The lawsuit alleges that 45Committee, a “dark money” group that worked to elect former President Donald Trump, failed to register as a political committee despite spending as much as $38 million to influence the 2016 presidential election.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed suit against 45Committee, a dark money group that spent as much as $38 million to influence the 2016 presidential election, for failing to register as a political action committee (PAC). The group reportedly served to fill a need for a “nondisclosing vehicle” through which donors who wished to support then-candidate Donald Trump, but found doing so publicly “embarrassing,” could anonymously support his campaign. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires an organization whose major purpose is to elect a federal candidate to register as a PAC with the FEC and file detailed periodic financial reports. Despite reporting that it spent more than $21 million on ads explicitly supporting Trump or opposing his opponent and likely spending as much as $38 million total on political ads in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, 45Committee has never registered with the FEC.

“Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are spending big money to secretly influence our vote and our government,” said Kevin P. Hancock, director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center. “In the absence of FEC action, CLC is exercising its right to enforce FECA's disclosure requirements and ensure 45Committee complies with federal law.”

The complaint alleges that 45Committee violated federal law by failing to register as a political committee, disclose its contributors and report how much money it raised and spent to elect Trump. As a result, voters have been denied the right to be fully informed about 45Committee’s efforts to influence a presidential election.

In August 2018, CLC filed a complaint with the FEC providing evidence that 45Committee had violated federal campaign finance law. In late March 2020, after no action was taken by the agency, CLC filed suit against the FEC for failing to enforce federal transparency laws. In November 2021, the district court granted judgment in favor of CLC, finding that the FEC’s failure to act was unlawful, and ordered the FEC to take action on the complaint. After months of further inaction by the agency, the district court issued an order on April 21, 2022, authorizing CLC to "bring an action to enforce FECA against the alleged violator," 45Committee.

Wealthy special interests use unlimited, secret money to rig the political system in their favor. Voters need real transparency about who is spending this money – but repeated failures by the FEC to properly enforce campaign finance laws have only encouraged an explosion of secret spending.

To reduce political corruption and shine a light on this spending, we need a stronger FEC to enforce our campaign finance laws. When the FEC fails to act, groups like CLC are obliged to step up and ensure that federal campaign finance law is enforced in the courts.

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

Washington, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari to hear an appeal in Gaspee Project v. Mederos, letting stand a First Circuit decision upholding Rhode Island’s political spending transparency rules. Along with the Rhode Island Office of Attorney General, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) served as outside co-counsel to the state defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings.

“To reduce political corruption, we need real transparency about who is spending big money in elections and to that end, voters in Rhode Island have a right to know who is attempting to influence their votes,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. “This denial of review from the Supreme Court of the United States means that vital right will remain in place and  continue to enable Rhode Islanders to be well-informed before heading into the voting booth.”

At issue before the Supreme Court was a provision of Rhode Island’s 2012 Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Act that requires election-related advertisements run by certain groups to include “top five” disclaimers identifying their five largest contributors.

Two groups, Gaspee Project and Illinois Opportunity Project, filed this lawsuit in 2020 challenging the top-five disclaimer provision and other transparency requirements in the Act as unconstitutional. Both plaintiffs were seeking to spend thousands of dollars distributing election-related mailers to Rhode Island voters without identifying themselves or their large contributors to the public.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals both rejected the challenge, finding that the law constitutionally serves the state’s vital interest in informing voters about those spending large sums of money to influence their votes. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves these strong transparency provisions in place, delivering a win for Rhode Islanders’ right to know about the sources of election-related spending. 

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

Washington, D.C. – In a win for transparency, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has cleared a path for a lawsuit brought by Campaign Legal Center (CLC) to challenge the failure of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to take action against a massive coordination scheme between the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and Correct the Record (CTR), a super PAC created by David Brock that was notorious for its efforts to “push back against” Clinton’s critics online.

The D.C. Circuit reversed a 2020 decision by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the case for lack of standing, ruling that CLC could proceed because it has been deprived of complete and accurate “factual information about the amounts of the contested coordinated, in-kind contributions” the super PAC gave the campaign as a result of the coordination scheme.

“The refusal of the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign finance laws creates a pathway for secret campaign giving – this its failure to hold the Clinton campaign and this super PAC accountable for $9 million in coordinated spending sets a dangerous precedent that could be replicated by other campaigns,” said Tara Malloy, senior director of appellate litigation & strategy, at CLC. “It is time for the FEC to do its job and hold political campaigns and their donors accountable."

This decision is an important step toward closing this loophole that otherwise could allow millions of dollars of undisclosed contributions to flow from purportedly independent super PACs to federal candidates.

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

Washington, D.C. – Today, in a win for political transparency, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to hear an appeal in Rio Grande Foundation v. City of Santa Fe. Campaign Legal Center (CLC) served as counsel to the city defendants in the Supreme Court proceedings.

“Voters in Santa Fe, and in every municipality, have a right to know who is spending to influence ballot measure campaigns. We applaud the Supreme Court for denying review in this case and leaving the decision below in place,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of Campaign Legal Center. “Special interests often run elections ads that are deliberately misleading, and today’s ruling means Santa Fe voters will be able to weigh the credibility of those ads and cast an informed vote.”

The challenged disclosure provision requires “event-driven” reporting: whenever a person or entity spends above a certain threshold to support or oppose a city ballot proposition, the person is required to disclose that spending, as well as certain donors who contributed for the purpose of funding it. The ordinance was challenged by the Rio Grande Foundation (RGF), an Albuquerque nonprofit that regularly participates in legislative and policy advocacy in New Mexico.

RGF’s constitutional challenge was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was dismissed on standing grounds. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari leaves the city’s important transparency provision in place.

CLC is pleased to see the Supreme Court refuse yet another challenge to campaign finance transparency. The Court has long recognized that disclosure is a constitutional means of protecting voters’ right to know about the sources of election-related spending. 

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