WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging Donald Trump’s campaign committee violated federal election law by illegally accepting campaign contributions after Election Day and falsely reporting those contributions for “debt retirement,” even though no debt existed. These false reports could have the effect of illegally increasing the amount Trump could accept from contributors for his 2020 reelection campaign.

Trump began to fundraise 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.  

Yet instead, Trump reported the entirety of the funds raised to 2016 debt retirement—even though no such debt existed.

“By falsely reporting post-election contributions as being for 2016 debt retirement, Trump may be trying to illegally double what a contributor can give for the 2020 primaries,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “An individual who  gave the maximum contribution and had it attributed to 2016 debt retirement might think they can give an additional contribution and have it attributed to the 2020 primary, even though the entirety of both contributions would be used for 2020.”

Additionally, the complaint alleges, Trump violated the law by failing to timely register as a 2020 candidate. A person becomes a “candidate” when they raise more than $5,000 for an election – a threshold Trump crossed soon after he began fundraising in early November – and after becoming a candidate must register a campaign committee within 15 days. Trump waited more than two months and didn’t register until Inauguration Day, Jan. 20.

“In the rush to cash in on an unexpected election victory, the Trump campaign began raising and misreporting millions of dollars in campaign contributions more than two months before Trump was even sworn into office,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause.  “Campaign finance laws still apply even after you win the presidency and these transgressions, like the President’s refusal to release his taxes or separate himself from his business interests, hammer home the point that Trump’s campaign promise to drain the swamp in Washington was nothing more than lip service.”

WASHINGTON – Today, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to “electioneering communication” disclosure provisions, which the Court has twice upheld since they were enacted as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002. Today’s summary ruling affirms the three-judge district court’s decision in Independence Institute v. FEC to uphold the disclosure law, which ensures transparency from groups that sponsor candidate-focused ads shortly before an election and prevents efforts to evade disclosure.

“Supporters of government transparency applaud the Supreme Court’s decision today to affirm the constitutionality of these key disclosure requirements,” said Tara Malloy, deputy executive director at the Campaign Legal Center. “The public has a right to know who is spending large sums of money to influence their vote and to shape the laws and regulations that impact everyone.”

The disclosure requirements apply to groups that spend more than $10,000 on candidate-focused TV and radio ads that air shortly before an election, targeted to the relevant electorate. As political ads increasingly flood the airwaves each campaign cycle, the public should have access to complete information about the sources of money seeking to influence their vote.

These disclosure laws are essential for a healthy democracy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, shielding large campaign donors from scrutiny deprives voters of information they need to make informed decisions at the ballot box. By arming themselves with that information, voters are better able to evaluate the messages of ads and determine the weight they should carry in their electoral judgments. Disclosure also helps voters hold corporations accountable for their political spending and helps make sure public officials aren’t in the pocket of special interests.

Read our case page

Litigators and Plaintiff Confident Three-Judge Lower Court Ruling Will Stand

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin’s landmark partisan gerrymandering case is officially headed to the United States Supreme Court. Today, the State of Wisconsin formally appealed the three-judge panel’s decision in Whitford v. Gill to the nation’s highest court.

The State’s appeal sets up an historic opportunity for the Supreme Court to consider the three-part legal test we proposed on behalf of the plaintiffs and to set a standard by which courts can analyze extreme partisan gerrymandering plans and curb the undemocratic practice nationwide.

CLC Director of Voting Rights and Redistricting Gerry Hebert released the following statement:

“For too long our democracy has been controlled by lawmakers who draw legislative districts to benefit themselves. The Supreme Court can now solve this pervasive problem by establishing – for the first time – a manageable standard by which courts nationwide can analyze partisan gerrymandering claims and curb the undemocratic practice. We are confident the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with the panel of judges that has already ruled that Wisconsin's extreme partisan gerrymander is unconstitutional. The simple fact is that voters should be able to choose their representatives and influence the policy decisions that directly impact their lives.”

Douglas Poland, one of the Wisconsin-based attorneys representing the plaintiffs, released the following statement:

“Two different three-judge federal court panels have now found that Act 43, developed through secret and closed meetings unprecedented in Wisconsin history, violated federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The federal court panel in Whitford v. Gill ruled that there is ample evidence and firm legal precedent to throw out Act 43 because it is a deliberate, extreme, durable, and unjustifiable partisan gerrymander. Wisconsin lawmakers have used taxpayer money for the purpose of entrenching themselves and their political party in sole control of the legislature for the past six years.  With this appeal, Wisconsin citizens now look to the United States Supreme Court to finally and permanently remove the cancer of extreme partisan gerrymandering from our democracy.”

