 36 of those states have granted their commission's broad jurisdictional authority over state executive branch officials and legislators.

Across the country, voters, legislators and courts have seen that strong political transparency laws are essential to protecting the public’s interest in open and accountable government. Weakening the Commission’s power to enforce the comprehensive campaign finance and lobbying disclosure laws would diminish the public’s trust in government.