Campaign Legal Center Files FEC Complaint Against WinRed, Seeking Increased Transparency into the Fundraising Conduit’s Operating Expenses

Date
Body

Despite earning at least $114 million in fee-based revenue, the political fundraising conduit has reported spending less than $2,700 on operating expenditures. The complaint alleges that WinRed has violated campaign finance laws by not completely and accurately reporting its expenses.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that WinRed, a major fundraising conduit for candidates and committees affiliated with the Republican Party, has violated federal campaign finance laws by not completely and accurately reporting its operating expenditures.

Since being organized in January of 2019, WinRed has processed over $2.8 billion in earmarked contributions, earning at least $114 million in fee-based revenue by conservative estimates. Despite this sizable haul, WinRed has reported spending less than $2,700 on operating expenditures during this period, along with just $243,000 in “debt” to an affiliated company, WinRed Technical Services, for unpaid legal, consulting and insurance fees.

This reporting suggests that WinRed is either failing to report its operating expenditures or is failing to report “in-kind” contributions in the form of free goods and services.

“Voters have a right to know how political fundraising conduits like WinRed spend their money, so they can make an informed choice as to whether to support candidates and committees that use its service,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center. “As it stands now, all of us – from donors giving through WinRed, to the candidates who use its services, to those of us trying to follow the money – are in the dark about how WinRed operates. The FEC needs to investigate and set the record straight.”

WinRed is one of the the largest financial operations in our election system – offering a wide range of fundraising services to political candidates and committees. Yet it is currently concealing from the public how it is using the funds it earns from processing contributions, including who is providing the goods and services that allow WinRed to conduct its extensive operations, and how much WinRed is paying for those goods and services.

Transparency regarding the money raised and spent to influence our election system is essential to an open and inclusive democracy. The FEC must investigate WinRed. 

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Issues
Campaign Finance

Defending a Proposed Wyoming Campaign Finance Disclosure Law — Buchanan v. Wyoming Gun Owners

At a Glance

CLC has joined a case defending a Wyoming law requiring political groups to disclose their “electioneering communications” in state elections — including the contributors who funded their campaign ads — to protect voters’ right to know which special interests are attempting to influence their votes and enable them to make informed decisions at the polls. 

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Campaign Finance
About This Case/Action

In June 2021, Wyoming Gun Owners (WyGO) filed suit to challenge Wyoming’s recently-enacted disclosure law requiring political groups to disclose their “electioneering communications” in state elections, including the contributors who funded their campaign ads. Wyoming’s law is meant to advance voters’ right to know which outside groups and special interests are attempting to influence their votes and enable voters to make informed decisions when they vote.

WyGO, a long-standing Wyoming gun rights organization, ran ads in the 2020 Wyoming State Senate primaries. After a complaint was filed against WyGO for failing to disclose this advertising, the Wyoming Secretary of State determined that WyGO had violated the disclosure law and fined the organization $500.

WyGO never filed the required report and instead sued in federal district court, challenging the disclosure law as an unconstitutional burden on its First Amendment rights. In particular, WyGO objected to the law’s requirement that groups running electioneering ads disclose their “contributions which relate to . . . electioneering communication[s],” arguing this provision was both overbroad and vague. In March 2022, while upholding other provisions of the law, the district court found that this contributor disclosure requirement did not meet exacting scrutiny and was void-for-vagueness.

The state defendants and WyGO cross-appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2022, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) joined the case to help, defending the constitutionality of Wyoming’s “electioneering communications” disclosure law and urging the reversal of the lower court’s decision striking down important provisions.

What’s at Stake?

Publicizing information about the true sources of money spent to influence voters’ choices is the central purpose of electoral transparency laws, and the lower court’s decision to scale back donor disclosure thwarts this critical objective. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained in earlier cases, refusal to follow such laws, “ignores the competing First Amendment interests of individual citizens seeking to make informed choices in the political marketplace.” 

Plaintiffs

Buchanan

Defendant

Wyoming Gun Owners

BREAKING: Senate Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Update the Electoral Count Act

Date
Body

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and 14 cosponsors introduced the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, bipartisan legislation to update the outdated law from 1887 that outlines procedures for casting and counting Electoral College votes in presidential elections.  

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Trevor Potter, founder and president of Campaign Legal Center and Republican Former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, issued the following statement:  

“We thank Sen. Collins and the bipartisan working group for introducing this vital proposal, and we urge Congress to pass it without delay. The introduction of this bipartisan legislation represents months of tireless work by experts spanning the political spectrum to develop necessary and commonsense updates to the Electoral Count Act. While there is much more work to be done to protect elections and voters at the state and federal level, this bill provides critical safeguards for the results of presidential elections.  

“The next presidential election could be one of the most contentious in history, and it should be decided by voters, not partisan politicians. As we saw following the 2020 election, bad actors egregiously attempted to exploit the old language in the Electoral Count Act to throw out key states’ certified presidential election results. This kind of blatant manipulation threatens the democracy we cherish as Americans. The good news is that Congress has the power to update the Electoral Count Act and bring it into the 21st century. CLC strongly urges Sens. Schumer and McConnell to move on this bipartisan proposal to protect the will of the people.” 

