WASHINGTON –The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed two letters with formal comments to the FEC: one supporting a rulemaking petition defining how parties may use the new accounts created in the 2014 “cromnibus,” and the other opposing an effort to open loopholes for state and local parties which would allow more unregulated soft money into federal elections.

CLC Supports FEC Rulemaking Defining the Proper Uses of Party Accounts Created in 2014

CLC and Democracy 21 filed formal comments supporting a proposal that the agency enact rules directing how parties may use the high-dollar accounts created in the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations “cromnibus” bill. 

In late 2014, Congress snuck a last-minute rider into an appropriations bill that created three new separate party accounts for the DNC and RNC. Each account is authorized to receive huge contributions of up to $100,200 per donor, per year, thereby allowing a single donor to give more than $300,000 to these national party committee accounts.

The use of the money in each of these new accounts is supposed to be restricted: one account is to pay for the presidential nominating conventions, a second account is to pay for the legal costs of election recounts and other legal proceedings and the third account is to pay for party headquarters buildings.

But, because the FEC has yet to write rules defining how parties can use these accounts, it appears the parties have used them as a slush fund to fund a wide range of election-related activities. Last election cycle, one Republican campaign finance attorney told the Washington Post, “I think both political parties will find many creative ways to use the quasi-soft money accounts to support their presidential candidates. . .We are in an environment in which there has been virtually no enforcement of the campaign finance laws, so it would arguably be political malpractice not to make maximum uses of these accounts.”

CLC and Democracy 21’s comments supported a petition for rulemaking to write rules describing the appropriate uses of funds raised for these accounts and to crack down on abuse.

Read: Comments: REG 2013-10 - on Notice 2016-10: Implementing 2015 Omnibus Appropriation Act

###

CLC Opposes Proposal to Deregulate State Party Use of Soft Money

CLC and Democracy 21 also filed comments opposing a rulemaking petition from Minnesota’s Democratic Farm-Labor Party asking the FEC to loosen regulations on how state and local parties can use “soft money” – meaning large (often unlimited) contributions not subject to federal law—on federal election activities.

From the late 1970s through the 1990s, the FEC created a series of loopholes opening the door for state and local parties to use soft money, in many cases raised by federal candidates, on a range of activities that supported federal candidates. Soft money spending by the two major parties skyrocketed from five percent ($21.6 million) in 1984 to 42 percent ($498 million) in 2000—and a Senate investigation found that both parties were selling access to candidates in exchange for large soft money contributions.

The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was enacted in 2002 to close these soft money loopholes—and CLC and D21’s comments urge the FEC not to open them once again.

In their petition, the state parties argue that the rise of largely unregulated super PACs mean parties should also be deregulated so they aren’t drowned out. But CLC and D21’s comments note:

“state parties—like most Americans—may have legitimate concerns about the growing role of independent expenditure-only organizations like super PACs that are working closely with the candidates they support. The proper way to address this issue is not by creating new campaign finance loopholes for party committees in the name of “rebalancing” the system—which would open the door to the corruption that BCRA was enacted to prevent—but instead for the Commission to enforce its own coordination rules against candidate-specific super PACs and to undertake a rulemaking on strengthening those regulations.”   

Read: Comments: Notice 2016-11: "Rulemaking Petition: Political Party Rules"

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has signed an executive order mandating a five-year lobbying ban for anyone who leaves the executive branch in the Trump administration to work in the private sector. The order maintains many, but not all, of the improvements made in 2009 by the Obama administration executive order. Importantly, Trump is not continuing the policy preventing those former administration officials who are not registered lobbyists from contacting and attempting to influence their former colleagues for two years after leaving government.

“Slowing the revolving door moving from government to the private sector and eliminating lobbying on behalf of foreign entities are both necessary reforms,” said Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center. “The order breaks new ground preventing administration officials from becoming registered foreign agents." However, what Trump has created is a system that incentivizes shadow lobbyists because former government employees who did not become registered lobbyists previously still had a two-year waiting period to communicate with employees of their former agency which they no longer do.”

