U.S. Representatives Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Mike Gallagher (R-WI), and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) re-introduced The Political Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA), H.R. 679, a bipartisan bill to addresses the abuses of campaign finance law that have become increasingly common in federal elections. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) advised the House offices on language for the bill.

CLC’s new issue brief describes how PATA would attend to pressing democracy issues like single-candidate super PACs and digital disclosure loopholes.

“Strengthening the law requiring independence of candidates from outside groups is critical to loosening the influence that megadonors who fund super PACs hold over candidates and officeholders,” said Trevor Potter, President of the Campaign Legal Center, and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Similarly, increasing political spending transparency and stopping politicians from using leadership PACs as slush funds are broadly popular bipartisan reforms. Voters have a right to know who is bankrolling campaign ads. And it would seem obvious that lawmakers shouldn’t be using donors’ PAC money to fund golf memberships, trips to five-star resorts, and Disney World vacations.”

Commerce Dept. should acknowledge their mistake and reverse course to ensure that every person in the country is counted

NEW YORK – Today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled to remove the controversial citizenship question from the 2020 Census. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman has ordered the administration discontinue plans to include the question. Given the timely nature of the case, any appeal may end up before the Supreme Court this term. The Court is currently scheduled to hear a procedural issue related to the case in February. 

“While the fight is not over, this decision is a sigh of relief for people in the country that could have been adversely affected by the lack of representation caused by being undercounted in the Census,” said Paul Smith, vice president of the Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “Commerce should acknowledge their mistake and reverse course to ensure that every person in the country is counted. The quality of the Census dictates the redrawing of district lines to ensure representation of all communities. That’s what’s at stake.”

CLC has actively opposed the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Read the letters CLC signed that were sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross expressing concern about the citizenship question and learn about ongoing litigation over this matter by visiting our action page.

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in a challenge to Montana’s base contribution limits, allowing a Ninth Circuit Court decision to stand. The Ninth Circuit ruled in October 2017 that the law is constitutional. Base contribution limits are a state’s cap on the amount of money individuals, political action committees and political parties are permitted to contribute to candidates for state elective office. Montana voters originally approved the contribution limits by ballot initiative back in 1994.

“Declining to hear this case protects the viability of contribution limits nationwide as a tool for state lawmakers to combat pay-to-play politics,” said Paul Smith, vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The prospect that large, unlimited contributions could be given to candidates as a quid pro quo for political favors should be self-evident. For that reason, the courts have long recognized the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits, and today they represent one of the few remaining checks on actual and perceived corruption in the campaign process. Although the courts have created a challenging environment for campaign finance laws nationally, the Ninth Circuit decision was well-reasoned and consistent with forty years of precedent, and the Supreme Court rightly declined to intervene.”

This lawsuit is part of a continuing legal strategy to undermine all campaign finance laws, which CLC has been fighting on the federal, state and local level. CLC filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit in October 2016 urging reversal of the lower court’s decision, and had previously filed a brief in 2014 when the case was first up on appeal.

Learn more about the case Lair v. Motl.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will hear arguments in a challenge to North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map, which is one of the most egregious partisan gerrymanders in American history. It will also hear the Maryland challenge, in which Democrats discriminated against Republicans for their party affiliation in its 2011 maps. Together, the cases have the potential to reshape future redistricting nationwide by limiting politicians’ ability to discriminate against voters who favor a minority party when those politicians draw electoral districts.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), the Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ) and University of Chicago Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos represent the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and 12 individual North Carolina plaintiffs in the case, Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina. The Supreme Court will simultaneously hear a companion case, Common Cause v. Rucho, and it will hear the Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, this term.

The movement to fight partisan gerrymandering has generated momentum with a perfect 5-for-5 state ballot initiatives passed in the 2018 midterm election cycle to create independent redistricting commissions. But that solution will not work nationwide. Most states have a state ballot initiative process that can be used only with legislative consent. Given the resistance of legislators to reform, in those states, citizens have little or no recourse.

Citizens in all 50 states deserve to be able to choose their representatives – and not the other way around. This is why we need a national solution, and why the fight for fair maps must continue in the courts.

“Voters nationwide are ready for a ruling from the Supreme Court that finally declares that they come first, not self-interested politicians,” said Paul Smith, vice president at CLC. “A supermajority of Americans – across ideological lines – want the Supreme Court to place limits on partisan gerrymandering. By striking down North Carolina and Maryland’s maps, the Supreme Court can send a message to the rest of the country that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, no matter which party does it. If the Supreme Court fails to set limits on this undemocratic practice, we will see a festival of copycat gerrymandering in 2020 the likes of which the country has never seen before.”

“In North Carolina, Republican legislative leaders bragged that they were drawing a plan that advantaged Republicans to the maximum extent possible and discriminated against Democrats.  This kind of outrageous behavior most certainly crosses the line of constitutionality, and if the Supreme Court does not intervene, our democracy will pay the price,” said Allison Riggs, senior voting rights attorney for the SCSJ.

If the Supreme Court rules that the state’s maps are unconstitutional, this victory could curtail the undemocratic practice of partisan gerrymandering nationwide. Last term, CLC’s Paul Smith argued Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to Wisconsin’s gerrymandered Assembly maps. The Supreme Court sent both the North Carolina and Wisconsin cases back to district court with clear instructions.

“Partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina has become so pervasive that the outcome of many elections is decided before a single vote is cast,” said Janet Hoy, co-president of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina. “We have full hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rein in this undemocratic practice so that voters can have the fair elections they deserve and know that their vote matters.”

"The congressional districts across North Carolina are nothing less than a successful attempt to rig the system," said Aaron Sarver, plaintiff from Asheville, North Carolina. "If members of Congress can tell their Republican colleagues in Raleigh exactly which voters they want to 'represent' then we're getting pretty close to telling people it's not worth bothering to show up to vote because the election was decided the day the maps were drawn."

With the case now to be decided this term, North Carolina voters could have fair and legal maps drawn in time to be used in the 2020 elections.

Read more about the case: Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina.

Read more about the case: Benisek v. Lamone.