WASHINGTON –  The U.S. Supreme Court today issued an order indicating it would be willing to take action to protect voters in Texas in time for the 2016 presidential election, if the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals fails to issue a ruling by July 20, 2016.

“We’re very encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the time constraints involved in this case,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “We believe the 5th Circuit has set up a schedule that may well foreclose the ability to obtain relief in time for the presidential election. This order gives us the opportunity to protect Texas voters if the 5th Circuit fails to rule in time.”

The Campaign Legal Center filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 25, calling for immediate action in the Texas voter ID case, Veasey v. Abbott. Seven federal judges have ruled that Texas’ voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, but the law is still in effect due to the 5th Circuit’s stay of the decision. 

Oral argument in the en banc 5th Circuit is scheduled for May 24, 2016. 

The Commission’s Actions, in Dismissing Five Straw Donor Complaints, Were “Arbitrary, Capricious and An Abuse of Discretion and Otherwise Contrary to the Law”

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed a lawsuit Friday night in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Federal Election Commission for dismissing five complaints that CLC and D21 filed with the agency. The dismissed complaints called for FEC investigation into donors who broke disclosure laws by hiding behind personal Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to anonymously make contributions to super PACs.

CLC and D21, over the course of several years, filed complaints with the FEC against these donors for violating the “straw donor” provision of Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). These donors’ anonymous contributions ranged from $857,000 to over $12 million, and several of the donors openly admitted in the media that they had used their personal company for the purpose of hiding their identities from the public. Still, the FEC dismissed all five complaints, after the three Republican commissioners voted not to investigate and sanction these donors.   

“This clearly is an agency out of control,” said Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, who previously served as general counsel for the FEC. “The agency is now sanctioning the intentional undermining of the integrity of campaign finance disclosure.  Each time the FEC fails to pursue a serious violation of the law, it weakens our democracy and the ability of Americans to know who is truly influencing our elections. It also sends a loud and clear message that those who violate campaign finance laws will face no penalties.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that disclosure laws play a vital role in providing the electorate with critical information to make informed choices. Prohibiting the use of straw donors to hide the true source of a contribution is essential to the law.

“LLCs are growing vehicles for laundering dark money contributions into federal elections. Anonymous donors are giving contributions to Super PACs through LLCs, and only the LLCs, not the actual donors, are being disclosed to the public by the Super PACs,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “Our FEC complaints and lawsuit are designed to bring an end to these ‘secret money’ schemes before they get completely out of hand and to obtain enforcement of the law in cases that we believe involve clear violations.”

The lawsuit states that in dismissing these complaints, the FEC has “undermined FECA’s purposes, including its goal of promoting transparency in elections and providing the electorate with information about who is speaking to it during elections.” CLC and D21, along with the public, “were deprived of timely information about the sources of the contributions made to the super PACs – information to which they are legally entitled to under FECA.”

The lawsuit calls for the court to find that the FEC’s dismissal of the complaints was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to the law,” and seeks a judicial order demanding the FEC enforce the law within 30 days.

Read our complaint.

The Campaign Legal Center, Other Groups, Remind Speaker Ryan It’s Been One Year Since the Last OCE Co-Chair Stepped Down  

WASHINGTON – The Campaign Legal Center, joined by an unusual coalition of groups and congressional experts from across the political spectrum, today called on House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to appoint a new co-chair of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to replace former Rep. Goss (R-Fla.) who stepped down one year ago today. 

“Naming a replacement for Rep. Goss will send a much needed signal that the Speaker supports the OCE and that he is committed, as the institutional leader of the House of Representatives, to continuing the Office of Congressional Ethics in the next Congress,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center. “The OCE is essential to ensuring public credibility in Congress. The House Ethics Committee, through inaction or tortured interpretations of ethics rules and standards, continues to demonstrate how important it is to have OCE’s independent voice in the congressional ethics process.”

Signing the letter are: the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Demand Progress, Democracy 21, Issue One, Judicial Watch, National Legal and Policy Center, National Taxpayers Union, Norm Ornstein, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and Public Citizen.

The OCE was created in response to a serious loss of public credibility in the ability of Congress to enforce its own ethics rules and standards.  The investigations undertaken by the congressional ethics committees were often perceived by the public as whitewashes.  Further, partisanship within the House Ethics Committee’s ranks had left it unable to conduct Committee business in a fair and impartial manner.

Read the letter.

State rightfully complied with the Voting Rights Act, and did not engage in a partisan gerrymander

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission did not engage in a partisan gerrymander, but instead drew its legislative map to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The decision is a huge victory for voting rights.

“The high court has preserved the rights of minorities to elect candidates of their choice under existing plans,” said Gerry Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Denying Arizona the ability to have considered the VRA’s guidance in drawing districts before Shelby County v. Holder was decided would have disrupted thousands of other plans that have previously considered the VRA in the drawing of their maps.”

Since Arizona drew its map in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the VRA, potentially allowing many jurisdictions across the country to implement racially discriminatory redistricting maps in the 2020 cycle if Congress does not act to restore the VRA.

Campaign Legal Center submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, in support of Arizona’s ability to consider complying with the VRA in drawing its maps.