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.

Today, the Campaign Legal Center, joined by Democracy 21, urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate possible illegal in-kind contributions and coordination between Montana congressional candidate Ryan Zinke and the Super PAC he formed and that now supports his candidacy. The complaint, based on published reports, points to the Special Forces for America’s (SOFA) use of photographs that appear to have come from the Zinke campaign in television advertisements aired in support of Zinke’s candidacy. SOFA has spent more than $50,000 distributing the pro-Zinke ads since Zinke launched his campaign in October.
 
Photos of the candidate used extensively in SOFA’s advertisements appear to be from the same photo shoot as nearly identical photos posted on the Zinke campaign’s Facebook page. The photos appear onscreen for more than half of two different television advertisements aired by SOFA in support of Zinke. Federal law treats any funds spent by an outside group to republish candidate campaign materials as an in-kind contribution from the outside group to the candidate. Super PACs like SOFA are prohibited from making such in-kind contributions to candidates. And candidates are prohibited from coordinating with Super PACs in the republication of campaign materials.
 
“It appears that this Super PAC, set up by Mr. Zinke, is now using Zinke campaign photos in its so-called ‘independent’ ads. If so, this is a clear violation of a federal law that prohibits Super PACs from republishing candidate campaign materials,” said Paul S. Ryan, Campaign Legal Center Senior Counsel. “This is just another example of the myth of the independence between outside groups like SOFA and the candidates they support—a myth that the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC bought into when it announced that so-called independent expenditures don’t pose a threat of corruption.”
 
To read the complaint filed today by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, click here.
 

Yesterday, the Campaign Legal Center filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in defense of the State of Mississippi’s campaign finance disclosure laws.  The brief urges the Court of Appeals to overturn a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, which ruled that the individuals who brought the case would not have to reveal their spending or their funders as they promote the passage or defeat of state constitutional amendment ballot measures.”     

“The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld disclosure laws and been very clear in its recognition of the vital public interest in disclosing the identities of those funding efforts to influence elections - including in the ballot measure setting,” said Megan McAllen, Legal Center Associate Counsel.  “It must be emphasized that this law does not restrict in any manner how much these individuals may raise and spend in support of or opposition to state constitutional amendment initiatives, but only requires them to disclose that advocacy to the voting public.  The suit is one of many brought across the country in recent years that have asked courts to ignore legal precedent so that voters will be kept in the dark about those seeking to influence their vote.”

The facial and as-applied challenge to Mississippi’s disclosure requirements for state constitutional ballot measures was brought on behalf of five individuals seeking to pool their resources and raise additional funds from outside sources to impact such measures and to do so while hiding the identities of their backers.  The lower court in its ruling attempted to sidestep at least some of the established legal precedent by ruling on an as applied basis. 

In yesterday’s filing, the Legal Center urged the Fifth Circuit to apply the pertinent precedent and reverse the lower court’s decision, arguing that the district court “improperly discounted the state’s interests, disproportionately emphasized the Plaintiffs’ burdens, and failed to pay any deference” to Mississippi’s duly elected state legislators. 

To read the brief, click here.