WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging former Congressman Cliff Stearns (FL-06) has illegally converted leftover campaign funds to personal use, in violation of the prohibition against current and former candidates misusing campaign funds. Potentially illegal expenditures include his monthly cellphone bill, payments to his wife, membership dues at private Washington D.C. clubs, and expenses apparently related to his private sector lobbying career. Stearns represented Florida’s 6th congressional district until 2013, and joined the lobbying firm APCO Worldwide immediately after leaving office.

After a Member of Congress leaves office, they may legally donate leftover campaign funds to charity, transfer funds to their party, make contributions to other candidates, or pay for the costs of winding-down their campaign or closing their office.

“Former Members of Congress spending leftover campaign money as golden parachutes to subsidize their personal lifestyles is a serious misuse of contributions,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “The law bans elected officials from pocketing the campaign contributions they receive, and the FEC should strictly enforce that ban.”

“Campaign funds are not supposed to be used to enhance the lobbying career of a long-retired member,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “By law, campaign contributions are to be used for a candidate’s run for office or one’s duties as an officeholder, not as a personal slush fund.”

Since leaving office in 2013, Stearns has used campaign funds to pay over $5,000 in cell phone bills, to pay his wife $5,000 this year alone, and to pay for thousands of dollars in gifts, framing services, conference fees, and other expenses that have no apparent connection to his former duties as an officeholder. Stearns has also paid for thousands of dollars in membership dues and meals at a private Republican club in Washington D.C., which he admitted are connected to his private sector lobbying duties.

Federal law states that campaign contributions are deemed “converted to personal use” if such funds are “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office.”

Campaign, Democrats undermine voters right to know, FEC must investigate

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign committee violated campaign finance law. They failed to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law.

On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump’s Russia ties, but routed the money through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as “legal services” on their FEC reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient.

“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”

“Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But describing payments for opposition research as ‘legal services’ is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements.”

Read the complaint.

Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement responding to Twitter’s announcement that it plans to create a “transparency center” that will disclose information about political ads purchased on the platform:

“Twitter’s new transparency policy is a small step towards giving voters, journalists, watchdog groups, and law enforcement some of the tools they need to root out illegal foreign activity. While Twitter’s statement reflects a growing understanding of the serious problems arising from political ads coming from undisclosed foreign sources, we are still lacking needed specificity and uniformity regarding the nature of what will be disclosed.

Twitter’s announcement cannot help but draw attention to Facebook’s failures in this area. In contrast with Twitter’s announcement, there is a lack of clarity about how Facebook’s ambiguous policies will be defined and implemented. It has been six weeks since CLC sent a letter to Facebook, urging Chairman Mark Zuckerberg to provide the American people and appropriate investigators with more information regarding foreign entities spending money through fake accounts on Facebook ads. Facebook has neither released the necessary information nor coherently explained its reason for withholding it.

The fact that Twitter appears to be taking a more pro-active approach, while Facebook continues to resist, shows we cannot expect social media companies to hold themselves accountable and self-police their platforms. Legislative solutions are necessary to fill the transparency gaps Russian actors exploited in attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election. We hope that Twitter’s stated willingness to engage in the legislative process surrounding the Honest Ads Act indicates it is open to legislation addressing this important issue that applies equally to all large online platforms.”

Read CLC’s statement on the bipartisan bills in the House and Senate which would give tools to fight foreign interference through online ads in future elections.

On Sept. 12, 2017, CLC sent a letter to Facebook, urging Chairman Mark Zuckerberg to provide the American people and appropriate investigators with more information regarding foreign entities spending money through fake accounts on Facebook ads. 

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision finding that Montana’s base campaign contribution limits are constitutional, reversing a 2015 decision made by a federal district court. The case is about the state’s limits 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.

“This decision protects the viability of contribution limits nationwide," Tara Malloy, senior director, appellate litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center (CLC) "The prospect that large, unlimited contributions could be given to candidates for political favors should be self-evident. This is a good decision by the Ninth Circuit in a challenging environment for campaign finance laws nationally.”

The appeals court held that Montana has a valid interest in preventing pay-to-play activity tied to large campaign contributions, and that its contribution limits are a “closely drawn” way to achieve that goal. The courts have long recognized the constitutionality of campaign contribution limits. This lawsuit is part of a continuing legal strategy to undermine all campaign finance laws, which CLC has been fighting on multiple fronts. 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.

Bills address glaring gaps in election law exposed by Russia’s interference in 2016 election

WASHINGTON – Today, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA) and John McCain (R-AZ) announced they are introducing the Honest Ads Act. The House is also introducing a bipartisan companion bill. These Acts are a forceful and timely response to the most pressing vulnerabilities of election law exposed by Russia’s cyber campaign in the 2016 presidential election. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) advised the offices of the Senators who are sponsoring this important legislation.

HONEST stands for “Holding Online National Electioneering ads to the Same Test.” Its purpose is to modernize the laws surrounding the ban on foreign election interference by ensuring that paid internet ads are subject to the same disclaimer and recordkeeping rules that currently apply to television ads and radio ads. If enacted, this bill would require major sellers of online advertising – like Google, Facebook and Twitter – to keep a publicly available database of significant political advertising, including the content of the ads and who paid for them.

