Florida Governor Ron DeSantis failed to disclose multiple trips on private jets paid for and arranged in February 2023 by And To The Republic, a nonprofit organization, as required by state law.  

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Ethics against Governor Ron DeSantis for failing to report possible travel gifts he received from And To The Republic (ATTR), a nonprofit organization, in his financial disclosure form.  

Back in February, ATTR organized and arranged transportation via private jet on behalf of Governor DeSantis to almost a dozen speaking engagements in at least eight states. The exact cost for these flights is currently unknown.  

The Florida Commission on Ethics requires state government officials to report any travel gifts over $100 – a threshold that private jet travel easily meets - within the last day of each calendar quarter. Governor DeSantis had up until Friday, June 30 to disclose ATTR’s travel gifts. No gift disclosure statement from the governor is on the Commission’s website as of July 5th of this year.  

“This lack of disclosure from Governor DeSantis appears to be a clear violation of state laws that are necessary to maintaining public trust,” said Kedric Payne, CLC Vice President, General Counsel, and Senior Director of Ethics. “Floridians have a right to know that government officials representing them are acting in the public’s interests – not their own personal interest, or the interests of the wealthy special interests who give them gifts. The Florida Commission on Ethics must investigate whether Governor DeSantis did, in fact, omit travel gifts from ATTR from his financial disclosure form and take appropriate action.”  

ATTR has acknowledged that travel arrangements made by the nonprofit on behalf of Governor DeSantis were not a political contribution. No publicly available evidence indicates that these trips were related to his official role as Florida’s governor but one trip was on a jet owned by Jeffrey Soffer – a Miami hotelier hoping to get Florida’s gambling laws changed – for a speaking event in New York City.  

Even as a presidential candidate, Governor DeSantis is bound by Florida law. The Florida Commission on Ethics must enforce state law and investigate whether Governor DeSantis failed to publicly disclose his acceptance of travel gifts from a nonprofit organization.

Nashville, TN — Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is deeply disappointed in the decision made yesterday by the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn more than 40 years of settled state law and deprive certain citizens with prior felony convictions of their fundamental freedom to vote.  

This decision stems from the case of Ernest Falls, who has been denied the right to vote for failure to prove that he does not owe court costs related to a 1986 felony conviction in Virginia. In 2020, Mr. Falls was granted clemency by the Governor of Virginia and was therefore no longer disqualified from voting under Tennessee law, but the Tennessee Elections Division refused to allow Mr. Falls to register to vote. 

Under Tennessee law, a person convicted of a felony in another state is disqualified from voting unless their civil rights have been restored in the state where they were convicted or under Tennessee’s rights restoration process. But in 2020, the Tennessee Elections Division reversed its prior interpretation of the law, deciding instead that all individuals convicted of felonies must prove they meet the criteria of Tennessee’s administrative voting rights restoration, also known as Certificates of Restoration, which includes payment of court costs and restitution—even if they are no longer disqualified by reason of having their full civil rights restored in the state in which they were convicted. 

“The Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision flies in the face of more than 40 years of existing law and of common sense,” said Blair Bowie, Director of CLC’s Restore Your Vote program. “Elections officials can’t just wake up one day and decide to unilaterally change the law to disenfranchise eligible voters, and it is deeply disappointing that the State Supreme Court went along with it.” 

Justice Sharon G. Lee filed a dissenting opinion noting that, “Mr. Falls was not prohibited from voting because his right to vote had been restored by the grant of clemency. The requirement regarding restitution, court costs, and child support [for Certificates of Restoration] does not apply to Mr. Falls because he had no need to have his voting rights restored... To put it simply, Mr. Falls has no need to double-restore his right of suffrage.” 

This decision makes it even more important that Tennesseans with past felony convictions from other states have meaningful access to the state's Certificate of Restoration process. Unfortunately, under this system, many Tennesseans' ability to regain their suffrage is entirely dependent on the willingness of out-of-state officials to fill out Tennessee paperwork—which they frequently refuse to do.  

CLC, along with Free Hearts, the Tennessee NAACP, and Baker Donelson, are fighting for a better process on behalf of all Tennesseans who have not been able to restore their voting rights through Tennessee's broken system. 

In the meantime, Tennesseans with felony convictions, including out-of-state convictions, who need help with their voting rights can visit RestoreYourVote.org for free and confidential assistance. 

Lansing, MI – Last week, Michigan legislators introduced the Michigan Voting Rights Act (MIVRA). This landmark package of pro-voter reforms (Senate Bills 401, 402, 403 and 404) will strengthen the freedom to vote for Michiganders, including Black and brown voters who continue to face barriers to voting.  

Upon passing and enacting the MIVRA, Michigan would become the 7th state to adopt a state-level Voting Rights Act (state VRA) – which would take steps to protect Black and brown voters 10 years after the Supreme Court undercut the federal VRA in its Shelby County v. Holder decision. 

“Voting should be accessible for all citizens, no matter where they live, the color of their skin or how much money they make. Sadly, Black and brown Michiganders have faced significant barriers to exercising this freedom that persist to this day,” said Paul Smith, Senior Vice President of Campaign Legal Center. “The Michigan Voting Rights Act would help ensure that Black and brown voters in Michigan can make their voices heard on the issues that matter most to them and elect representatives who will fight for their communities. CLC looks forward to working with partners in Michigan to further refine the bill after the Michigan legislature’s summer recess, and to Michigan eventually joining the ranks of the states that have adopted state-level protections for voters.”  

