The Campaign Legal Center’s latest Voting Rights Institute training will take place on Friday, March 28 in Atlanta, Georgia. At the session, co-hosted by American Constitution Society, practitioners and law students will learn the ins and outs of the enforcement of voting rights law.  Cases brought to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution will be a particular focus of the training.  

The half-day training program, taught by some of the most respected voting rights practitioners in the country, will count toward Continuing Legal Education (CLE).  This will be the third Institute training held outside of Washington, DC.  Earlier this year, trainings were held in New York City and Columbus, Ohio.

“The Supreme Court in its Shelby County decision drastically altered voting rights in America, significantly disadvantaging voters in the courts, but cases must be brought to protect the rights of all Americans to vote and a new generation of litigators must be trained to bring these cases,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center.  “To understand this pressing need for new litigators, one need look no further than the wake of the Shelby County decision which has seen laws passed by states and municipalities across the country to curb the voting rights of Americans.”

Experts in the field will provide background on the Voting Rights Act and relevant federal court cases to participants and will then focus on the mechanics of litigating voting rights cases.  The Voting Rights Act will be covered in detail and participants will learn how it impacts voting rights laws on a state-by-state basis.  J. Gerald Hebert, serves as lead instructor and is joined by veteran voting rights litigators and scholars in the field.

In addition to Mr. Hebert, the Institute’s expert faculty will include: Laughlin McDonald (Special Counsel and Director Emeritus, American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project); Gilda Daniels (Professor of Law, University of Baltimore Law School); Armand Derfner (Constitutional Law Scholar-in-Residence, Charleston School of Law); Nina Perales (Vice President of Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund).

Financial support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (rbf.org) and the Wallace Global Fund for the Voting Rights Institute is gratefully acknowledged.  

To read the full agenda for the Atlanta training, click here.

In a letter sent today to the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition (KOC) and the McConnell Senate Committee ’14, Democracy 21, joined by the Campaign Legal Center, called on KOC to stop running an ad that violates the federal campaign finance laws.

The ad in question uses republished campaign footage prepared and posted on YouTube by the McConnell Senate Committee ’14.

“Though the Supreme Court in Citizens United freed up groups like Kentucky Opportunity Coalition to make unlimited ‘independent’ expenditures, spending to distribute ads using candidate video footage isn’t ‘independent’ spending.  It’s an illegal in-kind contribution under well-established federal law,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel.  “The public should be outraged that so-called ‘social welfare’ groups and super PACs spending money to republish campaign materials are showing such blatant disregard for the laws intended to protect our democracy from special interest corruption.  We need to hold these groups, and the candidates colluding with them, accountable for these actions”.

On March, 18, 2014, the Washington Post reported that KOC began a $1.8 million ad campaign on March 19th, just eight days after the McConnell campaign posted video footage produced by the campaign on the campaign’s YouTube account.

According to the letter from Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center:

The McConnell campaign footage consisted of two-and-a-half minutes of video of Senator McConnell in several different settings. The video was silent except for a generic music track. This type of footage is commonly known as “B-roll.”

KOC took four portions of the campaign “B-roll” that had been prepared and posted by the McConnell campaign and incorporated that video into a supposedly “independent expenditure” TV ad sponsored by KOC.  Approximately 30 percent of the 30 second KOC ad consists of the footage prepared and posted on YouTube by the McConnell campaign.

The letter stated:

Federal campaign finance law provides that republication of a candidate’s campaign materials constitutes an in-kind contribution to the candidate.  The law also prohibits any corporation from making an in-kind contribution to a candidate.  2 U.S.C. § 441b(a).  Accordingly, by republishing McConnell campaign material as part of its ad, KOC, a corporation, made an impermissible in-kind contribution to the McConnell campaign in violation of the campaign finance law.      

According to the letter:

There is no question that the “B-roll” prepared and posted by the McConnell campaign constitutes “campaign materials prepared by the candidate” within the meaning of the law, and that the use of such “B-roll” footage by an outside spender is a “dissemination, distribution or republication” of the campaign material.

The letter stated:

Thus, it appears quite clear that by republishing “B-roll” footage posted by the McConnell campaign in its ad, KOC violated the campaign finance law by making an impermissible corporate contribution to the McConnell campaign.  We call on KOC to stop running this ad and to refrain from running any other ad that republishes the McConnell campaign’s materials. 

The letter further stated:

Furthermore, if the KOC ad containing republished McConnell campaign material was run at the “request or suggestion” of the McConnell campaign, it would constitute a coordinated expenditure that would be a violation of law not just by KOC for making an illegal in-kind contribution, but also by the McConnell campaign for “requesting or suggesting,” and receiving, the illegal in-kind contribution.  2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(7)(B)(iii); 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.23(a); 109.21(d)(1).

The fact that the McConnell campaign posted the “B-roll” footage on the McConnell campaign YouTube account and that the footage was republished the next week by KOC in a campaign ad supporting Senator McConnell raises a serious question as to whether the posting of the footage by the McConnell campaign was itself a suggestion that the “B-roll” footage should be used for a campaign ad by KOC or by another outside spender.

