Defending Civic Engagement Groups

At a Glance

Nonpartisan civic engagement groups are a core part of building a better democracy from the ground up. Despite their work to help voters participate in democracy, civic engagement groups have come under attack, undermining their critical work to expand access to democracy and violating their First Amendment rights. Campaign Legal Center is actively fighting back.

Status
Active
About This Case/Action

As long as we have had a representative democracy, civic-minded Americans have worked tirelessly to ensure their neighbors can access it—by registering people to vote, holding voter education events and promoting engagement in the democratic process to build stronger communities.  

Nonpartisan civic engagement groups, composed of civic-minded Americans, have carried this unique American tradition forward from the founding to the present day. 

But recently, these groups’ efforts have come under attack. In state after state, self-interested politicians have introduced and/or passed new laws that would completely undermine or even criminalize the activities of nonpartisan civic engagement groups. These laws are both unconstitutional and unpopular, which is why they are often tucked away in larger anti-voter bills, where they receive less attention. 

Not only do these laws represent a serious attack on civic engagement groups’ constitutional rights to free speech and association, but they would also have clear negative effects on Black and brown voters, low-income voters, voters with disabilities and young voters, groups that civic engagement organizations often prioritize because of a history of disenfranchisement and marginalization

Our democracy is strongest when every voter can make their voice heard. We should celebrate, not punish, the civic-minded organizations and volunteers who help Americans vote. That’s why Campaign Legal Center is fighting back. 

Where CLC is fighting back: 

BREAKING: Campaign Legal Center Files Complaints with FEC, OCE Against Florida Candidates for Violating “Soft Money” Ban

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed complaints with both the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) concerning Representative Aaron Bean, and with the FEC concerning former congressional candidate Kelli Stargel. The complaints allege that Bean and Stargel each transferred $1 million or more in state campaign funds to federal super PACs supporting their respective 2022 congressional campaigns in Florida — which is in direct violation of the soft money ban in federal campaign finance law. 

Federal candidates, their agents and any entities that they establish, finance, maintain, or control are prohibited from using “soft money” — including funds raised by state PACs that are not subject to federal contribution limits and reporting requirements — to support campaigns for federal office.  

Rep. Bean and Ms. Stargel each established their respective state PACs, which raised millions of dollars on their behalf over the better part of a decade, before transferring $1 million or more in contributions from them to their respective federal super PACs during the 2022 election cycle. 

Significantly, both state PACs received over six figures worth of contributions from federal contractors, which are prohibited from contributing to federal campaigns or super PACs — a prohibition designed to prevent “pay to play” style corruption and its appearance.  

“Federal candidates are increasingly funneling 'soft money' raised through state PACs into federal committees, in direct violation of the law,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “Soft money is a serious problem in our federal elections, and it threatens to derail the important electoral protections that federal campaign finance laws provide. The actions of Kelli Stargel and Rep. Aaron Bean are part of a widespread pattern of federal candidates blatantly violating these laws, which are designed to ensure that our federal campaign finance system is fair, free from corruption, and transparent.” 

CLC has filed complaints against both candidates with the FEC and an additional complaint against Rep. Bean with the OCE, which has jurisdiction over sitting members of Congress.   

The FEC and the OCE have a duty to investigate these alleged violations and enforce the law to protect the integrity of our elections and maintain voters’ trust in the electoral process.  

See the FEC complaint filed against Rep. Bean 
See the FEC complaint filed against Ms. Stargel
See the OCE complaint filed against Rep. Bean 
Learn more about all three complaints here

Defending Transparency Rules in Washington State (Washington State v. META Platforms, Inc.)

At a Glance

Meta Platforms, Inc. has challenged a Washington state law requiring online platforms to provide information to the public about the funding and targeting of political ads run on their platforms. CLC is supporting the state of Washington in its defense of this disclosure law. 

Status
Active
Updated
About This Case/Action

Under Washington State law, commercial advertisers that run election-related advertising must maintain certain records about the ads purchased on their platforms and disclose that information if requested by a member of the public. The required information includes the content of the ad, the identity of the person who paid for it, and the amount paid. Social media companies must also disclose the demographics of the audiences targeted and reached by the ad.  

Between 2018 and 2021, Meta (the parent company of Facebook) repeatedly failed to comply with this law. In response to the Washington Attorney General’s enforcement action concerning these violations, Meta challenged the constitutionality of the law. In 2022, a trial court in Washington found for the State, ruling that the challenged law covered “a very appropriate subject for disclosure, and . . . is very constitutional,” and ordering a $25 million penalty against the platform. Meta appealed this decision, arguing that the law violates its First Amendment rights.  

CLC, joined by the League of Women Voters of Washington, Fix Democracy First and the Brennan Center for Justice, has filed an amicus brief supporting the State of Washington in defending the disclosure law. CLC’s brief explains why the law is important in enabling state advocacy groups like the League of Women Voters and Fix Democracy First to obtain vital information about who is financing the advertising influencing voters’ choices. The brief also explains how the significant rise in online political spending presents a new threat to democracy by facilitating the spread of misinformation and exacerbating political polarization. Laws requiring transparency and disclosure can help address this problem.

What's At Stake?

Washington’s law is consistent with long-standing Supreme Court precedent on campaign finance disclosures, and in fact advances First Amendment principles by contributing to a more informed voting public.   

As political advertising moves increasingly online and federal regulations have failed to keep up—and tech platforms have failed to self-regulate—disclosure laws like Washington state’s have become an important protection for voters. Such laws make it harder to spread disinformation without accountability and easier for voters to assess both who is behind each advertisement as well as the full range of advertisements being fielded. Disclsoure thus provides a key piece to solving the ever-growing puzzle of online electioneering as platforms give advertisers the ability to microtarget ads to specific, narrow audiences and to spread political messages widely and anonymously.