Thompson v. Alabama

Campaign Legal Center Files FEC Complaints Against Both Major Party Presidential Candidates and Their Supporting Super PACs

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center today filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission alleging that three super PACs – one supporting Hillary Clinton (Correct the Record) and two supporting Donald Trump (Rebuilding America Now and Make America Number 1) – have violated federal election law by coordinating with the two major party candidates.

“We have been forced to file these complaints because a dysfunctional FEC has been sitting idly by as the campaigns of the presidential candidate of both major parties are involved in unprecedented coordination with super PACs in violation of the law,” said Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “These are not minor or technical violations. According to the Supreme Court, unlimited campaign spending by wealthy interests can corrupt candidates unless totally independent of a campaign. Giving a large contribution to a super PAC that is coordinating with the Trump or Clinton campaign is the same as giving it directly to the campaign and buys the same direct access and influence over that candidate.”

Both Trump and Clinton have made fixing our “rigged” or broken political system a key talking point of their campaigns to rally supporters. But our complaints present clear evidence that the campaigns are ignoring current law by coordinating with their super PACS. No other presidential candidates have previously defied anti-coordination laws in this way.  

“If either candidate is allowed to get away with these schemes, there is no doubt that the new loopholes they’ve created will be exploited by billionaires and corporations across the political spectrum,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “The two major candidates for the most powerful office in the world apparently feel that the rule of law does not apply to them, perhaps because they assume that the FEC is too dysfunctional to enforce the campaign finance laws that exist. The question for both Clinton and Trump is what, specifically, are they going to do to fix the broken system they are exploiting.”

About Our Complaints:

• Correct the Record: The Clinton-supporting super PAC, Correct the Record, asserts it can coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign as long as it doesn’t run paid advertising. Clinton’s attorneys are relying on a narrow 2006 FEC regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs written by unpaid volunteers, is off limits from regulation. But Correct the Record is not a volunteer blogging operation. It is a $6 million professional opposition research, surrogate training and messaging operation staffed with paid professional employees and operating out of a high-rise Washington, D.C. office building.
  
  Because Correct the Record is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign, million-dollar-plus contributions to the super PAC are indistinguishable from contributions directly to Clinton – and pose the same risk of corruption.
   
• Rebuilding America Now: Two of Trump’s senior staffers formed the Rebuilding America Now super PAC almost immediately after leaving the campaign – in violation of FEC rules requiring a 120-day “cooling off” period, which are intended to keep former staffers from using their knowledge of a campaign’s strategy and needs to develop ads for an “independent” group. The former Trump staffers make the legally baseless claim they can ignore the 120-day rule because they weren’t paid by the campaign, an extraordinary assertion that undermines the rule’s anti-coordination purpose. 
   
• Make America Number 1: Trump supporting-super PAC, Make America Number 1, is also intertwined with the Trump campaign. Trump’s campaign manager and deputy campaign manager are both former presidents of the super PAC – and reportedly were hired at the behest of Make America Number 1’s chair, Rebekah Mercer. What’s more, both the Trump campaign and the super PAC use the same data analytics firm – owned by the Mercer family – to target voters and develop ad content. 
  
  The Mercer family, which has poured millions into Make America Number 1, appears to have a level of influence over the campaign commensurate with having made millions in contributions directly to Trump. This may not be surprising, since as the Supreme Court has noted, coordinated expenditures “will be as useful to the candidate as cash.” Given the close relationship between Make America Number 1 and the Trump campaign, the Mercers’ millions in contributions to Make America Number 1 raise the same concerns about corruption and improper commitments as if the Mercers had donated directly to the campaign.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to grant certiorari and hear an appeal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that shut down the criminal investigation into possible illegal coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and special interest groups  during Walker’s 2012 recall election.

Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, issued the following statement in reaction to court’s denial of cert in Chisholm v. Two Unnamed Petitioners:

“It’s important to recognize that a denial of cert does not mean the U.S. Supreme Court endorses or sanctions the actions of Gov. Scott Walker, his dark money group or the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Given the split on the U.S. Supreme Court, it is perhaps not surprising that the justices declined to wade into this politically charged, highly complex case that raises difficult legal issues that may divide the court.

Gov. Walker secretly told out-of-state donors they could support him by secretly giving to Wisconsin Club for Growth which, he emphasized, could accept corporate contributions without limit. Walker’s campaign adviser controlled how Wisconsin Club for Growth spent the money, and after winning reelection, Walker signed legislation advancing the interests of the secret donors.

Anyone who looks at the evidence in this case, recently published by The Guardian, would come to the conclusion that this is not how our political system should work. What this tells us is that we need a functioning Supreme Court that can clarify and improve its current jurisprudence on the role of money in politics.”

Read Brendan Fischer’s piece highlighting the disturbing facts of this case.

The Campaign Legal Center, the Voting Rights Institute, and the law firm of Jenner & Block, alongside a star-studded team of civil rights lawyers, today filed a lawsuit in Alabama district court on behalf of U.S. citizens with past felony convictions who have been denied the right to vote due to the state’s strict, discriminatory and arbitrary felony disenfranchisement system.

The lawsuit, Thompson v. Alabama, calls for the court to rule the law is racially discriminatory, unconstitutional and a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit also asserts a theory that, if successful, could sharply limit the scope of permissible felon disenfranchisement nationwide, arguing that the 14th Amendment does not allow the blanket disenfranchisement of citizens for minor non-violent offenses that are irrelevant to voting.  

“Today we begin the journey on behalf of a quarter million Alabama citizens who have felony convictions and who have been disenfranchised by this system.  Citizens with past felony convictions work and pay taxes, and should have a say in deciding their community’s and the nation’s laws that directly impact their lives,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Denying these citizens with past felony convictions the opportunity to fully integrate as members of society sends the message that they will permanently be treated as second-class citizens.”

Felony disenfranchisement laws silence the voices of 5.85 million citizens nationwide who are banned from the polls today. In Alabama, the law disenfranchises about 15 percent of black adults or more than 130,000 black citizens.

Some U.S. states have no restrictions on voting and the majority of states limit disenfranchisement to time in prison or on parole and probation. Only 12 states, including Alabama, permanently disenfranchise some or all citizens convicted of felony offenses.

Alabama’s law is particularly discriminatory in that it requires voters to pay fines and fees to restore their voting rights. A requirement that a U.S. citizen with a past felony conviction must pay “all legal financial obligations in order to be eligible to restore her voting rights constitutes a poll tax and violates the 24^th Amendment,” the complaint asserts.

“Felony disenfranchisement laws have the undeniable effect of diminishing the political power of minority communities,” said Danielle Lang, voting rights counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “As our legal complaint shows, these laws are rooted in the racially discriminatory policies of the Jim Crow era, continue to primarily harm people of color and distort our democracy.”

Lang continued, “In Alabama, a wealthy person with a conviction may be able to vote whereas an impoverished person with a conviction cannot. Even ignoring the starkly disproportionate discriminatory effect of felon disenfranchisement, the requirement that someone pay back ballooning court fees and fines in order to vote has a much harsher impact on the minority community.”

Plaintiff in the case, 60-year-old Larry Newby of Huntsville, said he wants to see his rights restored, as well as other individuals he personally knows who are in similar situations.

“I would like to have an opportunity to put in a choice for the president,” Newby said. “ I’d like to vote for not just for president, but in my district and for governor. Having my right to vote back would make me feel respected as a person.  It would be something I would be grateful for – to have the opportunity to go register to vote and go to the polls.  You do your time, you pay your debt to society, so you ought to be able to return back home and your society and be able to speak freely and vote freely.”

See more statements from our plaintiffs.

Learn more about our legal team.