Phoenix, AZ – In a major win for the rights of voters in Arizona, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, has upheld Proposition 211. Also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act, the law implements robust traceback disclosure, giving Arizonans information about the original sources of money spent to influence their votes.  

Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 211 in November 2022, with 72% of voters in support. The ballot measure was the result of years of hard work, written and supported by Voters’ Right to Know, which is represented by Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA) in this case. 

One month after the law’s passage, the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and two anonymous plaintiffs filed suit against the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) and the Arizona secretary of state, alleging that the law is unconstitutional and seeking to prevent its implementation. CLCA, working on behalf of Voters’ Right to Know, intervened in the case to defend its constitutionality under the Arizona Constitution.  

“To reduce political corruption and give citizens the information they need to participate in our democracy, we need real transparency about who is spending big money on elections,” said Terry Goddard, former Attorney General of Arizona and Chairman of Voters' Right to Know. “Prior to the passage of this law, Arizona’s campaign finance system led to our state being described as ‘one of the most pro-dark-money statutes imaginable’ – thanks to our voters, we now have one of the most robust disclosure systems in the country. This ruling confirms the wisdom and the will of the people of Arizona, who voted so strongly in favor of transparency.” 

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclosure and disclaimer laws like Prop 211 as important transparency measures that protect citizens’ right to be informed voters,” said David Kolker, Senior Counsel for Campaign Finance at CLCA. “This law provides voters with essential information about the people and forces behind campaign spending – allowing them to make an informed choice at the ballot box – without interfering with a spender’s right to speak.” 
 
With this ruling, the Superior Court has followed well-established precedent that disclosure, rather than violating free speech, serves to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to be well-informed voters. While challenges to Prop 211 and other campaign finance disclosure laws remain, today is a win for Arizonans, for transparency, and for everyone who cares about reducing political corruption and enhancing informed participation in our democracy.
 

See the ruling here.

Washington, D.C. – On June 9th, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling in End Citizens United PAC v Federal Election Commission, a case filed by End Citizens United (ECU), represented by Campaign Legal Center Action (CLCA).  

At issue in this case is the problematic pattern of FEC Commissioners delaying the release of their reasoning for dismissing complaints alleging campaign finance violations.  

In this case, End Citizens United filed a complaint with the FEC in 2019 alleging that the campaign of then-President Donald Trump violated campaign finance law. In response, the Commission not only failed to enforce the law, but the FEC also delayed releasing any explanation of its decision to dismiss the complaint for more than two months and until after ECU’s deadline to challenge the FEC’s dismissal in court.  

“A functioning and effective FEC is a vital organ in our democracy, and the Circuit Court’s ruling brings us one step closer to reaching that ideal,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United. “It’s no secret that the gridlock and dysfunction within the agency has resulted in a dereliction of its core responsibilities, which ultimately opens the door for unfettered corruption in our elections. This is a big win that will force the FEC to be more transparent and accountable in fulfilling its obligations." 

Siding with ECU, the ruling held that if FEC Commissioners dismiss a case, they must do so in a timely fashion and explain their decision “at the time” of the dismissal. The court pointed out that when the FEC delays explaining its actions, it undermines “‘agency accountability’ by keeping the complainant and interested members of the public in the dark.” The D.C. Circuit ordered that the case be returned to the FEC for further action.   

"Failures by the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign finance laws allow our politics to become increasingly rigged in favor of special interests,” said Adav Noti, Executive Director of CLCA. "We applaud the Court's decision – one that imposes accountability on the Commission for failing to do its job, and hopefully marks a step towards fixing the FEC’s dysfunction." 

When those who violate campaign finance law are not held accountable - and those who should be enforcing the law throw a veil of confusion over the proceedings by not explaining their actions in a reasonable and timely way, the trust of voters diminishes and corruption thrives.  
 
As the Court pointed out, when the FEC delays releasing its reasoning to such an extent as we have seen repeatedly in recent years, a reasonable conclusion is that these delays are intended to frustrate the ability of complainants to hold the agency accountable. This is not the way the agency responsible for enforcing our federal campaign finance laws should be functioning - the FEC must provide genuine reasons for its actions, and that requires timeliness and transparency.  

To reduce political corruption, we need a strong FEC to enforce campaign finance laws and hold political candidates and their donors accountable. It is well past time for the FEC to do its job.

Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Allen v. Milligan affirming Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case centered on a voting map in Alabama that was struck down by a unanimous 3-judge court for diluting Black Alabamians’ voting strength and restricting their ability to elect their preferred representative. In response, Paul Smith, senior vice president at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), issued the following statement: 

“Today, the Supreme Court upheld the voting rights of Black Alabamians and prevented politicians from using unfair voting maps to drown out Black voices. 

Black Alabamians deserve to have a say in the issues that impact their lives. When self-interested politicians draw maps that suit their own needs instead of the needs of their community, our democracy becomes less inclusive and accountable.  

We are heartened that the Supreme Court upheld Section 2 of the VRA, one of the most important tools available to ensure every voter, particularly Black and brown voters who have historically been denied the freedom to vote, has an equal voice in our democracy.   

While this ruling is a step in the right direction, we will continue to fight tirelessly alongside our local allies in Alabama and across the country to challenge racially discriminatory voting maps in court and develop innovative policy solutions that protect and expand the freedom to vote for every American.” 

Campaign Legal Center has been involved in several lawsuits challenging racial vote dilution in voting maps. In July 2022, Campaign Legal Center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Allen v. Milligan arguing that Alabama’s attacks on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were unfounded. The brief offered several remedies the state of Alabama could have taken that did not dilute Black voices while still satisfying Alabama’s other policy priorities.