PORTLAND, ME – Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled that the results of the State of Maine’ general election for U.S. Congress on Nov. 6, 2018 held using its democratically-enacted ranked choice voting system will stand, sending a strong message that the system is constitutional.

“Today’s decision is a victory for the First Amendment rights of Maine voters, who chose this system as the best way to express their choice for federal office in November,” said Mark Gaber, senior legal counsel, litigation, at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “The court’s well-reasoned decision gives voters the chance to express preferences for more than a single candidate, which enhances voter choice. The Court recognized that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically empowered states to determine the procedures for electing members of Congress,  and upheld the right of Maine voters to use the election system of their choice.”

Ranked choice voting fosters more choice, more competition, and incentivizes candidates to engage with a broad coalition of voters in order to win the support of a wider range of the electorate. On Nov. 28, 2018, CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in support of Maine’s system of ranked choice voting. The case, called Baber v. Dunlap, was heard on Dec. 5, 2018.

CLC published an issue brief on the eight ways adopting ranked choice voting can improve voting and elections.

WASHINGTON –  U.S. Representatives Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Mike Gallagher (R-WI), and Derek Kilmer (D-WA), three of the co-chairs of the Congressional Reformers Caucus, introduced a bipartisan bill to increase disclosure and accountability of political spending. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) advised the House offices on language for the bill.

The Political Accountability and Transparency Act, H.R. 7267, would strengthen rules governing coordination between super PACs and individual campaigns to ensure that super PACs truly operate independently from candidates, would require political advertisements to disclose the top donors to the organization paying for the advertisements, and would apply the “personal use” restriction on campaign funds to all political committees, including leadership PACs.

“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.”

“For too long, we’ve allowed outside money to play an outsized and arcane role in our politics, blurring the lines between special interest groups and the candidates they support,” said Rep. Kathleen Rice. “The Political Accountability and Transparency Act will close some of the most gaping loopholes in our campaign finance laws by increasing restrictions and reporting requirements for outside groups. This bipartisan bill will help finally restore integrity and trust in our nation’s political process.”  

“The American people deserve to know who is spending hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle to influence their vote and muddy our politics,” said Rep. Mike Gallagher. “This bipartisan bill is critical to injecting more transparency into our campaign finance system and helping reduce the corrosive influence of dark money in our elections. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation.”

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” said Rep. Derek Kilmer. “Americans deserve to know who is paying for the political ads they see regardless of how those ads are purchased. The Political Accountability and Transparency Act slams shut campaign finance loopholes and shines a light on the murky world of dark money.”

“The Political Accountability and Transparency Act addresses some of the most obvious flaws in federal campaign law that repeatedly frustrate members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. We are pleased to see these leaders of the bipartisan Congressional Reformers Caucus put forward solutions to help fix America’s broken political system,” said Issue One Executive Director Meredith McGehee.

“The Political Accountability and Transparency Act represents a much-needed step toward strengthening a culture of transparency and accountability in our politics. Stand Up Republic is proud to support this bipartisan initiative,” said Greg Spenchian, Director of Policy and Partnerships for Stand Up Republic.

H.R. 7267 tightens coordination rules between super PACs and individual campaigns in several ways. For one, the bill would apply to the coordination that happens before a candidate is officially running for office if the spending happens after the candidate is running for office. The bill would also apply broadly to any ads paid for by a super PAC that promote, attack, support, or oppose a candidate. Further, H.R. 7267 would apply to any communications that mention a candidate starting 120 days before a primary and going through the general election, and it explicitly covers all types of activity in addition to mass-broadcast communications, including mail and canvassing literature. This bill also strengthens the restriction on staff moving from a campaign or official office to an outside spender and, in the case that it does happen, requires a robust firewall.

Another goal of H.R. 7267 is to provide voters with additional information about who pays for political advertisements. The bill would require television, radio, and internet advertisements to display, within the advertisement itself, the three largest donors to the organization paying for the advertisement. This would apply to super PACs, 501(c) nonprofits, and other corporate entities.

Finally, H.R. 7267 aims to limit the widespread abuse of leadership PAC funds by members of Congress. In a July 2018 report, CLC and Issue One revealed that these PACs have increasingly used those funds for five-star dinners, high-end vacations, and country club memberships.

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Giffords Law Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging illegal coordination between the Trump campaign and the National Rifle Association (NRA). During the 2016 election cycle, the NRA’s political and lobbying arms spent over $25 million supporting Trump, mostly for television advertising, and distributed and placed those advertisements using the same network of consulting firms that placed the Trump campaign’s own advertisements.

CLC’s October complaint against the NRA and then-U.S. Senate candidate Josh Hawley first unearthed this particular trio of shell companies that used these coordination schemes. In fact, in the final stretch of the 2016 election, the same four strategists at the media consulting firm National Media repeatedly placed ads on behalf of both the NRA and Trump campaign, in some cases on the same stations or programs, to advance a unified strategy. This runs afoul of the FEC’s coordination rules.

Drawing on new investigative reporting by The Trace / Mother Jones, today’s CLC’s complaint cites dozens of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) records documenting the coordinated effort.

“This is some of the most compelling evidence we’ve ever seen of illegal coordination. The NRA can legally make unlimited expenditures to support the Trump campaign only if the organizations are completely independent. But if the same people buying ads for the Trump campaign are also placing the NRA’s pro-Trump ads, then the NRA’s spending is not at all independent,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform program at CLC. “The NRA and Trump campaign might claim that their media buyers established firewalls, but it is impossible for an employee to create a firewall in his or her brain.” 

"If reports are true that the NRA’s leadership engaged in blatant illegal campaign coordination, this news would not only be an insult to NRA members but a serious threat to the integrity of the presidential election, said Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords Law Center. “The NRA’s executives owe their members and all Americans answers to the serious questions that have been raised by these ongoing investigations. We're glad to partner with CLC to demand that the FEC take action on this evidently egregious flouting of our nation's campaign finance laws."

The FEC regulates the use of common vendors for media placement because the targeting of political ads is a critical element of a campaign effort. If the NRA knows about the Trump campaign’s strategy, it can time and target its pro-Trump ads to complement and reinforce the campaign’s own efforts.

Exhibits for the complaint can be found by clicking here.