Addition of Citizenship Question Compromises the Fairness and Accuracy of Census

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Last night, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross directed the U.S. Census Bureau to add a question about citizenship to the Census. This question is untested and intrusive, and will raise concerns in households about the confidentiality of their personal information. It will undermine the Census’ central purpose of conducting an accurate enumeration. Immigrant communities, documented and undocumented, that fear being targeted by the administration will be undercounted.

“The decision to add a citizenship question is purely political, and could have a destructive effect on the accuracy of the data we rely on to structure our democracy,” said Danielle Lang, senior legal counsel, voting rights and redistricting, at Campaign Legal Center (CLC). “It is the Census Bureau’s constitutional responsibility to conduct a fair and accurate count of every person living in the United States. Americans deserve fair representation based on accurate Census data, but this will not happen if the Census is marred by significant undercounting.”

There has been bipartisan opposition to the Justice Department’s request for the question, including 60 members of Congress, 161 Democratic and Republican mayors, six former census directors who served in Republican and Democratic administrations and 19 attorneys general.

CLC filed two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Justice and U.S. Census Bureau seeking more information on how the Census Bureau arrived at its decision to act on DOJ’s recommendation. The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has refused to provide any information about how it reached the decision to make this request.

Additionally, on January 18, CLC signed a letter to Secretary Ross expressing legal concerns about the leadership of the Census Bureau.

Complaint: Mississippi Senate Candidate Chris McDaniel Engaged in Brazen Coordination with Mercer-Backed Super PAC ‘Remember Mississippi’

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Remember Mississippi, a super PAC funded by national GOP megadonors Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, illegally made contributions to Mississippi U.S. Senate candidate Chris McDaniel. Among other things, the Remember Mississippi super PAC, which was formed by McDaniel’s assistant, took the unprecedented step of organizing, funding and advertising three McDaniel campaign events, which included speeches expressly advocating for McDaniel’s election in front of a “McDaniel U.S. Senate 2018” backdrop.

“We’ve never seen a super PAC take the brazen step of organizing and funding straight up campaign events for the candidate they are supporting,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. “Thanks to the FEC’s ineffective enforcement of the law, super PACs and campaigns have increasingly found ways to work closely with one another, but it appears this Mercer-backed super PAC went too far. If it wants candidates to take campaign laws seriously, the FEC must investigate and punish violators for wrongdoing.”

The super PAC paid for McDaniel campaign events, advertised for them, and promoted his candidacy at them. McDaniel’s personal assistant at his law firm, Susan Perkins, organized the group and became its treasurer, while also managing the McDaniels’ campaign Facebook page.

“Super PACs are categorically prohibited from making contributions to candidates,” said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation at CLC, and former associate general counsel for policy at the FEC. “The FEC should strip Remember Mississippi of its status as a super PAC, which appears to have been obtained under false pretenses, and impose major fines to deter others from violating this bright-line rule in the future."

Remember Mississippi received $1 million from Mercer and Uihlein. McDaniel acknowledged publicly his relationship to the super PAC’s financiers, saying “the Mercers and other donors have pledged more than $1 million” to support his candidacy, and emphasized that “I’ve known the Mercers since 2013, and we’ve talked a good deal about 2018.”

Deon v. Barasch

At a Glance

Deon v. Barasch is a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that prohibits campaign contributions by key individuals involved in the state gaming industry. 

Status
Closed
Updated
About This Case/Action

Deon v. Barasch is a challenge to a Pennsylvania law that prohibits campaign contributions by key individuals involved in the state gaming industry.  

When the Pennsylvania legislature legalized certain forms of gambling, it understood that the industry would require careful oversight to prevent corruption, or the appearance of corruption, from taking root in the Commonwealth. The General Assembly looked at the experience of other states and determined that its corruption concerns could be assuaged by prohibiting state gaming licensees and prospective licensees – including casino owners and highly placed employees – from making campaign contributions.

Two Pennsylvania casino owners covered by the contribution ban are now challenging the law as a violation of their federal constitutional rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. CLC, joined by Common Cause, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pennsylvania’s efforts to prevent the corruption that would inevitably arise if gaming licensees could freely deploy campaign contributions to “stack the deck” in their favor.

As CLC’s brief points out, courts have long allowed laws that limit or ban campaign contributions from those who do business with the government, based on the clear risk that someone seeking a lucrative state contract or license might pay for that privilege, i.e., might “pay to play.” Laws like Pennsylvania’s are widely recognized as a constitutional means of preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in highly regulated industries, and thus to preserve the public’s faith in their government.

What’s at stake

If plaintiffs prevail, gaming licensees – who hold what are effectively state-sponsored monopoly licenses in a multibillion-dollar industry with a notoriously checkered past and obvious vulnerabilities – would be able to buy into electoral campaigns in a way that poses too high a risk of corruption. Enforcing strict barriers between campaign contributions and gaming interests prevents industry participants from being forced to ante up for the privilege of obtaining or keeping a license, which preserves the integrity of the state gaming system overall, as well as the taxpayers’ investment in it.

As CLC’s brief notes, many other states and localities have similar anticorruption laws that could go bust if the plaintiffs’ challenge succeeds. These laws, like Pennsylvania’s, are vitally needed to prevent corruption and maintain public faith in government. Striking them down would be a bad bet.

Plaintiffs

Pasaquale Deon

Defendant

David Barash

Mayor Bowser Signs Fair Elections Act to Give Voice to Small Donors in District Campaigns

Date
Body

Today, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Fair Elections Act, a voluntary system that will allow qualified candidates an initial grant followed by matching funds on small donations in District elections. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is part of the DC Fair Elections Coalition and testified in support of the bill at a committee hearing.

“Mayor Bowser heard D.C. residents’ overwhelming support for small-dollar public financing and signed the Fair Elections Act. This new program will incentivize District candidates to seek support from a more diverse coalition of citizens,” said Catie Kelley, director, policy and state programs at CLC. “This inclusive reform will draw more voters into the political process and reduce the disproportionate influence of big-dollar donors in D.C. elections. We are pleased D.C. is the latest jurisdiction in the country to opt for fair elections.”

Read the testimony CLC submitted to the D.C. Council in support of the Fair Elections Act, which analyzes the bill’s details, provides recommendations, and uses studies of multiple jurisdictions to show how matching funds programs give candidates a financial incentive to reach out to a greater number of voters.