On Wednesday night, in Public Citizen v. FEC, reform groups filed a reply brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reiterating a request that the court declare the FEC’s dismissal of a complaint against the secretive 501(c)(4) political group Crossroads GPS contrary to law, and arbitrary and capricious.

The lawsuit stemmed from the FEC’s failure to investigate a complaint that Crossroads GPS violated the law in refusing to register as a political committee in 2010. The FEC Office of General Counsel had strongly recommended that the agency investigate the matter because Crossroads GPS spent $20.8 million on federal campaign activity between June and December 2010 – more than half of what Crossroads GPS reported spending the entire year. The Commission deadlocked 3-3 along party lines, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. The three Commissioners refusing to investigate the matter argued that only those ads that constitute express advocacy bear on whether Crossroads GPS should disclose as a federal political committee, and the FEC’s lawyers in this case demanded that the Court pay deference to the views of these three Commissioners.

“Despite the laundry list of arguments the FEC now makes in attempting to get this case dismissed, this case is about three Republican FEC Commissioners ignoring the advice of their own General Counsel and failing to come up with any reasonable explanation for their refusal to initiate an investigation,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “The violations of the law by Crossroads GPS outlined in the complaint are clear cut and have continued unchecked since the FEC’s deadlock. Further the refusal of the Republican FEC Commissioners to enforce the laws has encouraged other ‘dark money’ groups to follow suit and to spend millions of dollars to buy election results without revealing the monied interests financing their spending. The FEC is clearly unwilling to enforce the law but we hope this court will compel the agency to do its job.”

“This case is simply about whether the FEC will enforce the law, or whether it will permit thinly veiled legal shenanigans to make a mockery of agency rules – a kind of ‘legal laundering’ for otherwise impermissible ‘dark money’ operations,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.

The lawsuit was brought by the parties to the 2010 complaint: Public Citizen; Craig Holman, campaign finance expert for Public Citizen; ProtectOurElections.org; and Kevin Zeese of ProtectOurElections.org. The Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen are handling the legal work on the case as co-counsel for the parties.

The groups contend that Crossroads GPS – an organization created by Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to influence the 2010 midterm elections – fits the legal definition of a political committee: any group that receives or spends more than $1,000 during a calendar year to influence elections and whose major purpose is federal campaign activity. Political committees must disclose information about their donors and expenditures. The FEC’s refusal to investigate Crossroads GPS for failing to register as a political committee has allowed the organization to continue to keep its donors secret for the last three election cycles.

To read the reply brief filed with the court, click here.

To read the original motion for summary judgment, click here.

To read the original FEC complaint, click here.

To read the statement by the Democratic Commissioners of the FEC, click here.

To read the FEC General Counsel’s recommendation, click here.

The Campaign Legal Center is pleased to announce that Roger Witten is joining the organization’s board of directors.  Mr. Witten is Senior Counsel at WilmerHale where he co-chaired the litigation department for a number of years.

In the area of campaign finance, Mr. Witten has been involved in several of the landmark cases dating back to Buckley v. Valeo, the challenge to the post-Watergate reforms. He also led the legal team representing the Congressional sponsors in the litigation over the McCain Feingold law (McConnell v. FEC).

“We have been fortunate enough to work with Roger in many pivotal campaign finance cases over the years, including McConnell v. FEC, and we are honored that he has agreed to join our board to help chart our future course as an institution,” said Trevor Potter, President of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Roger’s work in campaign finance dates back to his days as a Watergate prosecutor and he brings an incredible wealth of knowledge and experience to our board.”

“I have worked with Campaign Legal Center attorneys for years so I know firsthand the important and effective work they undertake to protect the public's interest on issues dealing with campaign finance, redistricting, and government ethics,” said Mr. Witten. “I am excited to join the board and look forward to working with colleagues at the Campaign Legal Center to further support the Center's work at a time when common sense campaign finance and voting rights laws are threatened across the country.”

Mr. Witten chaired the Twentieth Century Fund Working Group on Campaign Finance Litigation, which published a report entitled Buckley Stops Here: Loosening the Judicial Stranglehold on Campaign Finance Reform (1998). He served as Chairman of the Election Law Committee of the Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice of the American Bar Association from 1988 to 1990.

Over the course of his career, Mr. Witten has received numerous honors and awards for his legal work and has been recognized by several publications as one of the top attorneys in complex commercial and anti-corruption litigation. 

Mr. Witten served as Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973 and 1974. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Harvard Law School. 

To read Mr. Witten's website biography, click here. 

Today, in Independence Institute v. Gessler, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed a challenge to the “electioneering communications” disclosure provisions enshrined in Colorado’s state constitution.  The state measure is materially indistinguishable from the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure statute which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as the 2010 Citizens United decision.  On September 25, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, filed an amici brief to defend Colorado’s law.