Over the past few years, Michigan has taken impressive strides to expand the freedom to vote – but, like many states, some of Michigan’s counties and municipalities have a troubling history of racial discrimination in voting. Eastpointe, MI recently entered into a consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice over its at-large election system that denied Black voters the opportunity to have an equal voice in local elections. Additionally, non-English-speaking voters, including those among Michigan's sizeable Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) community, have historically lacked access to effective language assistance in local elections.   

The Michigan Voting Rights Act would: 

• Protect voters from racially discriminatory voting policies, including election systems that cancel out or minimize the voting power of Black and brown voters, keeping them from electing their preferred candidates; 

• Make it easier for voters experiencing discrimination to fight back in court; 

• Expand protections for voters who don’t speak English as their primary language; 

• Help localities identify discriminatory voting policies before they are enacted through a system of “preclearance,” in which certain local jurisdictions seek pre-approval of certain voting changes from the Secretary of State or a court; 

• Add critical research and enforcement tools, such as a statewide database of demographics and voting rules 

Salt Lake City, UT -- This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the dangerous “independent state legislature” theory presented in the Moore v. Harper case from North Carolina. The Court  reinforced the long-held rule that state legislatures regulating federal elections are bound by the important checks and balances provided by state constitutions and enforced by state courts. 

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) represents the League of Women Voters of Utah (LWV Utah), Mormon Women for Ethical Government (MWEG) and a bipartisan group of individual voters in a lawsuit challenging Utah’s gerrymandered congressional voting map and asking the court to reinstate Prop 4, a citizen-led initiative that prohibited partisan gerrymandering.  

CLC, LWV Utah and MWEG issued the following joint statement after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Moore v. Harper: 

“In the Moore v. Harper decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the well-established role that state courts play in protecting voters' constitutional rights in federal elections, which is precisely what we are asking Utah’s Supreme Court to do. 

Through the passage of Prop 4, Utahns made it clear that they wanted to prohibit gerrymandering and assign an independent and nonpartisan commission the lead role in drawing Utah’s electoral districts. Utah politicians repealed these limits and then ignored both the will of voters and their own state constitution by drawing an unfair voting map behind closed doors that divides communities and prioritizes their political party’s interests above the interests of voters.  

Utah voters have a right to choose their own politicians, not the other way around. We look forward to defending Utahns’ rights to free and fair elections at the Utah Supreme Court on July 11.”

Washington, DC – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the dangerous “independent state legislature” theory and affirming the long-held norm that state legislatures are bound by the important checks and balances provided by state constitutions and enforced by state courts.  

In response, Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following statement: 

“We are heartened that the Supreme Court has rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory and affirmed the role of state courts in ensuring that voters have an equal voice in our democracy.    

Today's decision means the law remains as it has been for more than two centuries: state courts and state constitutions can continue to facilitate a more transparent, inclusive and accountable democracy.  

While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for democracy, the fight for fair maps in North Carolina and across the country is far from over. CLC will continue fighting for fair maps so voters can feel confident that they choose their representatives, not the other way around.”  

Background: 

Moore v. Harper is centered on a gerrymandered congressional map in North Carolina. In 2021, North Carolina lawmakers crafted a congressional map that gave their own political party an unfair advantage in elections.   

North Carolina voters took the map to state court and initially won in the North Carolina Supreme Court. However, the state legislature asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case based on a fringe legal concept known as the “independent state legislature” theory. 

That dangerous theory would have given politicians nearly unchecked power to manipulate voting maps and pass state laws that thwart the will of voters by undermining the freedom to vote. 

Last October, CLC and eight other organizations spanning the political spectrum filed a friend-of-the-court brief encouraging the Supreme Court to preserve the role of state courts and independent redistricting commissions in making congressional redistricting more democratic and fair. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Campaign Legal Center (CLC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Toronto-based ECN Capital Corporation (“ECN Capital”) for violating federal campaign financial laws prohibiting foreign national contributions.

Florida campaign finance records show that from 2018 to 2022, ECN Capital gave over $100,000 in foreign national contributions to state political committees. Recipients of this funding include the past two gubernatorial campaigns for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, in addition to Friends of Ron DeSantis, the state-level PAC that illegally transferred $82.5 million in soft money — money that isn’t subject to federal campaign finance laws — to Never Back Down, a federal super PAC supporting DeSantis’s current presidential bid.

“The recent, unprecedented rise of ‘soft money’ in federal elections undermines the crucial campaign finance laws that exist to uphold transparency, combat corruption, and safeguard the electoral process,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at Campaign Legal Center. “As this complaint shows, foreign money may already be influencing the 2024 presidential election, which obviously undermines voters’ ability to trust that the electoral process and their government are truly serving their interests.”

For decades, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) has prohibited foreign nationals – foreign corporations included – from making contributions in connection with any local, state, or federal elections. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from participating in a decision-making processes related to making political contributions.

U.S.-registered subsidiaries of ECN Capital also made contributions to federal and state elections totaling over $122,000 in this same four-year period. Given that ECN Capital’s subsidiaries appear to exist only on paper, ECN Capital’s officers — several of whom appear to be Canadian nationals — most likely participated in decision-making around this group of contributions, such that the contributions from the U.S.-based subsidiaries also violated federal campaign finance laws.

The FEC has taken action in the recent past on illegal foreign contributions, even in an era that has seen the Commission regularly fail to uphold the law. As the sole government agency tasked with enforcing federal campaign finance law, enforcing the prohibitions against foreign influence are an important part of the FEC’s mission.

The FEC should investigate this political spending by ECN Capitol and take appropriate action to uphold and enforce the law.