Republican Party of Louisiana Seeks To End Necessary Federal Contribution Limits for Political Parties

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Republican Party of Louisiana v. FEC, a case attempting to further undermine campaign contribution limits.

Under one of the key provisions enacted as part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, state and local parties have limits on how much they can raise for federal election activities. With the help of Citizens United lawyer Jim Bopp, the plaintiffs – the Republican Party of Louisiana and two of its local committees – argue that the First Amendment forbids Congress from limiting the sources and amounts of these contributions.

“These contribution limits are a modest and necessary check,” said Tara Malloy, deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Political parties are inherently tied to candidates and serve as ready conduits for corruption. When parties raise money to engage in federal election activities, such as get-out-the-vote efforts in their own states that support a presidential candidate, it’s difficult to make the case that these state party activities do not impact the federal candidates they benefit and cannot be subject to federal restrictions.”

In our friend-of-the-court brief, we argue that large contributions to political parties to fund federal election activity—even insofar as that activity is “independent” of federal candidates—give rise to the reality and appearance of corruption and must be subject to contribution limits to protect our democracy.

“There is a long and demonstrated history of political party donors exploiting close ties to obtain political favors,” said Megan P. McAllen, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “If these restrictions are struck down, we could see political parties shift their focus from engaging average voters to instead engaging a handful of billionaires. It doesn’t improve the parties, and it doesn’t improve democracy.”

Lawyers for the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and the law firm WilmerHale are part of the legal team, led by Scott L. Nelson of Public Citizen Litigation Group, representing the amici curiae on today’s filing.

Grant Enables Lawyers, Advocates to Protect Voting Rights Nationwide 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation today demonstrated its commitment to protecting voting rights by awarding a $1 million legacy grant to the Voting Rights Institute, a project of the American Constitution Society, Campaign Legal Center and the Georgetown University Law Center.

“We are incredibly grateful to the MacArthur Foundation for investing in this important work,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The Voting Rights Institute is preparing the next generation of attorneys, experts and activists to preserve our democracy and protect the ability of all Americans to vote. By providing resources, litigating, educating, training and conducting new and original research, the VRI is growing the pool of voting rights attorneys and experts at this crucial time when they are needed the most. ”

Georgetown Law Dean William M. Treanor said,  “I could not be more pleased and proud that the MacArthur Foundation has chosen to honor the Voting Rights Institute and its crucial mission with this generous grant,” “The motto at Georgetown Law is, ‘Law is but the means; justice is the end.’ And nowhere is the need for justice greater than when it comes to protecting and preserving the right to vote.”

ACS President Caroline Fredrickson said, “This grant represents the tireless commitment of countless individuals to the idea that every American should have a voice in our political system,” “The Voting Rights Act—one of the most effective pieces of legislation ever passed – may be hobbled, but our dedication to the underlying democratic principles will endure.”
 
The VRI, launched in 2014, was established in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which nullified a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The VRI offers opportunities for students, recent graduates and fellows to engage in litigation and policy work in the field of voting rights, and educates attorneys about the skills and best practices of voting rights advocacy. To date, the VRI has represented parties and filed friend-of-the-court briefs in a number of cases, including four in the U.S. Supreme Court this term alone.  Furthermore, the VRI has trained 400 attorneys, law students and voting rights advocates in 10 cities nationwide, with more trainings on the schedule for 2016.

As part of this effort, the VRI today proudly launches a new website, www.votingrightsinstitute.org, which provides voting rights information to the public, resources for attorneys working on voting rights litigation (including expert witness documents and sample legal documents), and a tool for the public to report voting rights violations. It also provides updates on events, publications and other resources to elevate public awareness of changes to voting procedures, including problems implementing voter identification laws and voter registration restrictions.  The site leverages a technology platform developed by Pro Bono Net, which is used to support broad-based networks of legal aid, civil rights and pro bono lawyers.

Learn more about the Voting Rights Institute

Yet Another Donor Anonymously Funds Elections While Hiding Behind Shell Company

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, a leading campaign finance watchdog, along with Democracy 21, today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), calling on the agency to investigate contributions to “the ghost corporation” “Children of Israel LLC,” which funneled $400,000 to two super PACs.

Read the complaint.

According to an article by The Washington Post, the mysterious California-based LLC contributed $50,000 to Pursuing America’s Greatness, a super PAC supporting Mike Huckabee’s previous presidential run, and gave another $100,000 in November. And in January, it donated $250,000 to Stand for Truth, a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC. These donations made “Children of Israel LLC” the fourth-biggest donor to each of these groups, although the true source of the funding was never disclosed to the public.

Additionally, Shaofen “Lisa” GAO, the founder of the LLC,  filed paperwork with the California’s secretary of state’s office in September listing “donations” as her company’s type of business, an apparent admission that the company was created to act as a conduit for secret money.  

 “Without FEC action, we’ll continue to see a trend of donors hiding behind LLCs to skirt disclosure laws,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “As secret super PAC donors face no consequences, Americans are left in the dark, without any way of knowing who is funding and influencing campaigns, including whether illegal foreign money is creeping into American elections.”