“Independence Institute asked the court to ignore Supreme Court precedent and permit it to conceal the ‘dark money’ donors underwriting its ad campaign on the eve of an election,” said Tara Malloy, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The Supreme Court, by overwhelming 8-1 margins, has twice upheld a federal disclosure law nearly identical to Colorado’s.  We are pleased Judge Jackson acted quickly and decisively in rejecting this outrageous suit, which is just one of a flood of legal challenges to disclosure laws across the country.”

Independence Institute wished to run a broadcast ad referring to Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO) shortly before Election Day without disclosing its donors.  The challenged law requires donor disclosure when groups spend more than $1,000 on “electioneering communications”—defined as certain television, radio and print ads that mention the name of a state candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. 

The U.S. Congress enacted the federal “electioneering communications” disclosure law, which is also being challenged by Independence Institute in a different case, to curb widespread evasion of earlier disclosure requirements that applied only to “express advocacy” ads.  Since then, the Supreme Court has twice upheld this law: first in McConnell v. FEC (2003) in a facial challenge, and again in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) in an as-applied challenge.

The Legal Center was assisted in the filing of the amici brief by Steven K. Imig of Lewis, Bess, Williams & Weese P.C.

Click to read the court’s order and final judgment.

To read the amici brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, click here. 

This evening, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause and the Sunlight Foundation filed a complaint at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) alleging violations of long-standing rules and law by WJLA, an ABC-affiliated broadcast station in Washington, D.C.  The complaint notes that WJLA continues to refuse to disclose the "true identity" of the sponsor of political ads being run by NextGen Climate Action Committee and asks for expedited action given that Election Day is just a few weeks away.

“Despite being warned that it was in violation of the law, WJLA continues to ignore the requirements to disclose on-air the ‘true identity’ of the funders of the political ads that the station is running.  The FCC must hold this station accountable for these knowing and wilful violations,” said Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Director.  “WJLA is more than happy to receive top dollar to air these ads, but they do a great disservice to their viewers by refusing to reveal the donor behind them when his name is readily available and has even been provided to them by our organizations.  This is not ‘seven on your side;’ it’s ‘seven on the billionaires side.’” 

The groups filed a similar complaint earlier this month noting that WJLA was running ads with the on-air sponsorship disclaimer identifying the sponsor as "NextGen Climate Action Committee."  As the earlier "application for review" pointed out, substantial evidence showed that Tom Steyer has provided almost all of the funding for this organization, yet he was not identified on-air as the true sponsor of the commercials.

The Media Bureau of the FCC dismissed the October 2 complaint by saying that the groups had not shown that WJLA necessarily knew that Tom Steyer was the true sponsor and that the groups should have approached the station directly to furnish it with evidence calling the identity of the true sponsor into question.

Today's new complaint notes that WJLA filed an opposition in response to the earlier complaint and thus demonstrated its awareness that Tom Steyer provided, and continues to provide, substantially all of NextGen's funding.  Today's complaint requests the FCC to declare that, for its failure to include the true identity of the sponsor of the ad, WJLA is not in compliance with Section 317 of the Communications Act and 47 CFR Section 73.1212.  If a violation is found, the FCC can assess a forfeiture for WJLA's willful noncompliance with the law and grant other relief at its discretion.

To read the complaint, click here.

This morning, in Veasey v. Perry, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stop a Texas photo voter ID (SB 14) law from being used in the upcoming election, despite the fact that one week earlier a U.S. District Court ruled the law unconstitutionally racially discriminatory and a poll tax.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had subsequently stayed that ruling, leaving SB 14 in effect due to concerns that striking down the law now would disturb the upcoming election. The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing voters and elected officials adversely impacted by the law, and has argued that permitting the photo ID law to remain in effect will cause more confusion for voters and election officials.

“Today’s inaction by the Supreme Court is a bitter disappointment and a travesty of justice for hundreds of thousands of validly registered Texas voters who will be unable to exercise their right to vote in the November elections,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “It is appalling that the Supreme Court could not muster five votes to protect the rights of all Texas registered voters to cast ballots on Election Day, especially since a lower court, after a year of factual discovery and a two week trial, had found the law intentionally racially discriminatory and deemed it a ‘poll tax.’  The conservative majority on the High Court mistakenly decreed in Shelby County that racially discriminatory voting practices were rare, but to the extent such discrimination continued, victims of such discrimination could obtain injunctive relief.  That was a false promise to the American people.”

Justice Ginsburg issued a scathing dissent criticizing the court’s failure to protect the rights of Texas voters:

“The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters.”

On Wednesday, Texas voters and elected officials had filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to vacate the appeals court stay.  The application emphasized that the Court of Appeals misapplied Supreme Court precedent on “voter confusion” and stressed that the confusion would actually be far greater if the law is in effect for the coming election.  Sworn declarations from county election officials in Texas making this point accompanied the emergency application.  Yesterday, the voters filed a reply brief taking exception with the arguments in opposition made by the State of Texas.