“The 2016 elections exposed glaring holes in our ability to police foreign intervention in US elections, and these bills are an appropriate, bipartisan disclosure remedy,” said Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Voters have a right to be fully informed about who is trying to influence their vote, particularly foreign powers whose motives are contrary to American interests. The Honest Ads Act gives voters, journalists, and law enforcement officers important tools to help root out illegal foreign activity. The transparency this bill aims to provide in the 2018 elections and beyond will protect and enhance the integrity of our elections, which are the most fundamental component of American self-governance.”

“Political activity is increasingly moving online, so this bill is a necessary step to bring our election laws into the 21st century and safeguard against anonymous foreign interference,” said Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation at CLC, who previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “The FEC has failed to provide meaningful guidance as to how its 1970s-era rules apply to modern digital advertising. Congress should pass the Honest Ads Act to make sure that major sellers of online ads aren’t selling them to foreign interlopers, and to create strong disincentives against foreign actors targeting American voters with election-related messages.”

The introduction of the Honest Ads Act comes one week after CLC’s foreign interference event on Oct. 12, which brought together national security, cybersecurity, and campaign finance law experts to examine the vulnerabilities of our laws and discuss solutions about how to protect our democracy against foreign influence. 

CLC submits comments in opposition to regulatory rollback of conflict of interest law, challenges Secretary’s authority to issue ‘de facto’ repeal

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in opposition to its plans to weaken a conflict of interest law that guards against abuses caused by entanglements between VA employees and for-profit education institutions. The VA is proposing to subvert the statute enacted by Congress, which prevented its employees from having financial connections to for-profit education companies. With the proposed waiver, all VA employees would be exempt from the statutory ban – and could receive small gifts from for-profit education companies, and can accept awards and gifts of travel to award ceremonies.

“The VA is wrong to propose scrapping an ethics law that protects veterans,” said Walter Shaub, Senior Director, Ethics, at CLC. “Congress determined this law was necessary in light of a documented history of abuses, and the VA has no authority to issue a blanket waiver eviscerating that law simply because it disagrees with Congress.”

In its comments, CLC contends that the Secretary does not have authority to issue a ‘de facto’ repeal of an Act of Congress. The law was enacted in 1966 by Congress, in the wake of scandals involving for-profit schools giving donations to state officials’ coffers, liquor, money, and other gifts. At the time, Congress deemed it necessary to protect against conflicts of interest posed by employees of the VA – who were targets of abuse from schools that had the ability to gain profits from veteran attendance at their institutions through GI funds.

Read the comments.

Urges Court to “strike a blow” against practice that “increasingly threatens our democracy”

WASHINGTON - Campaign Legal Center’s (CLC) Paul Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike a blow against extreme partisan gerrymandering during today’s oral arguments in the landmark case Gill v Whitford.

In the most significant partisan gerrymandering case in decades, 12 Wisconsin voters questioned the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s extreme partisan gerrymandering scheme, devised in 2011. The plan all but guarantees one party control of the State Assembly for the entire decade, irrespective of how the voters cast their ballots.

“Today we laid out for the Supreme Court how modern-day partisan gerrymandering undermines the promise of American democracy,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center. “What happened in Wisconsin is exactly how most Americans think our political system operates: politicians met in secret, they manipulated district lines so they could choose their own voters, and they ensured that their party would stay in power for the next decade, regardless of what the voters did. And their plan worked. It is now up to the Supreme Court to ensure our democracy functions like it should by reining in the most extreme partisan gerrymandering. And we are hopeful it will rise to the occasion.”

Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymander – created in 2011 by legislative aides and hired consultants in a secret room in a private law office – employed the latest mapping technology and data analysis to create a district plan that is one of the most extremely gerrymandered state legislative plans in the last four decades. 

In the first election under the plan, Republicans won a supermajority of 60 out of 99 seats despite losing the statewide vote for the Assembly. In 2014 and 2016, Republicans extended their advantage to 63 and 64 seats, respectively, even though the statewide vote remained nearly tied.  Subsequently, for the first time in 31 years, a lower court—after a four-day trial—struck down the plan as an unconstitutional gerrymander. 

Appellees argue that Wisconsin's gerrymander violates both the Equal Protection Clause by diluting the electoral influence of a targeted group of voters, and the First Amendment, by penalizing these voters because of their political beliefs.

“Since 2011, I have truly felt that my state does not function as a democracy,” said named plaintiff Bill Whitford, a retired law professor who lives in Madison. “Today I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will put a stop to a system where instead of voters choosing their lawmakers, the lawmakers choose their voters.”

“Extreme gerrymandering has taken away my voice as a citizen and as a voter,” said Helen Harris of Milwaukee, a retired elementary school principal who is also a plaintiff in the case. “I hope the court heard and understood today how badly this practice has damaged our democracy.”

In today’s arguments, appellees highlighted that Wisconsin’s map was “crafted with an obsessive focus on partisan advantage.” The appellees also refuted the notion that there is any neutral justification for the map’s overwhelming partisan tilt.

Learn more about CLC’s efforts on behalf of the 12 plaintiffs in Whitford here.

Learn more about the redistricting process, how it works, and the everyday impacts of partisan gerrymandering on our democracy here.

Private counsel working with CLC in representing the appellees includes Douglas M. Poland of Rathje & Woodward, Peter G. Earle, Michele L. Odorizzi of Mayer Brown, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos of the University of Chicago Law School and Jessica R. Amunson of Jenner & Block.