GREENSBORO, N.C.  – A three-judge panel for North Carolina’s Middle District has struck down North Carolina’s 2016 congressional plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. For the first time in history, a federal court struck down a congressional voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. 

The 2016 plan was developed after a federal court invalidated two congressional districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.  When the legislature purported to “remedy” that racially gerrymandered plan with an unabashed and admitted partisan gerrymander, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and several voters from across the state filed suit.

CLC's redistricting team and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice represented the North Carolina League of Women Voters in the case.

Ruth Greenwood, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) issued the following statement after the opinion was released:

“The court handed voters a major victory today by reinforcing the core principle that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.  North Carolina should take this opportunity to draw a fair map that does not discriminate against voters. And marginalized voters in other states should be encouraged that the courts have adopted a standard for measuring partisan symmetry that can be used to set limits on the practice of gerrymandering nationwide.”

The court’s order can be found here.

Per the ruling, the North Carolina General Assembly has until January 29 to enact a remedial plan; the federal court plans to employ a special master to draw an alternative remedial plan, and the remedial plan should be enacted before the 2018 congressional elections.

Learn more about the case here.

WASHINGTON — Unnamed donors who funneled nearly two million dollars through a series of entities to a super PAC in an effort to keep their names off the contribution should not be allowed to remain anonymous, according to a motion to intervene filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in Doe v. FEC. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) serves as co-counsel in the case.

Following a CREW complaint, the FEC agreed to a $350,000 fine (a post-Citizens United record for a complaint from an outside group) with Government Integrity, LLC, the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the Now or Never super PAC for one of the clearest cases of dark money laundering in memory. The LLC used ACU, known for its annual CPAC conference, to launder $1.71 million to the super PAC, for which ACU pocketed $90,000. However, it is unknown where the funds originated.

“Federal law gives voters the right to know who spends millions of dollars to get candidates elected,” said Adav Noti, CLC’s senior director, trial litigation. “In this case, major political donors are trying to hide their identities by laundering money through shell companies and trusts. That has been illegal for decades, and this lawsuit will help uncover who is behind the political money-laundering conspiracy."

By a split decision, the FEC failed to adopt its general counsel’s recommendation to go after the originators of the contribution, an unnamed trust and trustee. CREW sued the FEC over this decision two weeks ago. In an unusual move, a trust and its trustee involved in the scheme—either as passthroughs themselves or as the original donor—sued the FEC in an attempt to keep their names from becoming public. CREW is moving to intervene as defendants in an effort to shine a light on these bad actors.“

This is one of the more blatant conduit contribution schemes we’ve seen,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “We need to know where it began and who has worked so hard—in violation of the law—to keep their contribution and their participation in this scheme secret.”

Click here to read the motion.

Commission Never Planned to Address Real Problems in Our Democracy

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump signed an executive order dissolving the controversial Presidential Commission on Election Integrity (also known as the Pence-Kobach Commission), which Campaign Legal Center has strongly opposed as nothing more than a forum to undermine citizens’ right to vote. The administration has directed the Department of Homeland Security to review the commission’s initial findings and determine the next course of action.

“We know there are very serious problems in our democracy that voters want addressed, such as foreign interference and voter suppression efforts, but this commission never planned on tackling any of those,” said Danielle Lang, CLC senior counsel. “Instead, the commission was nothing more than a partisan tool to implement an agenda that would make it harder for Americans to vote. Thus far, DHS has been focused on real election integrity issues related to hacking and security of our electoral infrastructure, as it should be. CLC will be watching closely to see if President Trump and former Kansas Secretary of State Kobach, vice-chair of the commission, will try to derail DHS’s work in an effort to continue to push a partisan agenda that makes it more difficult for Americans to participate in the political process.”

In February 2017, CLC submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to uncover documents regarding the commission’s plan for a “major investigation into voter fraud.”  In September 2017, CLC received a response to its FOIA request that showed an employee with the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky, pushed back on naming a single Democrat or any mainstream Republicans to the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity.

CLC will continue to file FOIA requests and utilize other legal tools as it watchdogs the administration’s efforts. 

WASHINGTON – Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warned the administration, its surrogates, and its allies to back off their attempt to undermine the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. President Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, has publicly called for a second special counsel in a transparent effort to muddy the waters and impede Mueller’s investigation. In response, Shaub gave the following statement:

“The coordinated effort by President Trump and his surrogates to discredit the Mueller investigation raises serious alarms. Rather than making themselves complicit in this assault on the rule of law, Members of Congress should send a clear message to the President that firing Mueller is a red line he must not cross.”

Reports have indicated that the final tax bill will not include a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, a change that would have allowed charitable organizations organized as  501(c)3 nonprofits to engage in political campaigns on behalf of (or in opposition to) candidates for public office.

Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement:

“There is no reason that secretive billionaires should get a tax deduction for their dark money political contributions, and we are glad that this provision was stripped from the final bill. The outpouring of opposition to the rollback from voters, faith leaders, the nonprofit community, and transparency advocates stopped this ill-advised provision for now. But big money political donors still want a tax break for their secret contributions and we must remain vigilant so that similar language is not included in future legislation.”

Voters have a right to know information about who is trying to influence their vote

WASHINGTON – Today, for the first time, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) agreed that Facebook political ads must include disclaimers stating who paid for them, in response to an advisory opinion request that the Campaign Legal Center filed on behalf of Take Back Action Fund.

“Today’s FEC vote to require disclaimers on Facebook ads is a victory for the voters’ right to know who is paying for political attack ads,” said John Pudner, president of Take Back Action Fund. “The FEC has deadlocked on many issues in recent years, so it is a breakthrough to have a unanimous vote in favor of disclosure.”

“This is a positive first step, but the FEC itself created this confusion in 2010, and it’s embarrassing that it took the FEC seven years to start fixing the problem,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s associate general counsel for policy. “Plenty of work remains to be done to give voters, journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement the tools they need to detect and root out illegal foreign election activity on social media.”

“Today’s vote by the FEC helped close some of the transparency loopholes exploited by foreign actors to secretly buy ads in the 2016 elections, said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “But the FEC commissioners’ disagreement about how far this advisory opinion should reach speaks to the need for a broad rulemaking to bring similar clarity for online political ads on any platform.”

CLC’s Director of Federal and FEC Reform, Brendan Fischer, testified before the FEC today. CLC represented the conservative advocacy nonprofit Take Back Action Fund in calling for the advisory opinion request on October 31 that resulted in today’s decision by the FEC. CLC also filed comments on November 8 in response to the FEC’s most recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on internet disclaimers, supporting new rules to provide clarity and close loopholes.

Digital political ads have grown rapidly. According to a report by Borrell Associates, $159.8 million was spent on digital election ads in 2012. This number rose to $1.4 billion in 2016.

Here is the FEC's opinion.

Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, released the following statement about Cockrum v. Trump:

“The hack and release of sensitive personal information of donors and campaign staff is potentially damaging to all those who seek to be involved in the political process, regardless of political affiliation. Our political system must safeguard against intimidation and the breach of privacy, so the stakes of this case for the future of our democracy are very high.”

Learn more about the case Cockrum v. Trump.

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on December 8, 2017 in support of the plaintiffs.