CLC, D21 Complaint: Tom Price Violated Law By Using Campaign Funds to Secure HHS Confirmation

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 filed a complaint today with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging Tom Price violated federal law by illegally using congressional campaign funds to support his confirmation as President Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, in violation of the prohibition on using campaign funds for personal use.

“Federal law is clear that congressional campaign funds are to be used to support a run for Congress or one’s duties as a Member of Congress—not so you can land a job after Congress,” said Brendan Fischer, director of CLC’s federal and FEC reform program. “The corrupting potential of campaign contributions is amplified if officeholders can use the funds for their own personal benefit.”

In January, as Price’s nomination to lead HHS was pending before the U.S. Senate, his campaign committee, Price for Congress, paid $40,000 to America Rising, a self-described “opposition research and communications organization,” which then promoted research and videos promoting Price’s confirmation. America Rising also promoted the confirmation of other Trump cabinet nominees, but only Price paid the group with campaign funds.

“The FEC should investigate whether Secretary Price improperly used campaign funds for personal benefit by transferring funds to a group that advocated for his confirmation as Secretary,” said Donald Simon, counsel to Democracy 21. “Price’s use of his campaign funds appears to have violated the law prohibiting the personal use of campaign funds, and the FEC should take appropriate action.”

Several prominent Members of Congress have been convicted for personal use violations in recent years, including Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL), Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), and Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID).

Read the complaint

Issues
Campaign Finance

OGE Director Walter M. Shaub, Jr. to Join CLC and Lead Ethics Practice

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Walter M. Shaub, Jr., director of the United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE), will join Campaign Legal Center (CLC) as Senior Director, Ethics, beginning on July 19.

“I have had the honor and privilege of serving the American public at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics under three presidents – George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump,” said Shaub. “In working with the current administration, it has become clear to me that we need improvements to the existing ethics program. I look forward to working toward that aim at Campaign Legal Center, as well as working on ethics reforms at all levels of government.”

Shaub, who submitted his resignation as OGE director this afternoon, will expand the capacity of CLC’s ethics program, which has a long track record of holding government officials accountable on both sides of the political aisle.

Over the past several administrations, CLC has been instrumental in not only watchdogging public officials, but also shaping and advancing ethics legislation, including the Honest Leadership and Open Government in 2007, which created the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).   

Shaub will work with Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel at CLC, who has been a strong voice for ethics laws and currently serves as a regular contributor on the topic to CNN. CLC will continue to address violations of the ethics laws, issue policy recommendations and educate the public on the importance of ethics to a functioning democracy.

“It’s imperative that we sustain a culture of high ethical standards in our government,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Walt, in serving the American public at the OGE under three presidents, has demonstrated the highest level of professionalism and integrity. All of us at CLC are thrilled to have him join us in our continuing work to protect and improve our democracy.” 

Read Walt's bio.

Issues
Ethics

Alabama Must Immediately Educate Voters About Updates to State’s Felony Disenfranchisement Law

Date
Body

CLC takes legal action following Secretary of State Merrill’s refusal to implement the law 

Campaign Legal Center today asked a federal court to immediately order the state of Alabama to implement the Felony Voter Disqualification Act (HB 282) (signed May 25, 2017) by educating and advising voters of the law, and ensuring that voters who are eligible are added back to the state’s voter rolls.

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill told the Huffington Post he was “not going to spend state resources” educating Alabamians about the updates to the law, even though the state had previously inaccurately told many voters they could not vote, but thanks to the clarity in the law with HB 282, will now be able to vote. The Secretary of State has yet to update AlabamaVotes.gov, voter registration forms, or any other public materials to advise voters of the eligibility requirements.

CLC’s motion calls for the court to immediately order the state to take a series of actions to effectively implement the law before the next statewide election on August 15, 2017.

“This law has the potential to ensure eligible voters – who never should have been denied the right to vote in the first place – can now vote,” said Danielle Lang, senior counsel for Campaign Legal Center, which is representing 10 plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the state’s felony disenfranchisement law. “The state is responsible for correcting the confusion that has wrongly disenfranchised voters for decades. In order for HB 282 to have any meaningful effect, Alabama must notify voters about their right, and ensure they are able to successfully cast a ballot going forward.”

