CLC’s Podcast, Democracy Decoded, Wins Two Webby Awards!

Date
Body

WASHINGTON, D.C. —  Campaign Legal Center is pleased and proud to announce that our podcast, Democracy Decoded, has been honored by The Webby Awards, receiving both the judged Webbby Award for Podcasts - Public Service & Activism 2023, as well as the publicly voted People’s Voice award in the same category.  


Setting out to answer the question, “Why does American Democracy look the way it does today and how can we make it more responsive to the people it was formed to serve?” Democracy Decoded examines our government and discusses innovative ideas that could lead to a stronger, more transparent, accountable and inclusive democracy. Host (and CLC Legal Counsel for Redistricting) Simone Leeper speaks with experts from across the political spectrum and takes a deep dive into the forces fueling our elections, not just in our nation’s capital but at all levels of government. The producers for season one were Casey Atkins, CLC’s Manager for Multimedia and Brendan Quinn, CLC’s Senior Communications Manager for Campaign Finance and Ethics.  


Dubbed “The Internet’s Highest Honor” by the New York Times, The Webbys is presented by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences (IADAS)—a 2000+ member judging body. The Academy is comprised of Executive Members—leading Internet experts, business figures, luminaries, visionaries and creative celebrities—and Associate Members who are former Webby Winners, Nominees and other Internet professionals. 


“It is an incredible honor to be recognized by the Webbys - not only by the Academy but by the voting public as well,” said Sandhya Bathija, Vice President of Communications at Campaign Legal Center, “The issues tackled in our first season – the impact of money on American elections and our political system overall – are so important and so often overlooked. It is heartening to see this season recognized so that more listeners can hear the powerful stories told by our guests and experts. To reduce political corruption, we need real transparency about who is spending to influence our elections and our government and by recognizing our podcast, the Webby Awards has helped educate voters about the problems real people face in our democracy and ensure more Americans are informed about the issues that impact them every day. Thank You!” 


The first season of Democracy Decoded was released in the early part of 2022 and focused on campaign finance issues – featuring interviews with experts from across the country and across the political spectrum to help examine the influence of money on our political system. Airing last fall, season 2 focused on voting rights, utilizing guest expertise and voter input to analyze how differing laws and regulations affect Americans in different states and municipalities.  

For journalists telling the story of our broken political system, the podcast features compelling stories and solutions that can guide your reporting. All audiences can stay tuned for season 3 later this year...  


Campaign Legal Center would like to thank each and every person who has made Democracy Decoded possible – this win would not have been possible without your valuable insight, expertise and devotion to American Democracy. Thank you! 

 

 

LISTEN TO THE PODCAST HERE 

Issues
Campaign Finance
Voting and Elections

Opposing Unlawful Campaign Coordination Between Candidates and Super PACs — CLC v. Correct the Record and Hillary for America

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center sued the FEC after it deadlocked and dismissed CLC’s complaint alleging illegal coordination between Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the super PAC Correct the Record. Although CLC won this case, the Commission failed to conform with the court order. CLC has exercised its right to file a direct suit.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In the 2016 elections, the super PAC Correct the Record (CTR) — notorious for its plans to “push back against” Hillary Clinton’s critics online — declared that it would coordinate its activities with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Hillary for America.

Under federal law an individual could only contribute $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016. However, as an “independent” super PAC, CTR could accept unlimited amounts from individual donors or corporations — as long as the super PAC did not coordinate with the Clinton campaign. If CTR’s spending was coordinated, the law would treat that spending as a contribution, since it would no longer be independent and would have had substantial value to the Clinton campaign.

Despite spending over $9 million on opposition research, campaign spokesperson training and booking, video production, press outreach, and other activities — many of which, by CTR’s own admission, were conducted in coordination with the Clinton campaign —the Clinton campaign never reported receiving in-kind contributions from CTR, and CTR never reported the activities as contributions.

In October of 2016, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that CTR had made, and the Clinton campaign had received, millions of dollars in illegal, unreported, and excessive in-kind contributions in the form of coordinated expenditures.

Following CLC’s complaint, the FEC’s general counsel recommended that the agency investigate the matter, but the FEC nonetheless deadlocked, voting 2-2 on whether to follow the recommendation of its career attorneys.

CLC sued, arguing that the FEC’s dismissal of the complaint was “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to the law.” After several years of litigation, the district court held that the FEC had acted contrary to law in dismissing CLC’s complaint. The court ordered the FEC to conform with its decision within 30 days, but the FEC refused to do so.

Upon the FEC’s decision not to conform with the court order, CLC filed this citizen suit against CTR and the Clinton campaign under a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act that authorizes private suits in these circumstances.

