Following the Federal Election Commission’s failure to act on allegations that the NRA unlawfully coordinated with federal candidates, a federal court has ordered the agency to take action within 30 days. 

Washington, D.C. – Today, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order, instructing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to take action within 30 days on long-pending administrative complaints against the National Rifle Association (NRA) for using shell corporations to coordinate campaign spending with federal candidates. The order follows  a 2019 lawsuit filed by Campaign Legal Center Action (CLC Action) on behalf of Giffords.

Campaign finance law allows outside groups like the NRA to make unlimited expenditures supporting candidates — but only if that spending is completely independent of those candidates’ campaigns. During the 2014, 2016 and 2018 campaign cycles, the NRA showed flagrant disregard for these rules by using mutual vendors to coordinate expenditures with seven federal candidates, including former President Donald Trump. Through this scheme, the NRA was able to secretly contribute millions of dollars to candidates, in violation of the contribution limits, and without disclosing its support.

Giffords filed four complaints with the FEC to address the NRA’s violations. The FEC took no action. In April of 2019, CLC Action filed suit on behalf of Giffords against the FEC in federal court, on the grounds that the FEC had unlawfully delayed in acting on the administrative complaint.

“The failure of the FEC to enforce our campaign finance laws has resulted in an explosion of shady campaign spending. In the two years since we filed this lawsuit, our nation experienced the most expensive election in our history, with ‘dark money’ spending topping $1 billion,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC and Republican former Chairman of the FEC. “The FEC had the chance to do the right thing by taking action against the NRA for this blatant spending coordination, but failed to do so. We applaud the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for stepping in and compelling them to take action.”

“Over the last several years and across election cycles, the NRA has been brazenly flouting campaign finance law by illegally funneling money to candidates while claiming to remain independent,” said David Pucino, Senior Staff Attorney at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The NRA has used these tactics not just to obscure their contributions, but to violate spending caps, undermining the integrity of our elections and the rule of law. It is clear that the NRA will continue to violate the law until someone stops them. Today's decision ordering the FEC to take action is a resounding win to keep dark money out of our politics.”

To reduce political corruption, we need a stronger FEC that can enforce campaign finance laws and hold political candidates, groups and donors accountable. The FEC had a chance to do its job, but was asleep at the switch. A federal court has now interceded, giving the agency one more chance to prove that it is capable of being the effective watchdog this country needs. 

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

New research from Issue One and Campaign Legal Center shows that scores of lawmakers are not using the bulk of the money they raise in their leadership political action committees (PACs) to assist other candidates, political groups or their parties — the intended purpose of leadership PACs when they were approved by the Federal Election Commission more than 40 years ago.

While most members of Congress primarily use their leadership PACs to make political contributions, Issue One and Campaign Legal Center found that the leadership PACs of 120 members of Congress spent less than 50% on politics between January 2019 and December 2020 — roughly one of every five members of Congress.

Moreover, 43 members of Congress spent less than 25% on politics during this time. And a handful of these members spent at least five figures without ever contributing a penny to any local, state or federal candidates, parties or political groups. In contrast, during the same period, the typical member of Congress’ leadership PAC spent 70% on politics.

Where did the money go instead? Far too many politicians appear to be using leadership PACs to enjoy perks of lavish living that are beyond the rest of most Americans, including meals at fancy restaurants, trips to elite resorts, rounds of golf at premier courses and more.

Issue One and Campaign Legal Center found that lawmakers whose leadership PACs spent less than half of their funds on politics between January 2019 and December 2020 collectively spent approximately $2 million at hotels and resorts, $950,000 on airfare, $220,000 at sporting events and concerts, $150,000 at steakhouses and $130,000 at golf courses and country clubs, among other things.

“Leadership PACs represent the worst of pay-to-play political giving,” said Issue One Founder and CEO Nick Penniman. “People of conscience in Congress and at the Federal Election Commission must rein in the abuse of leadership PACs and prohibit leadership PACs from being slush funds for politicians to pursue lavish lifestyles."

Adav Noti, senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff at Campaign Legal Center, added: “Too many members of Congress are using leadership PACs to enrich themselves. When candidates use funds given by donors for personal expenses, the risk for corruption is heightened — it raises concerns that wealthy special interests, expecting favors in return, are aiding what is essentially a slush fund that allows an elected official to live a lavish lifestyle.”

Issue One and Campaign Legal Center have urged both Congress and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to address the abuse of leadership PACs.

In 2018, Issue One and Campaign Legal Center submitted a rulemaking petition to the FEC, asking the Commission to clarify the regulations of the personal use of leadership PAC funds, but, to date, that petition remains pending.

For its part, Congress would simply need to make minimal revisions to existing language to confirm that the personal use ban does, in fact, apply to leadership PACs.

The frequently given explanation that lavish spending is necessary for political fundraising rings hollow when just a fraction of the money raised by some leadership PACs goes toward contributions to other candidates and political groups.

Instead, such spending gives the impression that some politicians are simply raising money at one luxurious location to pay for the next fundraiser at the next fancy destination — creating an endless fundraising cycle at posh restaurants and resorts.

A few of the politicians whose leadership PACs spent less than 25% on politics during this period included:

Rep. George Holding (R-NC), whose leadership PAC spent roughly $202,000 during this two-year period, with just 2% of its spending aiding other candidates, political parties and political groups. The bulk of his leadership PAC’s spending went toward airfare, restaurants, hotels, car services and exclusive members-only clubs in the United States and abroad, including nearly $11,000 at the East India Club, a private, men-only club in London.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), whose leadership PAC spent roughly $990,000 during this two-year period, with just 12% of its spending aiding other candidates, political parties and political groups. This was the smallest percentage of any senator that did not retire in 2020. Instead, Paul’s leadership PAC spent significant sums on dining, lodging and transportation, spending $14,000 on lodging alone, including visits to some of the top resorts in the country such as The Breakers in Palm Beach, Florida, and the Salamander Resort in Virginia.

