Brendan Fischer, federal and FEC reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement about today’s hearing on strengthening the Wisconsin Supreme Court judicial recusal rules, which more than 50 former state judges support:

“The Wisconsin Supreme Court must move forward with new rules to assure the public that justice is not for sale. 

The growing role of money in judicial elections and recent changes to the law allowing judges to secretly work with their big money backers make it vital that the court adopt strong recusal rules to protect the integrity of the judiciary. When a judge hears a case involving their biggest financial supporters, there is a real risk of actual or apparent bias, which threatens the public's perception of the court and undermines its legitimacy."

On March 15, CLC filed comments with the Wisconsin Supreme Court in support of the rulemaking.

WASHINGTON - In response to a complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Common Cause with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging President Trump’s campaign was attempting to violate the contribution limits for his 2020 reelection, the latest campaign finance reports show the Trump campaign has redesignated thousands of entries to count against the contributor’s 2020 election limits and not, as originally reported, for the 2016 election.  

The March 2 complaint alleged that Trump’s campaign committee violated federal election law by attributing campaign contributions received after Election Day to 2016 “debt retirement,” even though no debt existed, rather than to the 2020 election. These false reports, which were included on both the post-general and year-end filings, would have had the effect of illegally increasing the amount Trump could accept from contributors for his 2020 reelection campaign.

On Trump’s FEC report filed last week, his campaign backed away from its apparent attempt to evade the 2020 contribution limits by altering thousands of entries that had appeared on its earlier reports, and re-designating those contributions from “2016 debt retirement” to the 2020 primary.   

“By falsely reporting post-election contributions towards 2016 debt retirement on two separate FEC reports, Trump would have illegally doubled what a contributor could give for the 2020 primaries,” said Brendan Fischer, federal and FEC program director at the Campaign Legal Center. “Additionally, for some of these contributions, the law requires that Trump’s campaign committee receive a donor’s written approval to re-designate their contribution for a future election—and it is not clear the Trump campaign has done so. While the FEC has not yet made public whether it is taking or has taken any action, it should demand a civil penalty from the Trump campaign as a deterrent against future attempts to evade the contribution limits.” 

“Regardless of any excuse offered by the campaign for filing false reports, it is clear that future FEC filings by the campaign will require close monitoring for compliance,” said Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause vice president for policy and litigation. “The FEC must police these filings itself as the Trump campaign has clearly abandoned its 2016 primary season criticism of donor contributions as corrupting and is now very much in the business of raising money aggressively for the 2020 election.”

Trump began fundraising for his reelection just days after his Nov. 8 victory. Federal law provides that a candidate may only raise funds after Election Day to retire outstanding debts from the election, or for a future election. But the Trump campaign ended the 2016 election with no outstanding net debt—therefore, all contributions made after Election Day should have either been refunded to contributors or designated for the 2020 primary election. An individual who gave the maximum contribution and had it attributed to 2016 debt retirement might give an additional contribution and have it attributed to the 2020 primary, even though the entirety of both contributions would be used for 2020.

In response to reports that the first contract for a new immigrant detention center under the Trump administration will be awarded to GEO Group – which gave $225,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC, in violation of federal law– Brendan Fischer, federal and FEC reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) released the following statement:

“For over 75 years, federal contractors have been prohibited from making contributions to federal candidates to protect against the appearance or reality that taxpayer-funded federal contracts are for sale. Private prison contractor GEO Group gave $225,000 to a super PAC closely affiliated with Trump’s campaign, and upon taking office, the Trump Administration reversed an existing policy phasing-out private prisons, then awarded GEO Group a new $110 million federal contract. Are taxpayer dollars being spent based on what is best for the public, or based on what is best for big donors? 

It is incumbent upon the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the longstanding federal contractor contribution ban and take action against GEO Group.”

Last November, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that GEO Group’s contributions to the super PAC Rebuilding America Now violated the contractor contribution ban, and filed a supplement in December.  

On March 1, CLC submitted a FOIA Request with the Bureau of Prisons and Office of Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to find out more information about how the DOJ reached its conclusion to rescind the Aug. 18, 2016 memo in which President Obama decided to phase-out private prison contracts.

CLC offers the FEC new evidence of the super PAC’s illegal compensation to Steve Bannon, asks California Attorney General to examine Bannon’s “Glittering Steel”

WASHINGTON - Today, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed new evidence with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that the super PAC Make America Number 1 made illegal contributions to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. CLC also asked the State of California to investigate a company owned by Bannon, Glittering Steel LLC, for failing to comply with state registration and public disclosure laws.