Potter added: "One of today's great Washington scams is former government officials running lobbying operations and attempting to affect official policy while claiming they do not technically qualify as 'lobbyists.' Such conduct remains unaddressed. Trump is just skimming the surface of the swamp - as he remains silent on his campaign pledge to push Congress to adopt their own five-year ban."

Widely-exploited loopholes in the Lobbying Disclosure Act allow former administration officials to become advisors or consultants, which invites them to evade this executive order by lobbying without registering as a lobbyist. The executive order also does not appear to continue Obama's policy of restricting lobbyists from entering the administration.
 
Trump is aware of those loopholes: in October, his campaign released a five-point ethics reform plan that included a plan to close those lobbyist registration loopholes, as well as ban senior executive branch officials from lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

Amending the outdated Lobbying Disclosure Act is long overdue, but today's order gives no indication the Trump Administration supports this reform.

Trump Administration Lays Groundwork to Silence Minorities, Elderly, Youth in Future Elections

WASHINGTON – This morning, President Donald Trump called for a “major investigation” into potential voter fraud, alleging that millions of undocumented immigrants voted in the 2016 election, and that ballots were cast on behalf of the deceased.

“Donald Trump’s claims have been repeatedly debunked and are contrary to the evidence, which conclusively  shows there is no widespread voter fraud,” said Gerry Hebert, director of voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. “President Trump, in making these false and irresponsible statements – and by nominating Jeff Sessions to lead the Department of Justice in an era where we do not have the full protections of the Voting Rights Act – is launching an all-out assault on voting rights. Given Mr. Sessions’s history of using voter fraud prosecutions as a form of voter suppression, Donald Trump’s announcement of this ‘investigation’ rings serious alarm bells.”

“Americans should be warned,” said Danielle Lang, deputy director of voting rights for the Campaign Legal Center. “This is not just about Donald Trump’s scorned ego for losing the popular vote. These statements are laying the groundwork for a legislative agenda meant to secure future elections through voter suppression, even though several federal courts have found these tactics to be discriminatory for targeting the poor, minority or disabled voters. These voices will be silenced if we allow Trump and his administration to engage in this voting rights witch hunt.”

Donald Trump insinuates that outdated voter registration rolls are indicative of fraud. They are not, as the author of the study he relies on has made clear. Multiple studies have shown that there is virtually no evidence of voter impersonation fraud, indicating no need for strict voter ID laws or laws that make it harder, not easier to vote.

These studies have been conducted on both sides of the political aisle. A Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) study showed that between the years 2000 and 2010, 21 states had only one or two convictions for some form of voter irregularity. A 2014 comprehensive study by the Brennan Center for Justice found there were only 31 credible allegations of fraud in over 1 billion votes cast.

This lack of evidence is not for lack of investigation. In an attempt to justify voter suppression laws, states have repeatedly sought to investigate voter fraud and have attempted put forward evidence to support their claims. Yet every court to address this issue has found that there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud. During the George W. Bush administration, the Department of Justice launched a major campaign to investigate and prosecute voter fraud and came up empty handed. 

5^th Circuit’s Decision That the Law is Discriminatory Will Stand

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear the case, Veasey v. Abbott, a challenge to Texas’s voter ID law, SB 14, the strictest photo voter ID law in the country. In refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court leaves in place the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which found the law to be discriminatory. 

Campaign Legal Center attorneys represent plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey, LULAC and a group of Texas voters in the case.

Gerry Hebert, CLC’s director of voting rights and redistricting, issued the following statement in reaction to the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari:

“I am extremely pleased that the justices recognize that this case does not merit review at this time. The full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and every other federal court that has heard this case has ruled Texas’s photo voter ID law is discriminatory. Now, Texas, which ranks poorly in voter participation, should work to ensure that every eligible voter in the state is able to cast a ballot going forward.”

A Texas district court is currently reviewing the issue of discriminatory intent. The 5th Circuit has held that there is sufficient evidence and Campaign Legal Center is confident the court will once again recognize the unlawful purpose behind this law.