The first challenge to the law was filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the summer of 2013 claiming that the voter photo ID law (SB 14) violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) were then brought against the Texas law, which was one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  All of the cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team that includes Chad Dunn and K. Scott Brazil (Brazil & Dunn), Neil G. Baron, David Richards (Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith), Armand Derfner (Derfner, Altman & Wilborn), Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (LULAC) and Craig M. Wilkins and Teresa G. Snelson (Dallas County District Attorney’s Office).

To read the order of the Court, click here.

To read the reply brief filed in response to the State of Texas’ brief, click here.

To read today’s emergency application for a stay, click here.

To read the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion granting a stay pending appeal, click here.

To read the Legal Center's Brief in Opposition to the Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (October 12, 2014), click here.

To read the opinion of the District Court, click here. 

Today, a range of groups from across the political spectrum called on both the House and Senate to make significant reforms to their ethics processes to increase public confidence in the integrity of the institution. At a roundtable event on Capitol Hill to be aired later by C-Span, the groups discussed proposed reforms with staff from congressional offices as well as reporters.

Groups supporting the ethics reforms are the Campaign Legal Center, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, Judicial Watch, League of Women Voters, Thomas Mann, National Taxpayers Union, Norman Ornstein, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, Taxpayers for Common Sense, James Thurber.

Among the reforms proposed at the roundtable on congressional ethics reforms are creating an ethics office for the Senate, giving subpoena power to the Office of Congressional Ethics and increasing transparency for the House and Senate ethics committees.  Letters outlining the proposals have been sent to congressional leaders urging action before the 114th Congress convenes.  At the roundtable, Public Citizen released a new study, “The Case for Independent Ethics Agencies:  The Office of Congressional Ethics Six Years Later, and a History of Failed Senate Accountability.”

“The current Senate ethics process is widely – and accurately – perceived as insular and opaque, failing to adequately identify ethical lapses and ensure public confidence in the institution,” the Senate letter states.  “The Office of Congressional Ethics has brought a level of accountability to the House ethics process yet the final arbiter – the House Ethics Committee – remains a secretive committee that has garnered a reputation for dysfunction and protection Members,” said the October 6, letter to House leaders.

“Facing historically low approval numbers, remedial action is needed immediately to strengthen the congressional ethics process and help restore public confidence in Congress,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “Without meaningful transparency, the public is expected to simply take Congress’ word for it that the process is working.  Given the record that the House and Senate have compiled in dealing with allegations of ethics violations the past several years, that is just not good enough.”

To read the House letter, detailing the recommendations to the House leaders, click here.

To read the Senate letter, detailing the recommendations to Senate leaders, click here.

To read the Public Citizen report, click here.

This morning, Texas voters and elected officials filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stay that would leave a Texas voter ID law in place for the coming election, despite the fact that a lower court had ruled the law unconstitutionally discriminatory and a poll tax.  The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team representing voters and elected officials adversely impacted by the law.

The filing comes in the wake of last night’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reinstating the State of Texas’ Voter Photo ID (SB 14) law in Veasey v. Perry, just five days after a U.S. District Court struck down the law finding it had “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose.”  As noted above, the District Court also found it to be an unconstitutional poll tax.

The Circuit Court said its opinion was based “primarily” on the “fast-approaching election”, and said the District Court’s decision would “disturb the election process of the State of Texas just nine days before early voting begins.”  But today’s emergency application emphasizes that the Court of Appeals misapplied Supreme Court precedent on “voter confusion” and stresses that the confusion would actually be far greater if the law is in effect for the coming election.  Sworn Declarations from county election officials in Texas making this point accompanied the emergency application.

“The State of Texas has already created unprecedented voter confusion through its bungled implementation of this discriminatory law.  To leave it in place would only prolong that confusion and more importantly deny the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of Texans.  We trust the Supreme Court will recognize the errors made in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of The Campaign Legal Center.  “The right to vote for hundreds of thousands of Texas voters hangs in the balance as a result of last night’s decision by the Fifth Circuit, which did not question the lower court’s ruling that the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory and would disenfranchise African-American and Hispanic Texans at vastly greater rates.  We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that and restore the vote to hundreds of thousands of Texans.”

The first challenge to the law was filed by the Campaign Legal Center in the summer of 2013 claiming that the voter photo ID law (SB 14) violates the 1st, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution, as well as Section 2 of Voting Rights Act.  Several challenges (including one brought by the United States) were brought against the Texas law, which was one of the most restrictive laws in the nation.  All of the cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi. 

The Campaign Legal Center is part of the legal team that includes Chad Dunn and K. Scott Brazil (Brazil & Dunn), Neil G. Baron, David Richards (Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith), Armand Derfner (Derfner, Altman & Wilborn), Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. (LULAC) and Craig M. Wilkins and Teresa G. Snelson (Dallas County District Attorney’s Office).

To read today’s emergency application for a stay, click here.

To read the Fifth Circuit Court’s opinion granting a stay pending appeal, click here.

To read the Legal Center's Brief in Opposition to the Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment Pending Appeal (October 12, 2014), click here.

To read the opinion of the District Court, click here.