HB 282 provides a comprehensive list of crimes that “involve moral turpitude.” The state’s felony disenfranchisement law, originally enacted in 1901, denies individuals who have committed a crime of “moral turpitude” from registering to vote, unless they file further paperwork, pay significant fines and fees and have their right to vote restored by the state.

Yet, until the passage of HB 282, the state had never defined what constituted a crime that “involved moral turpitude,” confusing eligible voters of whether or not they could vote. And the state denied voters the ability to vote, claiming their crime was one of moral turpitude when it was not.

The passage of HB 282 does not fully resolve Alabama’s deeply troublesome felon disenfranchisement laws. The process is still inherently racially discriminatory and overbroad, permanently disenfranchising many individuals, including many convicted of non-violent crimes. The law also does not address Alabama’s system of conditioning restoration of the right to vote based on wealth by requiring the payment of fines and fees – a clear constitutional violation. 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Vesilind v. Virginia State Board of Elections

At a Glance

In 2015, a group of individual voters in Virginia challenged the 2011 Virginia General Assembly maps as violating the state constitution, arguing that the map drawers subordinated compactness and prioritized partisan criteria in order to achieve self-interested political objectives.

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

About the Case

The Virginia Constitution requires that the legislature give priority to specific, non-partisan criteria in drawing legislative districts, including compactness. The intent of this requirement is to make it more difficult to gerrymander electoral districts by preventing legislators from drawing districts that are unreasonably spread out, or have excessively contorted boundaries. In 2015, a group of individual voters in Virginia challenged the 2011 Virginia General Assembly maps as violating the state constitution, arguing that the map drawers subordinated compactness and prioritized partisan criteria in order to achieve self-interested political objectives.

The state court below found the question of whether constitutional redistricting criteria were subordinated for partisan gain “fairly debatable,” and deferred to the legislature. Plaintiffs are challenging the ruling in the Virginia Supreme Court. On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Virignia, Campaign Legal Center(CLC) and Sidley Austin LLP filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs, highlighting the increasing threat of partisan gerrymandering to fair representation and effective democracy, and the egregious gerrymander of the Virginia House of Delegates map.

What’s at Stake

Partisan gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic, and poses a critical threat to effective democracy. Because of technological advancements, map drawers are able to target voters with surgical precision, and can move individual voters in or out of a particular district in order to maximize partisan advantage. Yet this same technology makes fulfilling the constitutional requirement of compactness a straightforward procedure, even while ensuring that opposing parties are treated symmetrically under the districting plan.

In 2011, Virginia legislators engaged in an open and extreme partisan gerrymander of the General Assembly maps. The efficiency gap, a mathematical analysis of how effectively voters from each party are distributed among voting districts, demonstrates that the 2011 and 2013 House of Delegates maps exhibit a strong and durable pro-Republican bias. The notably large efficiency gaps in Virginia illustrate the extent to which legislators successfully elevated political considerations over non-partisan criteria in order to create an entrenched Republican majority in the House of Delegates. 

As partisan gerrymandering becomes more effective, its effects become more problematic. Gerrymandered districts are less competitive and when representatives don’t face any real electoral threat, they are less accountable to their electorate. Political discourse in turn becomes more polarized, and voters disengage as they realize that political outcomes are predetermined by district lines. In the 2015 elections, 62% of House of Delegate candidates ran unopposed, and in another 9% there was only token third party opposition. Only six of the 100 Delegate races, and five of the 40 Senate races were truly competitive, and all 122 incumbents won re-election. At the same time, the state of Virginia had one of its lowest voter turnout rates on record, with only 29.1% of registered voters casting a ballot.

It is doubtful the 2011 Virginia General Assembly map could have been drawn without subordinating other redistricting criteria to partisan priorities. Partisan gerrymandering has undermined representative democracy in Virginia by allowing politicians to choose their own voters. Removing the power to influence the outcome of elections and hold representatives accountable to the people is antithetical to the founding principles of American democracy.

