WASHINGTON – Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing Hillary Clinton, accepted $200,000 in contributions from a government contractor in violation of federal law.

While Priorities USA – following press coverage of the illegal contribution – returned the money to Suffolk Construction Company, it still failed to do so within 30 days of learning of the possible violation, as the law requires. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission demanding the agency investigate and impose appropriate sanctions on both Priorities USA and Suffolk Construction Company.  

“Priorities USA could have easily determined from the outset that Suffolk Construction Company was a major federal contractor, and certainly has known since April, when reporters first raised the issue,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel with the Campaign Legal Center. “Yet, the super PAC didn’t return the contribution when they learned it was illegal – they only did so when it became politically inconvenient.” 

Suffolk Construction is a major federal contractor, having received $168.8 million in contracts since 2008, and its donations put it among Priorities USA’s top donors in 2015. The law is clear that federal contractors are prohibited from making contributions to a political committee while negotiating or performing a federal contract, and a political committee is similarly prohibited from soliciting and receiving contributions from a federal contractor.

The law also makes clear that political committees must examine the legality of contributions when they are received -- and when later faced with new evidence that a contribution came from a prohibited source like a federal contractor, must refund the contribution within 30 days.

Priorities USA knew about the company’s status as a contractor at least as early as April 2016, when the Center for Public Integrity asked the super PAC for comment – and then published a story – about Priorities USA receiving contributions from the contractor. Yet the contributions were not returned until July, following a Hill story raising the same issue but which attracted wider attention. 

FEC Urged to Stop Foreign Money from Infiltrating Our Presidential Election 

WASHINGTON - Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign committee is violating black-letter federal law by sending campaign fundraising emails to foreign nationals - including foreign politicians - in at least Iceland, Scotland, Australia and England. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 today will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission highlighting this violation and demanding the agency send a clear message that foreign money is not allowed in U.S. elections.
 
"Donald Trump should have known better," said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. "It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that's exactly what Trump has done repeatedly. The FEC's forum last week highlighted how foreign corporate money could infiltrate U.S. elections, but Trump's fundraising antics show that the FEC must also monitor candidates directly soliciting foreign money.
 
"If the FEC fails to take action on our complaint, it could send a message that Trump and other candidates have the greenlight to fundraise overseas,” Ryan added. 
 
"This is a strange and unique development that we have not seen before in campaign fundraising," said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. "The FEC needs to investigate how many of these illegal solicitations were sent, to whom they were sent, whether any illegal foreign contributions have been received and, if so, whether the contributions have been returned."
 
Our complaint details how in June 2016, dozens of prominent Icelandic, Scottish, Australian and British politicians received Trump fundraising emails on their official government email accounts, which end in ".is" or ".uk" and clearly indicate that the email recipient lives in Iceland or the United Kingdom. Trump continued to send the fundraising emails even after foreign press began raising questions about the solicitations.
 
For example, just last week, while Trump was promoting his golf resort in Scotland, Scottish members of parliament received emails urging them to 'make America great again' by donating to his campaign."

“Emailing fundraising requests to foreign addresses should have been a big red flag for the Trump campaign," said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for CLC, "but the campaign apparently didn’t conduct the minimal diligence the law requires to avoid running afoul of the foreign solicitation ban.”

 Federal law provides that a candidate violates the foreign national fundraising ban if they make a solicitation despite being aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person "to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national" or "to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited . is a foreign national."  

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Cert Petition in Delaware Strong Families v. Denn

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari to hear an appeal in Delaware Strong Families v. Denn, letting stand a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision upholding the Delaware Elections Disclosure Act. Delaware’s law was proposed and signed by Governor Jack Markell in 2012 to improve transparency of outside spending in state elections.

“Delaware voters are the real winners today,” said Megan McAllen, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. “This ruling ensures that they will continue to have access to the information they need to make informed decisions on Election Day. We’re also extremely pleased to see the Court refuse yet another challenge to its longstanding recognition that transparency in elections is a vital governmental interest, and that voters deserve to know the identities of the outside interests vying for their votes. Since Citizens United, the Court has been presented with many opportunities to reexamine its strong support for disclosure laws, and has turned down each one.”

Lawyers from the law firm WilmerHale and the Campaign Legal Center represented the Respondents, Delaware’s Attorney General and Commissioner of Elections.

High Court Decision Underscores Importance of Strong Gift and Campaign Finance Laws

WASHINGTON –The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously vacated and remanded the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell, holding that actions like setting up an event or talking to another official on behalf of a benefactor would not sustain a conviction under the standards of the federal bribery statute. 

The ruling, however, leaves open the possibility that Governor McDonnell could be re-tried under new jury instructions that reflect this narrower interpretation of the statute.   

Tara Malloy, deputy executive director for the Campaign Legal Center, issued the following reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonnell v. United States:
 
“Today’s ruling makes it even more difficult to protect our democracy from attempts by officeholders to peddle political access and influence to the highest bidder.  This entire case could have been avoided if Virginia had taken the necessary and vital steps to prohibit the receipt of huge gifts from people who have business before the government. Given today’s ruling, states must make it a priority to protect and preserve the integrity of our democracy by passing strong gift laws and campaign finance laws, both of which are designed to prevent bribery schemes from hatching in the first place.”
 
The Campaign Legal Center submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in McDonnell v. United States.
 
More reading:

McDonnell v. United States: What’s at Stake
 
Is Citizens United a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card for Bob McDonnell? The U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide

In a letter sent yesterday afternoon to members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, groups urged the members to vote against a resolution pending before the committee today to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

The groups included include Democracy 21, Americans for Democratic Action, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Media and Democracy, Common Cause, CREW, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Issue One, National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, Money Out! People In!, National Organization of Women, People For the American Way, Public Citizen and Small Planet Institute.

According to the letter:

The case being made against Commissioner Koskinen is meritless. There is no justification for taking the unwarranted action pending before the committee to punish Commissioner Koskinen.

The censure resolution, furthermore, is an approach established by the House to take action against one of its own members. It was not established to take action against an executive branch official and would be wrongly used in this matter.

The letter stated:

The censure resolution being proposed is, unfortunately, in line with other unwarranted attacks that House Republicans have made against the IRS. For example, the slashing of IRS budget funds has seriously undermined the ability of the agency to do its job and effectively collect the revenues which the government is entitled to by law. It is the political equivalent of “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” 

Riders adopted by House Republicans, furthermore, have prohibited the IRS from adopting new regulations to properly interpret and implement the statutory requirements that apply to section 501(c)(4) organizations and other section 501(c) groups. This has prevented the IRS from replacing outmoded regulations adopted more than a half century ago with new regulations to govern section 501(c) groups and prevent them from improperly spending secret contributions in federal elections.

Since 2010, more than $500 million in secret contributions have been spent through section 501(c) groups to influence federal elections. Secret contributions prevent public accountability for improper government actions taken to benefit undisclosed donors.

The letter concluded:

The committee should abandon its unwarranted, unjustified effort to censure Commissioner Koskinen and let the IRS and Commissioner Koskinen do their job.

We strongly urge you to vote against any resolution to censure or otherwise attack IRS Commissioner John Koskinen.

To read the letter: click here