This is the fourth complaint this year that the Campaign Legal Center has filed with the FEC against donors funneling money through LLCs to avoid disclosure laws. CLC and Democracy 21 await FEC action.

New motion filed so voters can participate in 2016 presidential election

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) today called on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate its stay of a lower court’s ruling so that Texas’s harmful voter ID law will not prevent voters from casting a ballot in the 2016 presidential election.

“Why should a law – which has already been found by seven federal judges to violate Texans’ voting rights – keep even one voter from participating in the 2016 presidential election?” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “All we are asking is that while we wait for a final ruling in this case, voters are not prevented from participating in our democracy.”

The D.C. District Court, a Texas district court, and a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit have already found that the law discriminates against minority voters. The 5th Circuit’s stay of the district court’s decision in 2014 is the only reason the law is in effect, but that stay was originally issued in order to avoid confusion because the district court’s decision was issued shortly before the 2014 elections.

“That risk that the court of appeals found in 2014 that there may be voter confusion has clearly passed,” said Danielle Lang, legal fellow of the Campaign Legal Center, “so there is no reason eligible Texas voters should once again be denied the right to vote.”

The 5th Circuit’s full panel is set to hear the case in May, and there may not be a final decision until it’s too late to stop the law before the 2016 fall elections. The emergency motion to vacate the stay urges the court to rule by April 1.

Our motion was filed on behalf of Congressman Marc Veasey and other plaintiffs. Read the Emergency Motion of Veasey-Lulac Appellees. 

 

Arguments Are Latest in Public Citizen v. FEC Alleging Crossroads Should Register as a Political Action Committee

WASHINGTON – Crossroads GPS cannot rely on its own procedural maneuvering to argue that it is now too late to take action against it for failing to register as a political committee in 2010, Public Citizen said in a brief filed late Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The brief is the latest step in Public Citizen v. FEC, a case brought by Public Citizen, Craig Holman, Kevin Zeese and ProtectOurElections.org against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for failing to take enforcement action against Crossroads GPS based on a three-three deadlock vote among the commissioners. The legal work on the case is being done by the Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen Litigation Group.

Despite spending tens of millions of dollars on the 2010 midterm elections, Crossroads GPS refused to register as a political committee with the FEC and as a result did not disclose it contributors to the FEC. Public Citizen and its fellow plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the FEC, and the FEC’s general counsel recommended that the agency find probable cause to proceed with an investigation. But the three Republican commissioners blocked action by voting not to find probable cause to move forward. Public Citizen and the other three plaintiffs then sued to have the FEC’s dismissal of its complaint declared unlawful.

The case was on hold for more than a year while Crossroads GPS sought to intervene in the case and to obtain nonpublic documents from the FEC. The delay resulted from the FEC’s resistance, while the plaintiffs sought to keep the case moving.

With the case back on track, Crossroads GPS in early February filed its brief supporting the FEC’s refusal to take action against it. In addition to repeating the FEC’s arguments, Crossroads GPS argues that the case is now moot because the statute of limitations for its failure to register has run out, so the FEC could take no action against it even if Public Citizen succeeds in showing the FEC’s failure to investigate was unlawful.

In the brief filed yesterday, Public Citizen explains that Crossroads GPS has not carried the burden of showing that the case is moot. The statute of limitations Crossroads invokes would not bar the FEC from seeking an injunction requiring Crossroads GPS to register and make the required disclosures. Moreover, Crossroads GPS cannot rely on its own procedural maneuvering in the case to argue that the statute of limitations has now run out.

“This lawsuit gave Crossroads GPS notice of the charges against it well within the limitations period, and it can’t now claim that its own actions to slow down the lawsuit have run out the clock,” said Scott Nelson, attorney for Public Citizen.

Public Citizen’s brief also explains that in light of Crossroads’ extensive electoral spending in 2010, the three commissioners who blocked the FEC from taking action failed to come up with a lawful or reasonable explanation for not taking action against it, and the court should not defer to their views.

“The refusal of three FEC Commissioners to enforce the law not only undermined transparency in our elections but Crossroads GPS treated it as a green light to continue breaking the law,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Deputy Executive Director. “Even after the complaint was filed—and later dismissed—Crossroads GPS continued to spend tens of millions of dollars on express election advocacy without revealing the funders behind that effort.  Further, the FEC’s refusal to enforce the law has encouraged dozens of other ‘dark money’ groups to follow the example set by Crossroads GPS.”

Since its first foray into electoral politics in 2010, Crossroads GPS has continued to pour substantial amounts of money into each subsequent election. The Center for Responsive Politics ranks it the top-spending political nonprofit over the 2010, 2012 and 2014 election cycles, and it likely will remain a major player. But it has so far avoided the disclosure obligations imposed on political committees, and the IRS, intimidated by congressional critics of its scrutiny of political nonprofits, recently allowed it to claim tax-exempt status.

“Americans have been in the dark for long enough about who funds Crossroads GPS long enough,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen. “It’s high time the FEC took action against Crossroads. Crossroads GPS’ new argument that it’s now too late to do anything about it just won’t wash.”