Plaintiffs

Vesilind

Defendant

Virginia State Board of Elections

Texas Democratic Party v. King Street Patriots

At a Glance

The King Street Patriots challenged the constitutionality of numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance law, including the state restriction on corporate contributions, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees. The state district court rejected KSP’s challenge, and in October 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision...

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

Summary

Texas Democratic Party v. King Street Patriots is a challenge to Texas’s ban on corporate contributions and its disclosure requirements for political action committees.

A Texas state trial court and appellate court have heard the case and upheld the Texas campaign finance laws at issue. The case, now before the Texas Supreme Court, could find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. CLC has filed friend-of-the-court briefs at each stage of the case in support of the challenged provisions of Texas campaign finance law.

Background

During the 2010 election, a Houston, Texas-based tea party group called the King Street Patriots (KSP) trained and dispatched poll watchers, allegedly in coordination with the Texas Republican Party. An offshoot from KSP has developed into a larger organization, True the Vote, which has taken the lead under the Trump Administration to investigate “voter fraud” in the 2016 Election.

In 2010, after KSP sent hundreds of observers to assist with poll watching, the Texas Democratic Party filed suit claiming that this effort represented an illegal in-kind corporate contribution to the Texas Republican Party and calling for the group to register and disclose its donors as a political committee.

KSP counterclaimed – challenging numerous provisions of Texas campaign finance laws, including the state restrictions on corporate contributions, and the disclosure and organizational requirements applicable to political committees. The parties have agreed to address the constitutionality of the laws first, before determining whether KSP violated the laws.

KSP is represented by James Bopp Jr., who is challenging campaign finance regulations nationwide.  Bopp brought the landmark Citizens United v. FEC (2010) case.

A state district court rejected KSP’s challenge to Texas campaign finance law, and in Oct. 2014, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision. On Nov. 10, 2015, CLC filed an amicus brief urging the Texas Supreme Court to affirm these decisions. Later on Feb. 8, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case.

UPDATE: On June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed that corporate contribution restrictions are constitutional under binding Supreme Court precedent, and found that the state definitions of “political contribution” and “campaign contribution” are not unconstitutionally vague. The court declined to consider the facial constitutionality of the “political committee” definitions, finding that the challenge was premature and remanding for the lower court to rule on the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenges.

What’s at Stake?

This is a highly anticipated campaign finance case because it raises the question of whether corporate contribution restrictions are constitutional after Citizens United, which struck down a corporate expenditure restriction.  If it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the case could also impact the federal corporate contribution ban and the laws of 21 other states that currently prohibit corporations from contributing money to candidates.

If KSP wins, it would also be a big victory for political “dark money,” and would open the floodgates to secret campaign contributions in the elections of the country’s second largest state.  The case will either maintain Texas’s campaign finance laws or will go a long way towards dismantling them.

 

Plaintiffs

Texas Democratic Party

Defendant

King Street Patriots

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. Brown

At a Glance

In December 2016, an organization filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging S.B. 1107, legislation which amended California’s Political Reform Act to empower the state and local governments to establish citizen-funded elections. 

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

About the Case

In December 2016, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging S.B. 1107, legislation which amended California’s Political Reform Act to empower the state and local governments to establish citizen-funded elections.

What’s at Stake?

Many states and municipalities across the country have adopted public financing programs for their elections. Courts have long recognized that public financing can help combat actual and apparent corruption, and also facilitate communication between elected officials and a broader swath of voters beyond wealthy donors. HJTA’s suit seeks to deprive California’s municipalities—and the state as a whole—of the opportunity to adopt public financing programs, if they so choose.

Case Details

In 1974, California voters enacted the Political Reform Act (PRA), a comprehensive reform package passed as a statewide initiative in the wake of the Watergate scandal. In 1988, the PRA was amended by another ballot initiative, Proposition 73, which banned the public financing of elections in California. The California Supreme Court later held that the ban could not apply to charter cities, but—prior to S.B. 1107’s enactment—the ban still applied to non-charter cities, as well as to legislative and statewide elections.