Bill Whitford, the lead plaintiff in the case, released the following statement:

“This is another step in our journey for a stronger, fairer democracy. I have faith that the United States Supreme Court will share my belief that extreme partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional and undermines our democracy. We have to remember what this case is all about – creating a system where the voters select their legislators, not where legislators select their voters. The Supreme Court has an historic opportunity to ensure that my voice, and the voices of all Wisconsin voters, are heard and to put a standard in place that will stop this detrimental practice from occurring across the country. I have full confidence in my lawyers I and am thankful for their efforts to protect every American’s right to participate fully in the political process.”

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) lawyers along with co-counsel represent Whitford and the other 11 plaintiffs in the case. Private counsel working with CLC 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.

Due to the unique procedural process for redistricting cases, the Supreme Court must summarily affirm, summarily deny, or hear the case on the merits. CLC and the litigation team will continue to work with the Fair Elections Project to address partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. 

FEC Must Investigate $225,000 in Donations from Private Prison Company GEO Group to Trump Super PAC, in Violation of Contractor Ban

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo Thursday reversing the previous administration’s plans to phase-out the use of private prisons. In 2016, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that private prison company GEO Group had illegally contributed a total of $225,000 to the Donald Trump-affiliated super PAC Rebuilding America Now, in violation of the 75-year-old ban on government contractors making political contributions.

“The DOJ’s policy decision to reverse its private prison phase-out is a clear-cut example for why we need a strong Federal Election Commission that will enforce election laws,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.

“One day after the Obama administration announced it would be ending GEO's contracts; GEO Group gave $100,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC, and added an additional $125,000 a few weeks later. Now, the Trump administration has made policy decisions that have benefitted GEO Group financially, including a reversal of the previous administration’s private prison policies and promising a national immigration crackdown. The reason that federal contractors have been banned for 75-years from making political contributions is to prevent pay-to-play in the contracting process. Officials are supposed to decide how taxpayer dollars are spent based on what's best for the public, not based on what's best for their big money backers.”

CLC Urges Court to Proceed with Hearing on SB 14 as scheduled on February 28

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center filed a motion today with our private plaintiffs, opposing Texas’ and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempt to delay a court hearing on the state’s discriminatory voter ID law, SB 14, which is currently scheduled in U.S. District Court for Feb. 28. CLC is litigating the case, Veasey v. Abbott, on behalf of Texas voters. 

Texas and the United States have asked the Court to delay a hearing about Texas’s discriminatory purpose in enacting its law in the hopes that Texas will pass a new law that addresses the Fifth Circuit’s concerns. This is nothing more than an attempt by Texas to avoid court scrutiny of its discriminatory motives. 

The DOJ's sudden support of Texas’ delay tactics is a complete reversal of its past position in this case. When Texas made the same argument for delay to the Court last August, the DOJ strongly opposed. 

The DOJ stated then that “in the interest of justice,” the court should decide on the question of discriminatory purpose at the earliest opportunity. For years, the DOJ has argued that the evidence shows that Texas’ strict voter ID law was motivated by discriminatory intent. In November, it submitted over a hundred pages of facts supporting this conclusion. Now however, the DOJ is standing by Texas and in opposition to private plaintiffs, joining in their motion to delay hearings on SB 14. The hearing was already delayed one month after the DOJ filed for a continuance on Inauguration Day in order to brief the new administration prior to the previously scheduled January 24 hearing.

“Texas is trying to evade justice through continual delay,” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. “This law not only harms minorities, it was designed to do so. The DOJ’s retreat is shameful and shows where the department stands on protecting voting rights.”

The joint motion is based on Texas legislators’ introduction of SB 5, a law that would amend the strict voter ID law. Proposed changes include some positive steps to protect voters such as allowances to use secondary forms of identification or recently expired IDs. However, the new bill has obvious flaws that perhaps could have been addressed if the plaintiffs were consulted. For example, the bill proposes a harsh criminal penalty, prominently advertised, for misuse of the declaration. This is an entirely unnecessary addition to the state’s perjury laws and appears designed to intimidate voters.

“The discriminatory facts of SB 14 have not changed,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center. “The court must hear the facts of this case at the earliest opportunity. The choice to exclude forms of ID that students and minorities are more likely to bring to the polls was not done by accident. It was done to make it more difficult for these groups to vote. The court should not allow any further delay."