Inadequate Staffing and High Turnover in Congressional Offices Makes Lobbyists Too Powerful

A group of experts and close observers of Congress today sent a letter urging Congress to form a Joint Committee on the Capacity of Congress to examine and improve congressional operation, which is suffering from understaffing and underfunding.

Since 1980, staffing in the House has declined, and since 1994, staffing in the Senate has remained mostly stagnant. The number of staff devoted to policy has also decreased, especially in the U.S. House where committee staffing is about half of what it was in 1980.

“Congress has been doing government on the cheap for decades. And we get what we pay for,” the letter says. “As the richest nation in the world, we can and should afford to spend a little more to make sure we have some of the smartest, most experienced people in the world making our laws.”

“Too often, going to work on the Hill is seen as a way to get your ticket punched on your way to a lucrative career on K St.,” said Campaign Legal Center’s Policy Director Meredith McGehee.  “As a result of low pay and inadequate staffing levels, turnover among congressional staff is too high.  This lack of internal capacity empowers lobbyists since they are who the staff turn to for policy expertise.” 

"With the looming specter of a Trump presidency, the case for building congressional capacity has never been stronger,” said Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow at New America and author of The Business of America is Lobbying.  “Congress is the first branch of government, and the natural check on a dangerous executive. Yet Congress has spent decades cutting its own capacity, leaving it in a deeply weakened position. This presents a tremendous risk to the future of our nation."

The result of inadequate staffing and funding is a legislative branch incapable of accumulating enough institutional knowledge to be effective, and staffers who are more reliant than ever on lobbyists to help them understand basic details of policy.

Despite employing fewer people, salaries in constant dollars for the average Counsel, Legislative Director, and Legislative Assistant positions in both the House and Senate have also decreased by 9 to 20 percent between 2009 and 2013.

Signing the letter are Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow in New America’s political reform program, Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of Campaign Legal Center, Kevin Kosar, Senior Fellow and Governance Project Director at R Street Institute, Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

The letter recommends the newly proposed Joint Committee on Congressional Capacity:

• Review and make recommendations on staffing levels for committees and personal offices
• Review salaries and provide guidance to Senators and Representatives on regularizing staff pay
• Hold at least two public hearings to hear from outside experts and interested parties on staffing and salaries
• Issue a public report on its recommended changes

The letter was sent to the Congressional leadership with copies to the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Appropriations Committees, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the Senate Rules Committee and House Committee on Administration.

Local Governments are Now Seeking Thousands of Dollars in Attorneys’ Fees for What They Claim are “Frivolous” Voting Rights Challenges 

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is representing voters in Quitman County, Miss. against a legal action seeking more than $300K in attorneys’ fees. Longtime civil rights attorney Ellis Turnage brought a lawsuit on behalf of two voters challenging the county’s redistricting plan. Before trial, plaintiffs decided to dismiss the case. The county then turned around and claimed the suit was “frivolous,” seeking attorneys’ fees against Turnage and his clients.

The Voting Rights Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, along with attorneys at the Campaign Legal Center, today filed a joint response in the case Figgs and Jackson v. Quitman County arguing the case was based on well-established law and supported by Dr. Allan Lichtman, one of the foremost experts in the field. 

“This is not an isolated case,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Unfortunately, we are starting to see a trend of these unsupported motions for fees, as local governments try to chill voting rights litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court, after gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County v. Holder decision, has left litigation as one of the only methods to protect voters. Already, we have too few voting rights attorneys who can bring these complicated cases. Now, livelihoods are being threatened in an effort to avoid accountability for discriminatory voting rights practices. It’s malicious, and courts should reject these motions out of hand.”

A prevailing defendant in a civil rights case can only recover attorneys’ fees if the action was “frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.”  

“This is a purposefully high bar,” said Danielle Lang, CLC legal fellow. “The rule is meant only to deter nonsense lawsuits, not civil rights claims that may push the boundaries of our current law. If our system punished attorneys and their clients for these suits, we would have never seen the test cases brought by Thurgood Marshall, ultimately leading to Brown v. Board of Education, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s courageous litigation establishing equal rights protections for women. Courageous litigation strategies are largely how civil rights law has evolved throughout our country’s history.”  

The Mississippi case is the second that the Voting Rights Institute lawyers at CLC have taken in an effort to preserve litigation as a robust way to protect against voter discrimination. Just last year, CLC attorneys represented a group of voters who challenged Albuquerque City Council’s (New Mexico) redistricting scheme. CLC successfully defended the voters against a city council appeal seeking attorneys’ fees against them. Unfortunately, the city council’s unfounded motion for sanctions of $48,000 in attorneys’ fees against the voters’ lawyers, represented by attorneys at Jenner & Block, is still ongoing. 

In November 2014, a district court actually granted Augusta-Richmond County’s motion seeking attorneys’ fees from the plaintiffs in a voting rights suit led by the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleged the longstanding civil rights organization filed a frivolous challenge. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that award.