CLC’s lawsuit asks the court to declare that CTR and the Clinton campaign violated the Federal Election Campaign Act and order them to provide CLC and the FEC with the information it illegally concealed regarding the millions of dollars of in-kind contributions the super PAC and campaign made and received.

 

What’s at Stake?

The Commission’s failure to hold CTR and the Clinton campaign accountable for up to $9 million in coordinated spending creates a loophole that would allow many millions of dollars of over-the-limit contributions to flow from outside groups to federal candidates. Furthermore, the in-kind contributions the super PAC made to the Clinton campaign were unreported, concealing the campaign’s sources of financial support from public scrutiny.

This citizen suit takes on the job that the FEC failed to do: to crack down on coordination between purportedly independent super PACs and the campaigns they seek to subsidize, and to shine a light on the illegal and often undisclosed contributions that result from such schemes.

Plaintiffs

Campaign Legal Center

Defendant
  • Hillary for America
  • Correct the Record

Associated Cases & Actions

Suing the FEC for Failing to Enforce Laws Violated by Correct The Record and the Clinton Campaign — CLC v. FEC (Clinton Campaign coordination)
CLC Steps Up to Promote Enforcement of Federal Campaign Finance Law

The ETHICS Act Could Finally End Stock Trading Scandals

Date
Body

The Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley, would ban congressional stock ownership and trading. This bill would be an important step towards improving accountability and reducing corruption in Congress.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Jeff Merkley (Oregon) introduced the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, a consensus bill aiming to address a long-standing gap in our laws that has allowed the controversial stock trading to flourish among lawmakers, resulting in significant public distrust in our elected officials.

The ETHICS Act, the product of months of conversations and years of advocacy, would prohibit Members of Congress, as well as their spouses and dependent minors, from owning or trading securities, commodities or futures – a ban supported by 70 percent of American voters. To meet this obligation, Members could divest their stocks completely, exchange their stocks in individual companies for mutual funds, or place their assets into a qualified blind trust. The legislation would also include meaningful new penalties for rules violations.

“The ETHICS Act is the reform that the public has been waiting to see,” said Kedric Payne, Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Voters are seeking assurance that their representatives in Congress are not sidelining constituent needs in favor of self-enrichment. The Senate should swiftly take up this legislation or the stock trading scandals will continue to go unpunished and deteriorate public trust.  The ETHICS Act is a long overdue step towards restoring ethics in Congress.”


As our elected officials debate and craft laws that directly impact the lives of Americans, voters have a right to know whether their representatives are acting in the public’s interest or towards the furtherance of their own financial gain. The ETHICS Act is an important step towards ensuring that these concerns are understood and addressed. 

Issues
Ethics

Defending Transparency for Campaign Spending in Arizona — Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al., v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al. (State-Level Challenge)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center Action is representing Voters’ Right to Know, the political action committee that wrote and campaigned for Arizona’s Proposition 211, formally known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act, a law approved by Arizona Voters in 2022.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In December 2022, 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, seeking to overturn the newly enacted Proposition 211, also known as the Voters’ Right to Know Act.

Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 211 in November 2022 with 72% in support. By shining light on the original sources of secret spending, also called “dark money” campaign contributions, the Act enhances robust debate and provides voters with information critical to choosing, and holding accountable, their elected leaders.

The Act requires major campaign media spenders to disclose the original sources of large donations they receive, including information about persons who act as intermediaries between the original sources of money and the spender. Those spenders must also put their donors on notice that their money may be spent to influence elections and give them an opportunity to opt out of having their donations so used.

On January 13, 2023, CLC Action filed a motion to intervene in the suit on behalf of Voters’ Right to Know, the committee originally formed to create and support Proposition 211 as a ballot initiative. Voters’ Right to Know was approved as an intervenor on March 27, 2023 and will help defend the act alongside the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the Arizona Secretary of State, and the Arizona Attorney General.

What’s at Stake

Before the passage of Proposition 211, Arizona’s existing campaign finance disclosure system was described as “one of the most pro-dark-money statutes imaginable,” resulting in a flood of secret spending each election cycle. 

The plaintiffs argue that Arizona’s new traceback disclosure and disclaimer provisions under Prop 211 violate their rights under the Arizona State Constitution, particularly the rights to speak freely, to undisturbed private affairs, and to a government based on the separation of powers. They seek to have the Act declared unconstitutional and unlawful in its entirety, undermining the will of the voters and the voters’ right to know who is spending to influence their vote in Arizona elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclosure and disclaimer laws as important transparency measures that protect citizens’ right to be informed voters, holding in Citizens United v. FEC that “disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.” The Court further noted that disclaimer and disclosure requirements “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities . . . and do not prevent anyone from speaking.”

