Each of these three members spent less than 25% of their leadership PAC funds on political activity during the 2020 election cycle - instead spending funds on things like travel, meals and other luxuries – possibly violating House rules regarding personal use of campaign funds.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) against three members of the U.S. House of Representatives – Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA), Gwen Moore (D-WI) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) – urging the OCE to investigate whether these members violated House rules governing the personal use of campaign funds.

At issue is spending by the members’ respective leadership political action committees (PAC). While most members of Congress primarily use their leadership PACs to make political contributions, these members spent less than a quarter of their leadership PAC funds on politics while still managing to spend significant sums on things like travel, high-end dining and sporting events.

“The law is clear that campaign funds cannot be used for personal use. When voters see thousands of campaign dollars spent on resort traveling and entertainment, they question whether the law is enforced,” said Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Many leadership PACs look like slush funds, and that diminishes the public’s trust in our campaign finance system.”

Much of the foundation for these complaints was laid out by a report published by CLC and Issue One on September 30th, which examined the spending by every leadership PAC that was both affiliated with a member of Congress and active during the 2019-2020 election cycle. The report found that Moulton spent just 8% of leadership PAC funds on politics while Moore spent 12% and Kelly spent 22%.

When that money is spent to enrich members of Congress, it is also funding an erosion of public trust. The OCE has investigated members for converting leadership PAC funds for personal use in the near past. It must do so again with these three members.

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

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.