Background on the Electoral Count Act: 

Following the 2020 election, partisan actors attempted to exploit loopholes in the Electoral Count Act (ECA). While attempts to reject state-certified election results and overrule the will of voters were unsuccessful, gaps and ambiguities remain in the ECA and are ripe for manipulation.  

In 2021, CLC convened constitutional experts from across the country and representing all political viewpoints to determine important updates to modernize the ECA. Some of the updates that these experts felt were necessary are included in the bill introduced today:   

  1. Prohibiting state legislatures from overruling their own voters.

  2. Resolving disputes about electors and electoral votes before they reach Congress.

  3. Strictly limiting opportunities for members of Congress to second guess electors and electoral votes.  

  4. Clarifying the vice president’s ministerial role in the counting of electoral votes.  

A poll commissioned by Campaign Legal Center last year showed strong, bipartisan support among voters for updating the ECA. It also highlighted the serious concern held by a majority of voters (58%) that one party in Congress could try to overturn the results of an upcoming presidential election to put their own candidate in power.

Issues
Voting and Elections

Allen v. Milligan (Formerly Merrill v. Milligan)

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is advocating to reinforce the role that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) plays in blocking redistricting plans that discriminatorily dilute the ability of voters of color to equally participate in the political process.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In October 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear argument in a case involving Section 2 of the VRA — the strongest remaining federal statutory protection against racial discrimination in voting and redistricting.

Section 2 presents a limited but necessary constraint on jurisdictions, requiring that redistricting plans at any level — congressional, state legislative, county commission and more — cannot “abridge[]” minority voters’ equal “opportunity … to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” For decades, courts have applied a demanding multi-part test to determine whether plaintiffs have established that a redistricting plan violates Section 2 under what is called a “vote dilution” claim.

In November 2021, multiple groups of voters and civil rights organizations filed lawsuits challenging Alabama’s newly enacted congressional redistricting plan. The groups argued that the new map violated the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the VRA because it packed Black Alabamians into a single district when an undiluted map would have created at least two districts. The trial court agreed that Alabama’s enacted congressional plan violated Section 2 of the VRA, and it did not decide the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

Alabama appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The state has attempted to argue that part of the long-settled evidentiary requirements that Section 2 plaintiffs must prove to establish a vote dilution violation makes the statute unconstitutional.

CLC filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Alabama’s attacks against Section 2 are unfounded in part because Alabama has broad remedial flexibility to resolve a proven Section 2 violation. For example, CLC submitted numerous remedial options available to the State that will correct the vote dilution of Black Alabamians in the congressional map while satisfying Alabama’s other designated policy priorities even better than the enacted plan.

Supreme Court Should Reject Alabama Voting Maps That Silence Voters of Color

Date
Body

Washington, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a brief in Merrill v. Milligan, urging the Supreme Court to reject Alabama’s attempt to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and prevent the state from using voting maps that dilute the voting power of Black Alabamians.

“To achieve a fair and inclusive democracy where every voice is heard and every vote counts equally, we can’t let politicians carve up communities of color to suppress their voting power,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. “The Supreme Court’s unprecedented interference in the lower court’s decision invalidating Alabama’s map illustrates why Congress needs to act to protect voters of color.”

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether voting maps drawn by Alabama’s legislature violate the Voting Rights Act, a national law that protects communities of color against attacks on their freedom to vote and right to fair representation. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a key enforcement mechanism for the law and bans racial discrimination in voting.

When the Supreme Court gutted part of the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case, it opened the door for states – like Alabama – to pass discriminatory voting maps without having to clear them through the Department of Justice first.

The maps in question illegally pack some Black voters into a single district while dividing other Black voters into multiple districts to minimize their political influence. A district court temporarily blocked the map from going into effect, recognizing that it likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court then froze that temporary hold, forcing Black Alabamians to vote under maps that limit their voting power until the Supreme Court comes to a final decision.

CLC’s friend-of-the-court brief urges the Supreme Court to reject Alabama’s attempt to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, one of the last remaining tools to challenge redistricting plans that dilute the electoral strength of minority voters.

CLC’s brief provides the Supreme Court with several alternative voting maps and remedial strategies that abide by the Constitution and do not dilute the voting power of Black Alabamians. As the district court ruled, Alabama’s enacted congressional map needlessly prevents cohesive Black voters from having the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. CLC’s alternative maps prove that Alabama can fix this inequity while meeting its other stated policy priorities even better than the state’s enacted plan.

The Supreme Court must step in to make the promise of democracy real for all Alabamians by blocking the state from continuing to use voting maps that dilute the voting power of Black voters.

You can read the amicus brief in full here.

Learn more about Campaign Legal Center’s work to eliminate racial vote dilution here.  

Issues
Redistricting
Subscribe to