Texas's Modified Version of the Original Law, SB 5, is Just as Discriminatory as the Original SB 14, Court Says 

A federal court in Texas today permanently blocked Texas latest version of its voter photo ID law, SB 5. Campaign Legal Center represents Texas voters in its challenge to the law in the case Veasey v. Abbott. 

A federal court had already blocked the original Texas voter photo ID law, SB 14, from going into full effect during the 2016 presidential election. During the 2016 elections, an interim process was put into place as a “stop-gap” measure, allowing voters without the required photo ID to vote if they signed a declaration instead. In April of this year, the federal court held that the original law, SB 14, not only harmed minority voters in practice but was passed with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters. Because of this unconstitutional and purposeful discrimination, the court held today that both SB 14 and Texas’s amendments to the law in SB 5 must be invalidated.

Judge Ramos of the Southern District of Texas said Texas’s latest voter photo ID law, SB 5, keeps the same limited forms of photo ID required under SB 14 and therefore carries forward the same “discriminatory features” of the original SB 14 voter photo ID law.

 “Time and time again, federal courts have made it clear that Texas’s strict voter photo ID law is discriminatory,” said Danielle Lang, senior counsel for CLC. “It doesn’t matter how many times the state tries to dress the law in sheep’s clothing – its intent is to discriminate and prevent hundreds of thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots. Now, Texas must return to nondiscriminatory ID practices in voting, which do not require photo ID.” 

Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Issue One filed six complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against two Atlanta-based television stations in the aftermath of the special election in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, which was the most expensive U.S. House election in American history. Much of the battle was waged on the television airwaves, with several “dark money” nonprofits and super PACs spending millions of dollars airing TV advertisements in the district. Some of the major organizations involved — including the Democratic-affiliated groups Patriot Majority USA and House Majority PAC, as well as the Republican-tied National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) — failed to properly disclose important information.

“Stations that air political ads have an obligation to ensure that viewers have relevant information about who is attempting to influence their vote," said Brendan Fischer, director of federal and Federal Election Commission reform at CLC. "The FCC must take action to protect the public’s right to basic information about the political ads that flooded Georgia’s airwaves during this year’s special elections.”

“Voters have a right to know who exactly is behind the advertisements that can strongly influence their vote,” said Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy at Issue One. “Without a firm commitment to transparency by the FCC — a principle both Democrats and Republicans agree on — we risk losing the openness and accountability that ensure a functioning democracy.”

Any ad that “communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance” must be placed into a broadcaster’s political file, and the advertiser must disclose who is behind the ad, as well as list the executive board members, or highest-ranking officers, of the sponsoring group. The legal definition of “a political matter of national importance” includes any election to federal office, so the advertisements run during Georgia’s 6th Congressional District special election clearly qualify.

At least two separate Georgia television stations, WPCH-TV and WSB-TV, failed to require that Patriot Majority USA, House Majority PAC and the NRCC accurately and completely fill out the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) agreement form. On their NAB agreements, the groups falsely claimed the advertisements were not “a political matter of national importance,” which meant the groups failed to disclose required information such as the office, candidate and/or issue in question. It is time to set the record straight.

The station WPCH-TV failed to disclose information in a political ad sponsored by Patriot Majority USA.

Complaints:

• House Majority PAC (WPCH Station)
• NRCC (WPCH Station)
• Patriot Majority PAC (WPCH Station)
• Patriot Majority PAC (WSB Station)
• NRCC (WSB Station)
• House Majority PAC (WSB Station)

CLC calls for investigation into why Bannon Publicist Alexandra Preate ‘has not received a dime’ for professional PR services provided

WASHINGTON – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) called for an investigation of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon for his apparently illegal arrangement with his private publicist Alexandra Preate, who is effectively functioning as an unpaid employee of the White House press team. This arrangement was uncovered by investigative reporter Christina Wilkie with the Center for Public Integrity (story).

“Once again, it appears the White House is ignoring longstanding government ethics rules, this time by outsourcing White House press office functions to an unpaid private public relations consultant,” said Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel at CLC.

“The White House and White House officials receiving secretly-funded professional services raises serious concerns about outside influence over government decision making,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal & FEC reform program at CLC. “We expect that the new White House Chief of Staff will take remedial action to address these violations of the law.”

Preate’s work for the White House and Bannon raises two potential legal violations, as outlined in the letter sent to the White House, Attorney General’s Office and Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

First, if Bannon accepted Preate’s professional services on behalf of the White House, then Bannon is likely in violation of the Antideficiency Act, which provides that a government employee “may not accept voluntary services for [the] government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law.” Second, to the extent that Preate’s services were provided to Bannon in his personal capacity, Bannon may be violating executive branch ethics rules.

There is also reason to believe that a third-party has been subsidizing Preate’s work for the White House and Bannon. Preate’s top client and a major source of her firm’s income is Breitbart News, which Bannon led until recently, and Preate has also represented Trump donor Rebekah Mercer, whose family is part-owner of Breitbart, and who has a long relationship with Bannon.

CLC filed a letter with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in April 2017 about evidence that a Mercer-backed super PAC illegally compensated Bannon’s work and participated in illegal coordination through use of a common vendor.

WASHINGTON – Walter Shaub, senior director, ethics at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and former director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), released the following statement about President Trump’s appointment of David J. Apol as Acting Director of OGE:

“It’s unfortunate that the White House decided to play politics with the interim director role. If they have someone they like, they should formally nominate that person to be permanent director. This sort of political interference creates the appearance that the White House may be hoping to engineer looser oversight by reaching down and leapfrogging a career employee over his own supervisor temporarily.

Under the Vacancies Reform Act, the role of OGE’s acting director automatically goes to OGE’s highest ranking career official, the Chief of Staff, unless the president overrides that designation. OGE announced today that the White House has replaced the acting director with a lower level OGE employee, the General Counsel. This way, the White House gets to install its preferred candidate without having a Senate confirmation hearing in which it would have to face tough questions about how the nominee would address the administration’s ethics problems.”