Defending Foreign Corporate Election Spending Ban in Minnesota (Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. Choi)

At a Glance

In 2023, Minnesota enacted a law prohibiting corporations with foreign owners from spending to influence Minnesota state elections. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce sued to overturn the law on First Amendment and federal preemption grounds, and CLC has joined the case as an amicus curiae to help defend the law.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In 2023, Minnesota enacted the Democracy for the People Act, which included many pro-democracy policies relating to voting and campaign finance. The Act included provisions prohibiting for-profit corporations and limited liability companies with foreign ownership from making expenditures or contributions to influence voters’ decisions about candidates seeking election and ballot measures. The threshold of ownership that triggers the prohibition is 1% in the case of a single foreign investor or 5% in aggregate in the case of multiple foreign investors.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit in July 2023 seeking to invalidate this prohibition on campaign spending by foreign-influenced corporations, arguing that it violated its members’ First Amendment rights and was preempted by federal law. 

In December 2023, CLC joined the case as an amicus curiae, filing a “friend of the court” brief defending the ban on foreign-influenced corporate campaign spending. CLC’s brief outlines how state laws seeking to shield state elections from the influence of foreign money are not preempted by federal law, and in fact are a critical tool to protect elections from foreign pressures and “preserve the basic conception of a political community.”

As Minnesota also argued, the U.S. Supreme Court has already approved the federal foreign money ban, affirming that citizens have “a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.” 

This interest is equally compelling with respect to efforts by states to prevent foreign nationals from spending money in state and local elections, and in particular ballot referenda, where voters participate in direct democracy to enact their own laws. Ten other states — from California to Maryland — have also enacted laws like Minnesota’s to prohibit foreign nationals pending to influence their citizen-initiated ballot measure processes.

What's at Stake?

American government is meant to be of, by, and for the people – free from foreign influence to protect the rights of American citizens to democratic self-governance. However, foreign interests – including foreign-owned businesses and other corporations – have spent substantial sums to influence U.S. elections at the federal, state, and local levels over the last decade, often overwhelming the resources of local citizens and advocacy groups.

Minnesota’s Democracy for the People Act and similar laws in other states are meant to prevent foreign-owned corporations from exerting undue influence over state elections and to vindicate their citizens’ interest in local self-governance.

CLC Speaks Out Against Efforts to Spread Disinformation Ahead of Trump-Johnson Press Conference

Date
Body

WASHINGTON – Today, former President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson are expected to hold a joint press conference on “election integrity” at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla.  

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, released the following statement ahead of the expected press conference:

“It’s unfortunate that self-interested politicians, including the former president and current House speaker, continue to spread disinformation about how the election process works, all under the guise of ‘election integrity.’ Of course, the security of our elections is already the central focus of U.S. election officials. It is a disservice to our democracy when leaders who should know better choose to peddle falsehoods about voting for personal and political gain. Their efforts seek to destroy the integrity of our elections, not uphold it. 

“Campaign Legal Center has been at the forefront of the movement to combat efforts to sabotage our elections, working with state and federal lawmakers to protect the freedom to vote and ensure all votes are counted. With yet another contentious election year well underway, voters should rest assured that significant steps have been made toward guaranteeing the safety and security of the election process.”

Issues
Voting and Elections

Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United file FEC Complaint Regarding Potential Soft Money Violation by Sen. Cruz and iHeart Media

Body

Washington, DC: Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that Sen. Ted Cruz violated provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that prohibit federal candidates or officeholders from soliciting or directing “soft money” in connection with a federal election.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Cruz violated FECA by entering into an agreement with iHeartMedia, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, through which iHeartMedia transferred corporate funds—totaling over $630,000 to date—from its ad sales associated with Cruz’s podcast “Verdict with Ted Cruz” to a federal super PAC, Truth and Courage PAC, supporting Cruz’s 2024 reelection efforts. 

Erin Chlopak, Campaign Legal Center’s Senior Director of Campaign Finance, issued the following statement: There is a reason why federal candidates are legally prohibited from using ‘soft money’ - that is, money raised outside the scope of federal election law - to power their campaigns. This type of funding risks putting the priorities of wealthy special interests above everyone else and makes our political process more vulnerable to corruption. Yet all available information makes it seem that a partnership between Texas Senator Ted Cruz and iHeartMedia has produced such an illegal transfer, with over $630,000 in ‘income’ from Cruz’s podcast moving to a super PAC supporting his reelection. To give Texas voters clarity, the Federal Election Commission must swiftly investigate this matter and determine whether Sen. Cruz played a role in directing this transfer.

(See the complaint here)

Issues
Campaign Finance

Removing Financial Barriers to Running for Office

Submitted by ekrug on

Across partisan lines and other divides, American voters overwhelmingly believe the cost of political campaigns makes it hard for candidates who represent their values and life experiences to run for office. Looking at our elected officials — most of whom are independently wealthy — it's hard to disagree. In fact, the number of candidates self-funding their campaigns is on the rise.

Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Disability Rights Groups Sue Alabama Over SB 1’s Extreme Anti-Voter Restrictions and Penalties

Date
Body

Montgomery, Ala. — Today, a coalition of civil rights, voting rights and disability rights organizations sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Alabama’s 42 District Attorneys, and Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen to block Alabama’s recently enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). This law directly targets, drastically restricts, and severely penalizes basic nonpartisan civic engagement efforts that enable all Alabamians to access their right to vote.

The law, among the most restrictive of its kind ever passed, would criminalize most forms of helping voters apply for absentee ballots, with felony penalties ranging up to 20 years in prison. SB 1’s cruel and unlawful restrictions harm voters who need assistance with their absentee ballot applications — particularly Black voters, elderly voters, incarcerated voters, voters with disabilities, and low-literacy voters — as well as nonpartisan civic engagement groups, including churches, working to help Alabamians participate in the political process. This extreme law is the latest development in Alabama’s long history of restricting the political engagement of Black voters and other marginalized communities.