CLCA and Voters’ Right to Know assert that disclosure laws like the Voters’ Right to Know Act enhance, rather than constrain, the free speech necessary to sustain our democracy. Prop 211 promotes First Amendment values, providing voters with critical information about the people behind campaign media spending and contributions without interfering with a spender’s right to speak.

Plaintiffs

Center for Arizona Policy, Inc.

Arizona Free Enterprice Club

Doe I

Doe II

Defendant

Arizona Secretary of State

Associated Cases & Actions

Defending Transparency for Campaign Spending in Arizona — Americans for Prosperity, et al., v. Meyer, et al. (Federal-Level Challenge)

CLC Seeks Referral of Justice Thomas to DOJ for Violations

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. – This week, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a letter to the committee of federal judges with authority to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General for potential criminal and civil penalties related to violating the Ethics in Government Act.  

In its letter to the Judicial Conference, CLC asserts that there is reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas intentionally disregarded the requirement to report gifts of free private plane and yacht travel.  

Justice Thomas’ public statement did not deny an investigative report from ProPublica which revealed that he received expensive trips from an individual for  20 years, putting the reputation and ethical standing of the Supreme Court on the line. 

Kedric Payne, Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center and former Deputy Chief Counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, issued the following statement: 

“The public has a right to know that those serving as members of the highest court of the land are doing so in good faith for all, not just a select few. With public trust in the Supreme Court as an institution at an all-time low, the high court has a duty to make addressing its latest ethical woes a priority.  

Other federal justices follow disclosure rules outlined by the Ethics in Government Act on a regular basis, and a Supreme Court justice should be no exception. Inaction from the Judicial Conference could serve to normalize such violations across the judiciary and potentially obscure who is influencing judges tasked with making impartial decisions that uphold the rule of law.”  

Issues
Ethics

Campaign Legal Center Celebrates Diversity Month

Date
Body

A diverse democracy is a strong democracy. 

This Diversity Month, CLC recommits itself to fighting for Americans of every race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, economic status and political affiliation to participate in and affect the political process. 

While we should explore every avenue to achieve the ideal of a diverse, equitable and inclusive democracy, there are two policies that are proven to protect and expand access to democracy for all Americans: state Voting Rights Acts (state VRAs) and public financing initiatives.  

State VRAs build on the legal protections offered by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (federal VRA), which was enacted as the direct result of civil rights activism seeking to dismantle the Jim Crow laws that denied Black Americans the freedom to vote. 

Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at key pieces of the federal VRA which has led to a proliferation of discriminatory anti-voter laws that target Black, Latino, Asian and Native voters and other voters of color. 

The evisceration of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has also allowed self-interested politicians to manipulate voting maps to silence communities of color. State VRAs are an important tool to protect and center those communities and can go above and beyond the federal VRA to ensure every voice is heard and every vote counts equally. 

We must also ensure elected officials are responsive to and representative of the interests of all their constituents, not just a handful of wealthy donors. 

For too long, wealthy donors and special interests have been able to control who has the means to run for office. While there are more women and people of color serving in Congress than ever before, we still have a long way to go before our government is as diverse as the American electorate. In races for the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, women of color raise less on average than all other candidates. While women of color make up 25% of the U.S. population, they make up only 4% of U.S. House candidates. 

Public financing initiatives that provide vouchers or match small-dollar campaign contributions make it possible for a more diverse pool of candidates to run for office and increase candidates’ engagement with a broader, more diverse pool of constituents, all of which leads to a healthier and more inclusive democracy.

The freedom to vote and the doors to public office should be accessible to every American. If our government is to truly be of, by and for the people, it must be reflective of the people. At Campaign Legal Center, we value a diverse democracy that’s open to all. 

Issues
Voting and Elections
Redistricting
Campaign Finance
Ethics

Protecting Georgia Voters from Political Intimidation (Andrews v. D'Souza)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center filed an amicus brief in support of an individual's voter intimidation claim under the support-or-advocacy clauses of the KKK Act of 1871.

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

About This Case

On March 31, 2023, CLC filed an amicus brief in support of an individual Georgia voter who was falsely accused of unlawfully using a drop box in a film titled 2000 Mules. CLC’s amicus brief supports the Plaintiff’s claims seeking to enforce his right to be free from political intimidation under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

Our Brief

CLC filed an amicus brief in district court supporting the intimidated individual's case. The brief explains why the key provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 apply to these facts based on the statute’s text, the 1871 Congress’s design and intent and historical source material.

Subscribe to