Giffords, Represented by Campaign Legal Center Action, Sues the National Rifle Association for Violating Campaign Finance Laws

Date
Body

The lawsuit alleges the NRA illegally coordinated expenditures with several federal candidates, funneling about $35 million in illegal campaign contributions to Senate and presidential races

Washington, D.C. — Today, Giffords filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the National Rifle Association (NRA) for violations of campaign finance laws dating back to 2014. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Giffords by Campaign Legal Center Action, alleges that the NRA engaged in a broad pattern of activity that violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. Since 2014, the NRA has made as much as $35 million in unlawful, excessive, and unreported in-kind campaign contributions to seven federal candidates, including candidates for U.S. Senate in 2014, 2016 and 2018, and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“Campaign finance law prohibits groups like the NRA from buying influence over elected officials by coordinating spending with those candidates’ campaigns. When special interests like the NRA secretly collude with candidates, this illegal coordination corrupts our election process and deprives voters of their right to know who is spending to influence their vote,” said Molly Danahy, Senior Legal Counsel for Litigation at Campaign Legal Center Action. “The FEC had the chance to do its job by taking action against the NRA for this massive coordination scheme, but as usual, the FEC failed to enforce the law. Therefore, we are compelled to take legal action to crack down on secret spending.”

“The NRA has long acted like it is above the law, and it has done so flagrantly in the last several election cycles. This lawsuit demonstrates that the NRA broke the law by illegally coordinating with federal campaigns and funneling millions of dollars to candidates who supported their extremist, deadly agenda,” said David Pucino, Giffords Law Center Senior Staff Attorney. “We are suing the NRA to finally hold them accountable for actions that corrupted politicians who were supposed to protect Americans from gun violence, illegally influenced critical elections and undermined our democracy.”

Giffords filed a series of complaints in 2018 to alert the Federal Election Commission that the NRA was engaged in an unlawful scheme that violated federal election law. When the FEC did nothing, Giffords, represented by Campaign Legal Center Action, took the Commission to court. On September 30, the U.S. District Court in Washington issued an order compelling the FEC to act on the complaints within 30 days. The FEC once again failed to do its job, and after 30 days elapsed, the Court ruled that Giffords could sue the NRA directly for violations of federal campaign finance law.

The lawsuit seeks several forms of relief, including an order preventing the NRA from violating the law in future elections, and a penalty equal to the amount of money unlawfully spent, which the NRA would pay to the US treasury — potentially as much as $35 million. A copy of the suit is available here.

The races at the heart of the lawsuit include the following (with the candidate receiving the NRA’s support in here): 

  • 2014: Thom Tillis in the race for Senate in North Carolina (vs. Kay Hagan); Tom Cotton in the race for Senate in Arkansas (vs. Mark Pryor); Cory Gardner in the race for Senate in Colorado (vs. Mark Udall)
  • 2016: Ron Johnson in the race for Senate in Wisconsin (vs. Russ Feingold); Donald Trump in the presidential race (vs. Hillary Clinton)
  • 2018: Josh Hawley in the race for Senate in Missouri (vs. Claire McCaskill); Matt Rosendale in the race for Senate in Montana (vs. Jon Tester)

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

Issues
Campaign Finance

Ensuring Colorado’s Redistricting Maps Fulfill the State Constitution’s Protections Against Vote Dilution

At a Glance

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed two briefs in two cases before the Colorado Supreme Court on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Colorado League United of Latin American Citizens (together, “LULAC”), advocating for congressional and state legislative redistricting maps that would avoid the preventable dilution of Latino voters’ electoral influence.

Status
Active
Updated
Issues
Redistricting
About This Case/Action

In 2018, Colorado voters overwhelmingly supported two amendments to the state constitution that created two independent redistricting commissions for the 2021 cycle, one to redraw Colorado’s congressional map and the other to redraw Colorado’s state House and state Senate maps. Part of the amendments established the criteria for the commissions to use in determining district lines, including the key requirement that the commissions must avoid adopting a map that would needlessly dilute the electoral influence of Colorado’s minority voters.

The congressional commission disregarded this new “electoral influence” requirement, claiming that it was merely a restatement of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). Based on this flawed interpretation, the Congressional Redistricting Commission’s submitted map would dilute the electoral influence of Colorado’s Latino voters in the southern parts of the state and areas in north Denver.

The Legislative Redistricting Commission working on the state House and state Senate maps drew lines that fulfilled the electoral influence requirement. The Legislative Redistricting Commission complied by devising “crossover districts” that enabled pockets of substantial minority voter populations in the state to combine with other cohesive voters in a way that avoids preventable vote dilution. The Legislative Redistricting Commission drew these crossover districts even in areas where the federal VRA would likely not be applicable.

CLC filed briefs on behalf of LULAC directly in the Colorado Supreme Court advocating for the Court to interpret the “electoral influence” requirement to mean what it says and carry out Colorado voters’ intent to establish protections against minority vote dilution that exceed the federal VRA. CLC’s brief in the congressional case encouraged the court to reject the Congressional Redistricting Commission’s lawyers’ misinterpretation of the Colorado Constitution that would erase the electoral influence requirement from the Colorado Constitution and send the submitted map back to the commission to be corrected. CLC’s brief in the state legislative case encouraged the court to rule that the Legislative Redistricting Commission fulfilled its constitutional obligations to avoid preventable vote dilution.

What's at Stake

Latinos in Colorado comprise one-fifth of the state’s population, including an increase of nearly a quarter of a million new Latino residents over the last decade. But Latino voters have faced substantial structural obstacles embedded in Colorado’s redistricting plans that have historically prevented them from translating their political strength into effective representation. Only one Latino candidate has ever represented Colorado in the House of Representatives, and candidates supported by Latino voters are rarely elected. Colorado voters in 2018 sought to correct this course by enshrining protections of minority voters’ electoral influence in the state constitution. The court must enforce those protections in harmony with other redistricting considerations to ensure that Latino voters have an effective voice in the political process.

Plaintiffs

CLC, LULAC and Colorado LULAC

Defendant

Colorado Congressional Redistricting Commission

Subscribe to