S.B. 1107 amended the PRA to provide California municipalities and the state as a whole with the option of adopting public financing programs. Under the California Constitution and the terms of the PRA, a legislative amendment to the PRA must (1) pass the state legislature with a two-thirds majority vote, and (2) further the PRA’s purposes. S.B. 1107 received the requisite two-thirds support in both legislative chambers, but HJTA contends that the bill is invalid because it does not further the purposes of the PRA.

The PRA’s purposes are expressed in the law itself, and include 1) combating political corruption by reducing candidates’ reliance on large contributions from lobbyists and special interests “who thereby gain disproportionate influence over governmental decisions;” 2) creating more responsive state and local governments that serve “citizens equally, without regard to their wealth;” and 3) ensuring fair elections by abolishing “laws and practices [that] unfairly favor incumbents.” By giving California municipalities the ability to adopt public financing programs, S.B. 1107 advances each of these objectives.

Background

In the landmark campaign finance case Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that public financing can “reduce the harmful influence of large contributions on our political process,” “facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process” and “relieve…candidates from the rigors of soliciting private contributions.” Federal courts have continued to recognize the democratic benefits of public financing in recent years.

Moreover, a substantial body of research demonstrates that the impact of citizen-funded elections is consistent with the PRA’s core purposes. Researchers at the Campaign Finance Institute, for example, found that New York City’s matching funds program, after being expanded in 2001, significantly increased the number of small individual donors and their proportional importance to City Council candidates.

The same team also found that the city’s public financing program sparked an increase in campaign contributions from individuals living in socioeconomically and racially diverse neighborhoods, suggesting that the program spurred participating candidates to interact with a larger and more diverse segment of the city’s population. Additionally, a 2008 survey found that state legislative candidates accepting full public funding devoted significantly more time to direct voter outreach and non-fundraising campaign activities, such as canvassing and public speaking, than candidates who did not participate in public financing.

Finally, analysis of elections in jurisdictions with public financing show these systems bolster measures of electoral competiveness, and may even weaken incumbents’ advantages over challengers. Maine’s clean elections law immediately increased the number of candidates and decreased the margin of victory in state senate elections in districts where a candidate accepted public funding. Connecticut reported similar increases in the number of legislative candidates and contested races after introducing its public financing program in 2008. More broadly, the National Institute for Money in State Politics found that far more state legislative elections in 2013-14 in states with citizen-funded elections were contested (87% vs. 61%) and were monetarily competitive (41% vs. 18%) than in states without public financing.

CLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on June 28, 2017, arguing that given the judicial findings and academic research referenced above, providing California’s state and local governments with the option of implementing citizen-funded elections clearly furthers the PRA’s purposes. S.B. 1107 was therefore passed in accordance with state law and appropriately modernizes the Political Reform Act. 

Plaintiffs

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n

Defendant

Governor Jerry Brown

CLC, D21 File Complaint Against Tennessee Congressional Candidate, American Conservative Union, and Others Who Coordinated on Elaborate Scheme to Evade Campaign Finance Law

Date
Body

Violations include illegal coordination, straw donor schemes, excessive contributions and failure to report contributions

WASHINGTON –  Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Democracy 21 (D21) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and will file with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against former Congressional candidate Brian Kelsey and others, including the American Conservative Union (ACU), for their part in a scheme to circumvent contribution limits and disclosure laws by illegally funneling funds from Kelsey’s state account through intermediaries to secretly support Kelsey’s run for U.S. Congress in 2016.

“In order to disguise the illegal transfer of prohibited state money into his federal race, it appears that Kelsey concocted a scheme to pass the money through a dark money daisy chain and straw donor reimbursement plot,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “Kelsey appears to have stacked legal violation on top of legal violation, and we anticipate that the FEC and DOJ will take this very seriously.”

“The FEC needs to investigate whether the unusual pattern of money transfers laid out in the complaint was in fact an effort to funnel non-federal funds into a federal campaign,” said Democracy 21 Counsel Donald Simon. “The timing and amounts of the transfers is more than enough to raise suspicions that warrant further scrutiny by the FEC.”

Kelsey, a Tennessee state senator, unsuccessfully ran for Congress in the Republican primary for Tennessee’s 8th Congressional District in 2016. Because Tennessee allows state candidates to accept donations in amounts and from sources prohibited by federal law, federal candidates cannot transfer or spend state campaign funds in their federal race.