An article in The New York Times (March 16, 2014) noted that the McConnell campaign posted the footage “hoping to provide a friendly ‘super PAC’ with high quality images of Mr. McConnell to use in ads.”  Indeed, the most credible explanation for why the McConnell campaign posted on the Internet a video compilation of wordless footage of Senator McConnell is that the campaign was seeking to encourage and facilitate the republication of the video footage in a campaign ad by an outside spender, such as KOC.

The letter concluded:

Thus, a serious question exists under the campaign finance law as to whether the actions the McConnell campaign took to prepare and post the footage, and in so doing to encourage and facilitate republication of the footage, rose to the level of making a “request or suggestion” that the campaign’s footage be republished by KOC for use in its ad.  

If it did, then the republication of the McConnell campaign footage by KOC is both an illegal in-kind contribution made by KOC and an illegal in-kind contribution accepted by the McConnell campaign.  

The campaign ad being run by KOC violates the campaign finance law and KOC should stop running the ad immediately.

To read the letter, click here.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, filed a complaint urging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate possible illegal soft money solicitations for the Super PAC of Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in excess of federal contribution limits and from sources prohibited from contributing in federal elections.

The complaint alleges that Senator Vitter, his fundraisers and the Fund for Louisiana’s Future (FLF) made solicitations far in excess of the $5,000 federal contribution limit without disclaimers required by law for solicitations made by federal candidates and officeholders. FLF supports both Senator Vitter’s 2016 Senate reelection bid as well as a Louisiana gubernatorial run in 2015 and thus serves as both a federal and a state political committee. Lisa Spies, the D.C. Finance Director for Senator Vitter, Courtney Guastella, are the only paid consultants for both the Senator’s campaign committee and FLF which has raised more than $1.5 million with many five- and six-figure contributions from corporations as well as individuals.

“Senator Vitter’s fundraisers seem to have ignored the rules that prohibit a Senator from soliciting unlimited soft money contributions for a Super PAC supporting the candidate,” said Larry Noble, Of Counsel to the Campaign Legal Center. “Instead, they are using him to solicit contributions for FLF in excess of $5,000, requesting $25,000 and even $100,000 contributions without ever stating that the Senator is allowed to only solicit contributions that comply with federal limits and source prohibitions.”

Federal candidates and their agents may not solicit funds that exceed $5,000 and may not solicit funds from corporations or federally prohibited sources. Since these solicitations are not solely in connection with an election for state or local office and FLF is seeking contributions that do not comply with federal limits, it is reasonable to believe that a violation has taken place.

To read the complaint filed today by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.

On March 14, the Campaign Legal Center informed officials from the City of Jasper, Texas that the annexations of predominantly white subdivisions, currently under consideration by the City, appear to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.  

The City of Jasper is considering the annexation of three predominantly white subdivisions which would dilute black voting strength in the City.  Further one of the subdivisions under consideration for annexation would be added to the City’s District 4, where black voters have demonstrated an effective ability to elect candidates of their choice.  In 1988, the City's similar attempt to annex predominantly white neighborhoods was rejected by the Department of Justice during a review while Jasper was still required under the Voting Rights Act to preclear any and all voting changes before administering them.

“The annexations under consideration will likely produce discriminatory results and thus would appear to dilute black voting strength in the city in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” said J. Gerald Hebert, Campaign Legal Center Executive Director.  “We wanted to put the City on notice that the proposed annexations raise serious compliance issues under the Voting Rights Act.   The Supreme Court's misguided decision last year in the Shelby County case, nullifying a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, does not give state and local officials license to adopt discriminatory voting procedures.” 

Included in the letter to the City was a copy of the 1988 Justice Department letter reminding the City that similar annexations had been rejected because they would have led to a violation of Voting Rights Act by diluting black voting strength in the City.  A copy of the Legal Center's letter was also sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

To read the letter sent by the Campaign Legal Center, click here.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has reached a conciliation agreement with the campaign committee of former Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) concerning allegations that he illegally converted campaign funds to personal use based on a complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) in 2012.  As part of the agreement the campaign committee will pay a $5,000 fine and Mr. Towns, who retired in 2013, will reimburse the committee.  Media reports at the time the complaint was filed had indicated that the former Congressman’s wife, Gwen Towns, regularly utilized a vehicle leased by the campaign for a variety of noncampaign-related personal uses, including her daily commute to and from her place of employment.    

“While it is a relief that the usually-deadlocked FEC could muster the necessary votes to find reason to believe a violation occurred here, it nonetheless seems absurd that it required nearly two years to close a case involving such a clear-cut violation,” said Paul S. Ryan, CLC Senior Counsel.  “The law clearly prohibits the personal use of campaign funds and clearly defines payment of noncampaign-related automobile expenses as personal use.”

FEC reports indicated that former-Rep. Towns’ campaign had leased an Infiniti for at least 12 months at a cost of more than $600 per month and published reports indicated that the vehicle had been used exclusively or primarily by the former Congressman’s wife Gwen Towns for noncampaign-related personal activities. 

The Legal Center was notified by the FEC through the mail today after the conciliation agreement was reached on March 10, 2014.

To read the conciliation agreement and the FEC’s notification letter, click here.

To read the original complaint filed on May 30, 2012, click here.