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), whose leadership PAC spent roughly $320,000 during this two-year period, with just 12% of its spending aiding other candidates, political parties and political groups. All the while, her leadership PAC spent freely on food, beverages, travel and events. Moore’s leadership PAC spent around $32,000 on meals and catering, and it spent $9,000 for event tickets through Live Nation, StubHub and Ticketmaster.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), whose leadership PAC spent roughly $590,000 during this two-year period, with just 17% of its spending aiding other candidates, political parties and political groups. While much of this spending went toward consultants, salaries and administrative expenses, Gottheimer’s leadership PAC also footed sizable bills for meals and transportation.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), whose leadership PAC spent roughly $2.2 million during this two-year period, with just 18% of its spending aiding other candidates, political parties and political groups. While much of this spending went toward digital advertising expenses and consultants, Cruz’s leadership PAC also footed sizable bills for transportation and lodging, including approximately $59,000 on airfare and $20,000 on hotels throughout the country, including five-star establishments such as The Breakers, in Palm Beach, Florida and the Cloister at Sea Island in Georgia.

Curious about how a particular member of Congress stacks up? Issue One and Campaign Legal Center included an appendix at the end of this new report detailing all lawmakers’ leadership PAC spending and the portion spent on politics between January 2019 and December 2020.

Read the full report.

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

Two weeks ago, Congress introduced the Freedom to Vote Act, a transformative proposal that would increase Americans’ access to the ballot box, neutralize partisan and racial gerrymandering and increase transparency in our campaign finance system. But what exactly is in the bill, and how would it help combat state laws creating barriers to voting that impact millions of Americans?

RSVP Now!

WHAT: Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is hosting a call that is open to the press with voting rights experts about the bill and its provisions, and we're excited to welcome venture capitalist and writer Patrick J. McGinnis, who will offer a business insider's view. We'll also discuss CLC's State Scorecard, a report that grades how states have changed their vote-by-mail and early voting laws this year. The results make a compelling case for why the Freedom To Vote Act is so monumentally important to achieving the promise of democracy for us all.

WHEN: Join us today, September 28 – National Voter Registration Day – at 2pm Eastern.

WHO:

• Trevor Potter is the founder and president of Campaign Legal Center. He is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, and was general counsel to John McCain’s 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, and an adviser to the drafters of the McCain-Feingold law. To many, he is perhaps best known for his recurring appearances on The Colbert Report as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert’s super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, during the 2012 election, a program that won a Peabody Award for excellence in reporting on money in politics. He has served as chair of several American Bar Association election law and lobbying regulation committees and task forces and is currently a member of the ABA's Standing Committee on Election Law as well as the American Law Institute. Follow Trevor on Twitter at @thetrevorpotter.
• Jo Deutsch joined CLC in September of 2019, after fighting for more than 35 years as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill for equality and rights for women, the LGBT community and the labor and progressive movements. At CLC, Jo is responsible for federal lobbying and is the point of contact for many of the coalitions in which CLC participates. Prior to her work at CLC, Jo was president of Deutsch Initiatives Group, where she focused on lobbying and political activism to support her clients. Before that, she was federal director for Freedom to Marry, where she successfully oversaw the federal campaign and lobbied for the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.
• Danielle Lang joined CLC in October 2015. Danielle litigates a wide range of voting rights and redistricting matters before federal courts from district courts to the Supreme Court, including groundbreaking cases like the challenge to Texas’ strict voter ID law. She also has an active amicus practice before the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Danielle presents at conferences nationwide and conducts trainings on federal voting rights law through the Voting Rights Institute, a project of CLC, the American Constitution Society and Georgetown Law. She is frequently quoted in national news publications, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and CNN. Follow Danielle on Twitter at @DaniLang_DC.
• Patrick J. McGinnis is a venture capitalist, writer and speaker who has invested in leading companies in the United States, Latin America, Europe and Asia. He is the creator and host of the hit podcast "FOMO Sapiens," which is distributed by Harvard Business Review and has achieved over 2 million downloads. Patrick coined the term “FOMO” short for “Fear of Missing Out”, which was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2013. He is also the creator of the term “FOBO” or “Fear of a Better Option” and has been featured as the creator of both terms in media outlets including the New York Times, The Financial Times, Boston Globe, The Guardian, Inc.magazine, Cosmopolitan and MSNBC. His TED Talk “How to Make Faster Decisions” was released in 2019. Follow Patrick on Twitter at @pjmcginnis.
• Valencia Richardson is an equal justice works fellow at CLC. Her work focuses on addressing local-level election compliance under the Voting Rights Act in the Deep South. Valencia received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. During law school, Valencia served as editor-in-chief of the Georgetown Journal of Law and Modern Critical Race Perspectives and the president of Georgetown Law Students for Democratic Reform. Valencia also worked as a student attorney in the Georgetown Law Civil Rights Clinic and interned for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Campaign Legal Center. She is the author of a nonfiction book, “Young and Disaffected.” Follow Valencia on Twitter at @valthebeast.

WHY: The American people have been calling for national standards to protect our freedom to vote, ensure fair representation and increase transparency in political campaign spending. The Freedom to Vote Act is a significant step in that direction. We hope you can join us to find out why!