After Four Years, FEC Takes Action on CLC, D21 Complaint Against Former Rep. Aaron Schock

Date
Body

Even Despite Inadequate FEC Fundraising Rules, Schock Faces $10,000 Penalty

More than four years after the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed a complaint, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has finally fined former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) $10,000 for violating the prohibition on candidates asking for donations to a super PAC in excess of $5,000.

“It’s not everyday that the current FEC actually enforces campaign finance laws,” said Larry Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “But in this case, even the FEC agreed that Schock crossed the line, though it is absurd that it took the FEC more than four years to resolve a straightforward violation.”

On March 14, 2012, Schock asked former Rep. Eric Cantor for a $25,000 contribution to a super PAC. The legal limit is $5,000. Schock left Congress on March 31, 2015 amid concerns about misuse of campaign funds and other ethics abuses. The FEC plans to enter this case into public record by November 10.

"Our complaint was filed before the 2012 election, and it was relatively simple: it involved one solicitation by Schock that was reported in the press in an article in which Schock admitted to making the solicitation,” said Don Simon, general counsel to Democracy 21. “Yet, it has taken more than four years for the FEC to bring this to a close. That alone speaks volumes about the problems with the current system for enforcing the campaign finance laws.”

The law does not permit a federal candidate or officeholder to solicit more than $5,000 for a Super PAC.

“The agency’s rules make it far too easy for candidates to fundraise for a super PAC without violating the law,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “Rep. Schock couldn’t follow even these inadequate rules, by expressly asking for a big donation rather than doing so implicitly.”

Issues
Campaign Finance
Ethics

Supreme Court Should Reject North Carolina’s Racial Gerrymander in Harris v. McCrory

Date
Body

Today, the Campaign Legal Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Harris v. McCrory, urging the Supreme Court to uphold North Carolina voters’ argument that the state used an impermissible racial quota to draw the state’s first and twelfth congressional districts.

“The Court should reject North Carolina’s argument that the Voting Rights Act required it to purposefully pack black voters into districts to reach some mechanical threshold ,” said Gerry Hebert, Director of Voting Rights and Redistricting Program at the Campaign Legal Center.

Hebert added: “The Court should not allow partisan officials to count the voting rights of minorities in North Carolina less than others in the state, which the General Assembly is effectively doing. This case is a clear cut example of legislators improperly using race as a proxy to achieve political gains.”

CLC filed another Supreme Court brief on the issue of racial gerrymandering this Term. In Bethune Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, CLC submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Virginia citizens and voters that challenged Virginia’s racial gerrymander. CLC also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Wittman v. Personhuballah last Term.

Issues
Redistricting

Thompson v. Alabama

At a Glance

CLC represents individuals in Alabama who are U.S. citizens with past felony convictions, seeking the right to vote. Some are unable to vote because their convictions are considered "disqualifying" under Alabama's law, and others because they cannot afford to pay their court fees to restore their vote. CLC, alongside its partners, has filed a broad challenge to Alabama’s felony disenfranchisement law under the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. 

Status
Closed
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

Alabama prevents some people from ever voting again even after they have fully served their sentence while others are only able to restore their rights if they comply with a burdensome process. Alabama is one of 11 other states that restrict voting rights even after a person has served his or her prison sentence and is no longer on probation or parole. Based on the most recent estimates Alabama’s law disenfranchises over 286,000 people in the state: 7.6 percent of the entire statewide voting-age population and 15.1 percent of the adult black male voting-age population.

Alabama disenfranchises individuals with certain felony convictions, so-called “crimes of moral turpitude.” The list of convictions “involving moral turpitude” includes a number of non-violent crimes, including almost all theft crimes. Citizens with these “disqualifying” convictions may petition to have their rights restored, but only after paying all court ordered fines, fees and restitution, the equivalent of an insurmountable poll tax voters who might otherwise be eligible.

For many years the state did not define “moral turpitude” or create a complete list of felonies that disqualify a voter. This led to many people being wrongly told by registrars that they could not vote, when in fact, they had never lost their rights. Thompson v. Alabama, among other things, challenged this vague and arbitrary system of disenfranchisement.

CLC represents individuals in Alabama who are U.S. citizens with past felony convictions, seeking the right to vote. Some are unable to vote because their convictions are considered "disqualifying" under Alabama's law, and others because they cannot afford to pay their court fees to restore to register to vote. 

The lawsuit alleges that the “moral turpitude” standard used by Alabama to determine who can vote is intentionally racially discriminatory and leads to arbitrary and unconstitutional disenfranchisement of citizens. The term "moral turpitude" was first put into Alabama's constitution in 1901 during a constitutional convention held for the purpose of "establish[ing] white supremacy."

Second, the lawsuit alleges that Alabama's system of restoring rights — a system that conditions voting on ability to pay one's ballooning court fines and fees — is a modern day poll tax that violates both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. 
Finally, the lawsuit alleges that broad felon disenfranchisement simply is not sanctioned by the 14th Amendment’s “rebellion or other crime” language and the Constitution supports, at most, very limited disenfranchisement of voting-related offenses. The lawsuit is an opportunity for silenced voices to be heard in our democracy and finally turn the page on this dark page in our country’s history.

On May 17, 2017, the Alabama Legislature passed HB 282, a bill that defined what crimes involve "moral turpitude" for the purposes of determining which citizens can vote. This bill is a step in the right direction but does not address Alabama's system of conditioning restoration of the right to vote based on wealth.

Plaintiffs

Thompson

Defendant

Alabama

Associated Cases & Actions

Felony Voting Rights Restoration in Alabama
Subscribe to