Suing the FEC for Failing to Enforce Transparency Laws in Regard to Facebook Ads Run by America Progress Now — CLC v. FEC (Delay Suit—America Progress Now)

At a Glance

CLC sued the Federal Election Commission for its failure to enforce transparency laws, as billions of dollars are being spent in secret on Facebook election ads. Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their vote so they can be informed when weighing their credibility.

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

On Feb. 28, 2020, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sued the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for its failure to enforce important federal transparency laws designed to protect voters’ right to know who is trying to influence their vote so they can weigh the credibility of the source and cast an informed vote.

In October 2018, an unknown person created a Facebook page for a shady group called America Progress Now. The Facebook group ran a series of Facebook ads expressly advocating for Green Party candidates in five competitive U.S. Senate and House races. These ads reached hundreds of thousands of Facebook users. The group then went silent. The mysterious group should have reported their Facebook ad spending on the 2018 elections to the FEC, but failed to do so.

In September 2019, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC alleging violations of federal campaign finance law. The FEC has failed to act.

America Progress Now illustrates the larger challenges given the limitations of Facebook’s self-regulatory measures and the FEC’s failure to enforce campaign finance laws. The FEC needs to do its job to protect the voices of all Americans, not just special interests. 

What’s at stake:

Transparency in the sources of funding for spending in elections has long been considered central to the free and transparent functioning of our democracy.

The risk of large-scale noncompliance with federal disclaimer and disclosure laws, and thus interference by unknown actors in federal elections, will only continue to grow as digital ad spending increases. With this increasing risk, it is all the more important for there to be clear application and enforcement of disclosure and disclaimer requirements to digital advertising. Application of these requirements holds political advertisers and politicians accountable and ensures that the public remains informed about whose views they are seeing in their newsfeeds.

The FEC is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns. The agency’s failure to enforce transparency laws has resulted in an explosion in secret spending. Special interests often run ads that are deliberately misleading with no identifying information about who is behind the ad. We do not know whether America Progress Now was the work of a third-party supporter, or of a major-party political operative promoting spoiler candidates, or of a foreign government seeking to exploit U.S. political divisions. Voters have a right to know who is funding these ads so they can weigh their credibility and cast an informed vote.

The 2020 election promises to be the most expensive election in U.S. history, with digital political spending expected to reach a projected $2.8 billion. It is important that the FEC send a clear signal that groups seeking to influence elections online are subject to the transparency requirements in digital advertising that protect voters’ right to know who is trying to influence their vote.

If nothing is done, the FEC will instead be sending a message that anonymous or fake entities like America Progress Now can pop into existence just prior to an election, exploit lax registration and reporting requirements by digital platforms, spend unlimited sums of money, and then disappear into thin air once an election is over.

In order to have transparency and accountability in our elections, the problem identified by CLC with fake Facebook advertisers must be addressed urgently so that watchdogs can shine a light on which interests are supporting or opposing candidates in the 2020 election.

Plaintiffs

CLC

Defendant

FEC

Ohio Should Institute Policies to Assist Late-Jailed Voters In Light of Sixth Circuit Decision

Date
Body

CINCINNATI, OH – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit permitted Ohio to continue its practice of disenfranchising eligible voters arrested and held in pre-trial detention in the final days preceding an election. This reverses a November 2019 decision by the district court in Mays v. LaRose, which found that Ohio violated the Equal Protection Clause by denying late-jailed voters the ability – offered to late-hospitalized voters – to request absentee ballots through 3pm on Election Day. The lawsuit was brought by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Dēmos and the MacArthur Justice Center.

“Innocent until proven guilty should also apply to the right to vote,” said Mark Gaber, director, trial litigation at CLC. “People awaiting trial have the right to vote and we will continue to fight for them across the nation. The court got it wrong, but Ohio should follow the lead of jurisdictions like Colorado, Arizona, Illinois, and Washington D.C. by adopting policies that ensure jailed voters are informed of their rights, election officials are required to create plans for jail voting, and real voting options are provided to those in jail.”

“The Sixth Circuit recognized that people jailed in the final days before an election have no way to get a ballot and responded, in substance, too bad,” said Naila Awan, Senior Counsel at Dēmos. “Despite today’s disappointing opinion, we remain committed to working with community groups to protect voting rights for jailed Ohio voters who are eligible to vote and deserve a voice at the ballot box.”

“People who are held in jail awaiting charge are innocent until proven guilty and have the Constitutional right to vote,” said Jonathan Manes, attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center. “Today’s decision is profoundly mistaken because it allows Ohio to deny the vote to many people held in jail on Election Day, even while it extends special voting assistance to other people who are hospitalized and cannot make it to the polls. We will continue to advocate for fair treatment and voting rights of people entangled in the criminal legal system.”

What other jurisdictions are doing to help late-jailed voters:

About 750,000 people are incarcerated in jails across the United States every day, most of whom retain the right to vote. Casting a ballot, though, can be impossible for these eligible voters simply because they are incarcerated. There is plenty election officials can do to change this de facto disenfranchisement:

  • Arizona and Colorado’s Secretaries of State have adopted rules requiring local election officials to design and implement plans to provide ballots to eligible voters in jails.
  • Chicago passed a law putting a polling location in its largest jail, in Cook County.
  • Washington D.C. does direct outreach to voters in jails, providing them with voter registration assistance and helps them cast ballots.
  • Maryland is considering a bill that would notify eligible voters in jails that they are eligible and instruct them on how to cast ballots.

 

CLC has launched a program to fight jail-based disenfranchisement using advocacy and litigation to ensure eligible voters in jails have the ballot access they need to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Learn more.

Complaint: Barr, Rosen, and Shea Unlawfully Interfered in Criminal Cases Involving Associates of President Trump

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), called for an investigation of Attorney General Bill Barr, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea for their highly unusual involvement in criminal proceedings against associates of President Donald Trump. CLC’s complaint states their intervention in matters involving Roger Stone and Michael Flynn conflicts with legal requirements for the Department of Justice officials to act impartially and insulate themselves from political influence. The complaint outlines unlawful activity under both the Executive Branch Standards of Conduct and the DOJ’s internal policies.

“The public must know that the deterioration of impartiality at DOJ expands beyond Attorney General Barr and includes senior leadership,” said Kedric Payne, General Counsel and Senior Director, Ethics, at CLC. “The actions of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Attorney undermine DOJ’s independence and the integrity of its administration of the criminal justice system. We must have confidence that the criminal justice system does not offer special treatment if you are an associate of the President. Even the appearance of politically influenced law enforcement erodes the public’s trust in government. A thorough investigation of this complaint will help restore the public’s confidence that DOJ upholds its standards of insulating decisions from political influence.”

The complaint was filed with Jeffrey Raggsdale, Acting Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice.

Issues