The FEC letter provided new evidence that the Mercer super PAC illegally compensated Steve Bannon’s work as Donald Trump’s campaign CEO, and that the super PAC and campaign engaged in unlawful coordinated spending by using the common vendor Cambridge Analytica. The letter is a follow-up to the complaint filed by CLC on Oct. 6, 2016.

“The evidence suggests that the Mercer-backed super PAC secretly subsidized Bannon’s work for the Trump campaign by payments to ‘Glittering Steel,’ which we now know has been chaired and is owned by Bannon and which paid him a monthly consulting fee,” said Brendan Fischer, director of the federal and FEC reform program at the Campaign Legal Center.

Additionally, Fischer added, “both Bannon and Make America Number 1’s leadership owned and were on the board of Cambridge Analytica, and news reports indicate that the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica at the urging of Make America Number 1’s head, strengthening the inference that Cambridge Analytica was used as a means of sharing information between the campaign and super PAC, in violation of federal law.”   

CLC also filed a new letter with California’s Attorney General and Secretary of State asking for a review of Glittering Steel LLC’s compliance with state law. Glittering Steel never registered to do business in California, but Make America Number 1’s FEC filings show millions in payments to Glittering Steel at a California address, and Bannon on his personal financial disclosure stated that he was paid by Glittering Steel through his California-based consulting firm. Entities engaged in intrastate commerce in California must register and publicly disclose their board membership, and may be subject to taxation.

“Bannon’s company appears to have dodged the California disclosure requirements that would provide more public information that could inform whether it broke federal campaign finance law,” said Fischer.

WASHINGTON - Today, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas held, once again, that the state’s strict voter ID law, enacted in 2011, was written with racially discriminatory intent.

“Today’s ruling is a crucial step in the six-year journey towards justice for Texas voters since this restrictive voter ID law was passed,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “Judge Ramos was absolutely correct in her judgment that this law was designed to harm minority voters and cannot stand. SB 14 was expertly crafted to harm minority voters in order to minimize their voice just as their political power was growing. Legislators must respond to their electorate, not silence their voters. While the Department of Justice sadly withdrew their intent claim in this case in February, we will continue to fight this discriminatory law in court.”

Read the court order.

Read more about the case Veasey v. Abbott.

WASHINGTON – Today, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez vetoed Senate Bill 96, which would have required groups attempting to influence New Mexico elections to provide critical information to voters before Election Day. The bill was supported by Democrats and Republicans in the New Mexico Senate and House of Representatives, including the Republican leaders in both chambers.

“Gov. Martinez is out of step with a majority of New Mexicans, who value transparency in politics,” said Catie Kelley, state and local program director at the Campaign Legal Center. “Democracy requires transparency and accountability. Secret campaign spending withholds important information from the public. The disclosure of who is paying for political advertisements is necessary for voters to properly evaluate the message and make informed decisions at the ballot box.”

New Mexico will continue to fall behind the majority of states that require outside groups to disclose the sources of advertising designed to influence state elections. According to reports by the Albuquerque Journal, polls conducted by Albuquerque-based Research and Polling over a four-year period consistently show New Mexicans favor increased disclosure requirements on independent political expenditures.

Judicial Crisis Network Ads Wrongly Classified as “Non-Political”

Today, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) asked the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to review broadcast filings from the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), which has spent millions of dollars on advertisements urging U.S. senators to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, but did not provide the disclosure required under federal law.  

The Communications Act provides that broadcasters must disclose specific information about the source of advertisements when those ads air “a message relating to any political matter of national importance.” The JCN ads indisputably meet this standard, and yet JCN incorrectly labeled its advertisements as non-political.

“Broadcasters have an obligation to ensure voters have relevant information about who is attempting to influence their views," said Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform at the Campaign Legal Center. "By broadcasters accepting at face value Judicial Crisis Network’s claims that their ads did not pertain to any ‘political matter of national importance,’ the public was deprived of the important information that federal law and regulations require."

“Some stations conducted their due diligence and required Judicial Crisis Network to amend their improper filings, but the majority of stations did not," said Meredith McGehee, strategic advisor at the Campaign Legal Center. "The FCC must follow up with these broadcast licensees and ensure that they comply with their obligations under the law."

Ads that pertain to “a message relating to any political matter of national importance” are placed into a broadcaster’s political file, and the advertiser must report who is behind the ad and to list the executive board members, or highest-ranking officers, of the sponsoring group. If completed truthfully and fully, the online files should provide the public the information needed to accurately identify who is behind the ads.

Read the letter here

Read the Judicial Crisis Network FCC Filings, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics