In a letter sent today to the Justice Department, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center called for an investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign committee has engaged in knowing and willful violations of federal campaign finance laws.

According to the letter, “Based on numerous published reports, it appears that the Trump committee has solicited contributions from foreign nationals, in violation of the ban on soliciting any contribution in connection with a federal, state, or local election from a foreign national.”

Published reports further indicate that the Trump campaign committee has knowingly continued to send fundraising solicitations to foreign nationals after it was made aware that the solicitations were prohibited by campaign finance laws. On June 29, 2016, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission regarding this matter.

“The Department of Justice has its own separate responsibility to enforce the campaign finance laws against “knowing and willful” criminal violations of the law,” says the letter. “The DOJ Handbook lists the foreign national contribution ban as one of the “heartland provisions” of the campaign finance laws that warrants criminal prosecution.”

“This is an open and shut case of the Trump campaign illegally soliciting foreign contributions,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “It is striking and inexplicable that these solicitations brazenly continued after the Trump campaign was informed they were prohibited by law. As apparent knowing and willful violations of the law, the foreign money solicitations by the Trump campaign raise the issue of criminal conduct and require a Justice Department investigation.”

"It boggles the mind that the Trump campaign would continue violating the ban on fundraising from foreign politicians even after receiving a formal complaint alleging it was breaking the law," said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. "Tapping foreign politicians for cash and flouting U.S. law is no way to make America great."

Numerous media outlets asked the Trump campaign about the emails in response to the FEC complaint filed by the watchdog groups, but received no comment. Published reports on July 16, 2016 reveal that, “Donald Trump’s campaign is still soliciting illegal donations from foreign individuals—including members of foreign governments at their official email addresses—weeks after the campaign was put on notice by watchdog groups.”

The letter concluded that, “The Department should conduct an investigation and take appropriate action in light of these apparently knowing and willful violations of the law by the Trump Committee.”

Read the letter

CLC Statement on 5th Circuit’s Ruling in Texas Voter ID Case 

NEW ORLEANS, LA – A full panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled in a 9 - 6 decision that Texas’ discriminatory voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and cannot be enforced as is in the upcoming presidential election.

The Campaign Legal Center represents plaintiffs Congressman Marc Veasey, LULAC and a group of Texas voters challenging Texas voter ID in Veasey v. Abbott. 

CLC Executive Director Gerry Hebert released the following statement:

“We have repeatedly proven – using hard facts – that the Texas voter ID law discriminates against minority voters. The 5th Circuit’s full panel of judges now agrees, joining every other federal court that has reviewed this law. We are extremely pleased with this outcome. This law will no longer prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot this November.”

The case now returns to the district court to consider the proper remedy that will ensure that all eligible voters can cast a ballot regardless of voter ID requirements.  

WASHINGTON – This presidential election, corporations have threatened to pull financial support for the national conventions because they do not want to be associated with the views of presidential candidate Donald Trump. But given the longstanding federal ban on corporate support for nominating conventions, why are corporations in the business of paying for our political conventions at all?

That’s the subject of the Campaign Legal Center’s new report, Funding the Presidential Nominating Conventions: How a Trickle of Private Money Turned into a Flood.

“The role of corporate money has become so obscene that in the 2016 election, a corporation not financially supporting political conventions is apparently a newsworthy case of ‘man bites dog,’” said Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center and co-author of the report. “Over the years, the Federal Election Commission has shredded the laws that explicitly ban corporate spending on conventions. Now, corporate interests and wealthy individuals gain political access and influence over government officials by spending tens of millions of dollars to fund nominating conventions. The public is rightfully discouraged and disgusted by how they are being shut out of their democracy. Public funding of the conventions was the right idea that was undermined by the FEC and eventually Congress.”

CLC’s report outlines how, over the years, the FEC has allowed corporations to funnel an increasing amount of money to the party conventions through “host committees,” which are supposed to promote the city and local commerce, not fund the conventions. This year, both parties expect to raise at least $60 million each for their “host committees,” largely from corporate sources, and to spend that money on the conventions.

 “Because the conventions are a political party’s single largest public gathering of local, state and federal elected officials and party leaders, the conventions are stocked ponds for corporate interests fishing for influence at every level of government,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel for the Campaign Legal Center and co-author of the report. “Yet the FEC has continued to insist that corporations donate to conventions for commercial rather than political reasons, despite all evidence to the contrary.”

CLC’s report highlights:

• How the corrupting potential of corporate spending on the conventions led Congress to ban it and create the post-Watergate public financing system in the 1970s 
• How the FEC began to chip away at laws prohibiting corporate and private funding of the conventions by opening “host committee” loopholes
• How corporations engage in “relationship building” at the conventions
• How the biggest convention sponsors are often those companies with pressing issues before the federal government. 

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.