But on July 11, in the midst of the primary, Kelsey’s state campaign committee transferred $106,341 to Standard Club PAC (a Tennessee state PAC), which constituted almost all of the PAC’s fundraising for 2016, and then:

  • On July 15, the Standard Club PAC transferred $30,000 to the 501c4 ACU;
  • On July 20, ACU reported making a $30,000 independent expenditure in support of Kelsey.


Additionally:

  • On July 15 and 20, the Standard Club PAC transferred a total of $37,000 to Citizens 4 Ethics in Government (which was almost all of C4EG’s fundraising for 2016);
  • On July 21, Citizens 4 Ethics in Government transferred $36,000 to ACU (which was almost all of C4EG’s spending for 2016);
  • On July 22, ACU reported making a $19,480 independent expenditure in support of Kelsey, and on July 26, reported a $30,520 independent expenditure in support of Kelsey.


ACU never reported the source of the contributions to the FEC.

These schemes appear to have violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) ban on federal candidates transferring state “soft money” funds that exceed federal limits and the “straw donor” prohibition on making contributions in the name of another. Since executing such a plan would appear to require an exceptional degree of communication between Kelsey and ACU, ACU’s expenditures were likely illegally coordinated with Kelsey.

Evidence also suggests Kelsey used funds from his state campaign and PAC to reimburse state legislators who contributed to his congressional campaign, providing further evidence that Kelsey treated his state campaign accounts as slush funds to illegally support his federal candidacy, in violation of FECA’s straw donor ban.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Supreme Court Will Hear Oral Arguments In Landmark Partisan Gerrymandering Case, Gill v. Whitford

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today said they would hear oral arguments in a case that could curb partisan gerrymandering nationwide. Campaign Legal Center attorneys along with co-counsel represent 12 Wisconsin voters in the landmark case Gill v. Whitford, which challenges Wisconsin’s Assembly district lines as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

“A federal three-judge panel rightfully held that Wisconsin lawmakers drew maps for the benefit of their own political party, with little regard for the will of the voters,” said Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who will argue the case before the Supreme Court. “Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure the maps in Wisconsin are drawn fairly, and further, has the opportunity to create ground rules that safeguard every citizen’s right to freely choose their representatives,”

Last month, the Campaign Legal Center filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm the lower court’s ruling striking down Wisconsin’s 2011 State Assembly map as unconstitutional. On Nov. 21, 2016, Judge Kenneth Francis Ripple, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote the majority opinion for the panel which found that Wisconsin’s State Assembly district map violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The panel reached this conclusion after conducting a full trial on the matter, hearing extensive evidence from both sides. 

“The threat of partisan gerrymandering isn’t a Democratic or Republican issue; it’s an issue for all American voters,” said Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, and former Republican Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Across the country, we’re witnessing legislators of both parties seizing power from voters in order to advance their purely partisan purposes. We’re confident that when the justices see how pervasive and damaging this practice has become, the Supreme Court will adopt a clear legal standard that will ensure our democracy functions as it should.”

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 to create a district plan that is one of the most extremely gerrymandered state legislative plans in the last four decades.  As a result, 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.

“I’m grateful the Supreme Court will hear our case and listen to our stories of how we are harmed,” said Wendy Sue Johnson, one of the 12 plaintiffs challenging the Wisconsin State Assembly Districts in Whitford. “No matter which side of the aisle you’re on, we should all be able to agree on one thing: as voters in a democracy we should have the right to freely choose our representatives rather than endure a system where politicians manipulate our district lines, dilute our votes, and choose their own constituents. The Supreme Court’s ruling could give us back our right to have our vote count.”

Partisan gerrymandering nationwide is more acute than ever before.  According to University of Chicago Law Professor Nick Stephanopoulos, four of the five most gerrymandered state legislative maps on partisan grounds in the last 45 years—as well as eight of the 10 statewide maps for the U.S. House of Representatives--were drawn since 2010.

This case represents the first time in 31 years that a lower court struck down a district plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

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.

Issues
Redistricting
Subscribe to