Alabama State Conference of the NAACP (Alabama NAACP), Greater Birmingham Ministries (GBM), League of Women Voters of Alabama (LWVAL), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) are represented by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU-AL), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) in their suit against the anti-voter law.

“SB1 takes Alabama backwards as it violates the law, restricts our basic Constitutional Amendment rights, obliterates freedom of speech,” said Benard Simelton, president of the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP. “It marginalizes voters' access to the ballot box.”

“SB1 represents the latest assault on Alabama voters who simply want their voices heard and their choices counted regardless of differing abilities, health status and unpredictable work schedules that require their voter participation be by absentee ballot and often with the support of friends, family, and civic organizations,” said Scott Douglas, executive director of Greater Birmingham Ministries.  “There is no ‘voter integrity’ in penalizing those who assist those who must vote absentee, only voter suppression.”

“Voters who vote by absentee ballot have the right to access the ballot fairly and equitably,” said Kathy Jones, president of the League of Women Voters of Alabama. “Many Alabama voters with disabilities rely on the help of neighbors, caregivers, or voter services organizations to successfully cast their absentee ballots. The League of Women Voters of Alabama will continue to fight unjust laws like SB1 because our state should be making it easier for people to vote, not building barriers to suppress the vote.”

“SB1 is part of a concerning trend of anti-voter state legislatures restricting equal access to the ballot for voters with disabilities,” said Celina Stewart, chief counsel at the League of Women Voters of the United States. “These laws specifically target the individuals and organizations that voters with disabilities depend on to access, complete, and cast an absentee ballot. The League of Women Voters is actively challenging these laws and is committed to fighting voter suppression nationwide."

“For many voters with disabilities, absentee voting may be the only practical option to be heard and have their voices counted,” said William Van Der Pol, Jr., senior trial counsel for Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. “SB1 poses additional barriers to this critical right that are neither necessary nor legal.”

"SB 1 is an egregious attack on Alabama’s voters and those working tirelessly to help folks access our democracy," said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at Campaign Legal Center. “This law takes us backwards and attacks a fundamental aspect of our sacred freedom of speech — violating the Constitution and hurting Alabamians who rely on nonpartisan, good-government groups to help make their voices heard at the ballot box. We look forward to fighting alongside our partners against this extreme anti-voter law."

"Rather than helping Alabamians exercise their right to vote, lawmakers passed SB1 to criminalize them," said Alison Mollman, legal director at the ACLU of Alabama. "This extreme and unnecessary law makes it a Class B felony for a person or organization to assist someone with their absentee ballot application. In Alabama, other Class B felony offenses include manslaughter, statutory rape, and first-degree theft of property. SB1 is unconstitutional and the ACLU of Alabama is proud to stand alongside our clients to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected.

“SB1 is a cruel manifestation of the rapid, unceasing attacks on the tenets of our democracy that have unfolded across the country,” said Anuja Thatte, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “The criminalization of those who assist voters and help strengthen our political process is unpatriotic and undermines our nation’s promise of a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, inclusive democracy. LDF is proud to join our clients and partners to continue the fight to protect the fundamental right to vote - the people of Alabama and the United States deserve no less.”

“The march for voting rights started in Alabama and continues today as we face one of the most restrictive bills this state has seen in recent memory,” said Jess Unger, senior staff attorney for voting rights at Southern Poverty Law Center. “Together, with our partners and clients, we will protect the fundamental right to vote and — no matter what barriers are put in place — to ensure every voice in Alabama is heard.”

The lawsuit filed today challenges SB 1 as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Learn more about the lawsuit here.
 

Issues
Voting and Elections

Defending Nonpartisan Civic Engagement Organizations in Alabama from Steep Criminal Penalties (Alabama NAACP v. Marshall)

At a Glance

Alabama enacted a law that severely limits the ability of third parties to assist voters with absentee ballot applications, threatening those third parties with criminal liability for their assistance. CLC, SPLC, ACLU-AL, LDF, and ADAP represent several organizations who assist voters with absentee ballot applications in challenging this vague and punitive law. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Voting and Elections
About This Case/Action

On March 20, 2024, Alabama enacted a new law imposing some of the nation’s most punitive restrictions on absentee ballot application assistance. This law, S.B. 1, criminalizes giving and receiving a “payment or gift” for “distributing, ordering, requesting, collecting, completing, prefilling, obtaining, or delivering a voter’s absentee ballot application,” without defining what constitutes such “payments or gifts.” The restriction carries a Class B Felony penalty, such that people could face a sentence of up to 20 years. This restriction harms both nonpartisan civic engagement groups and voters who need assistance with their absentee ballot applications – particularly incarcerated voters, voters with disabilities, and low-literacy voters – and is the latest development in Alabama’s long history of restricting the political engagement of Black voters and other marginalized communities.  

Lawmakers in Alabama have asserted – without evidence – that the law is needed to combat “ballot harvesting” but the law itself criminalizes absentee ballot application assistance and has nothing to do with casting an absentee ballot. Instead, the new law hampers the activities of civic groups seeking to mobilize and assist voters in their communities in violation of the United States Constitution and federal law.  

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), ACLU of Alabama (ACLU-AL), NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) represent Greater Birmingham Ministries, League of Women Voters of Alabama, Alabama State Conference of the NAACP and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program. Each organization’s operations will be directly impacted by the vague and punitive prohibitions on absentee ballot application assistance.

On April 4, 2024, CLC filed suit on behalf of these clients, challenging S.B. 1 as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Section  208 of the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. 

Associated Cases & Actions

Defending Civic Engagement Groups
Subscribe to