Eric Greitens, the former Governor of Missouri now running for U.S. Senate, illegally spent more than $100,000 from his gubernatorial campaign amid efforts to launch his Senate campaign — violating a consent order between his gubernatorial campaign and the Missouri ethics commission.

Washington, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging that Eric Greitens’s gubernatorial campaign committee, Greitens for Missouri, violated state campaign finance law. By doing so, Greitens for Missouri also violated a February 2020 consent decree with the Commission in which it agreed to not commit further campaign finance violations for two years.

This action follows an October 28th complaint from CLC with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Greitens violated federal campaign finance law by illegally spending Missouri state campaign funds on his run for U.S. Senate. However, by failing to properly report those transactions on reports filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission, Greitens for Missouri also violated state campaign finance law, as well as the 2020 consent order with the Commission.

“It violated both state and federal law for Greitens to spend $100,000 in gubernatorial campaign funds on his U.S. Senate race without proper disclosure,” said Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform for Campaign Legal Center. “Missouri voters have a right to know where the money being spent to influence their votes is coming from.”

Under Missouri law, a state-level committee must file periodic reports that disclose the date and amount of all contributions to other committees, including those controlled by the same candidate. By spending money on Greitens’ U.S. Senate race, Greitens’ gubernatorial campaign made contributions to Greitens for U.S. Senate but violated Missouri law by failing to disclose those donations.

If the Commission finds probable cause to believe that Greitens for Missouri has violated Missouri campaign finance law, then pursuant to a 2020 Consent Order between the Commission and the committee, Greitens for Missouri may be required to pay the remaining $140,087 fine associated with its prior violations.

Like all Americans, Missouri voters have a right to a political process that is both fair and transparent — by illegally transferring funds and misstating their source, Mr. Greitens has taken steps to ensure it is neither. Real transparency about who is spending on elections means more government accountability and less political corruption. The Missouri Ethics Commission needs to take action against Eric Greitens and his campaigns for this blatantly illegal spending.  

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

WASHINGTON - Moves by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-W.I.) and others in his state to undermine a bipartisan elections agency and threaten its members with legal action are part of a concerning and ongoing trend that, if left unchecked, stands to sabotage the American electoral process.

Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), and a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, released the following statement:

“In recent months, partisan attempts to undermine legitimate and fair American elections have found shocking amounts of support and gained a concerning amount of traction. In states including Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, Republican elected officials have introduced bills or otherwise taken action deliberately targeting election officials with criminal penalties for doing their job.

More recently and most troubling, Republicans in Wisconsin – many of them the same partisan actors who engaged in a deliberate disinformation campaign following the results of the 2020 election – have begun taking steps for the avowed purpose of allowing the party to take full control over the electoral process in future elections. They are objecting to a March 2020 vote by the Wisconsin Elections Commission to make it possible for residents of Wisconsin nursing homes to vote during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Wisconsin law had required two visits by state officials to nursing homes before residents could receive mail ballots, but it was impossible for outsiders to enter nursing homes during the COVID lockdown because of health dangers to the residents. Led by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and G.O.P speaker of the State Assembly Robin Vos, Republican officials have begun directly targeting the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission, declaring that “prosecutors around the state” should determine whether to bring charges against members of the commission for their March 2020 vote, which was supported by commissioners from both parties.

Our freedom to vote is meaningless unless our votes are reliably counted and respected. Partisan subversion of those time-tested practices, from any holder of political power, is a danger to all our freedom to vote. For far too long, we have seen that elected officials are willing to go to great lengths to choose their voters and undermine the voices of our communities. After attempting and failing to overturn the result of the 2020 election, officials motived solely by partisanship are trying to make sure their next attempt to sabotage our elections succeeds.

For those who repeatedly seek to sabotage our elections, partisan manipulation of election officials is just another extension of that practice. The upcoming 2022 midterms and the next presidential election could be the most contentious elections in our nation’s history. We need to ensure that it is the voters who decide these elections. This central tenet of our democracy should not be undermined by partisan officials who want to stay in power."

When candidates raise funds after an election to repay personal loans to their own campaigns, the risk of corruption is self-evident and voters lose out on essential knowledge until it is too late. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Common Cause and Democracy 21 filed an amicus brief in Federal Election Commission (FEC) v. Ted Cruz for Senate to defend a law that prevents potential corruption from arising when politicians make large personal loans to their own campaigns only to repay them with donations received after Election Day.  

Federal law limits candidates from using more than $250,000 in contributions raised after the date of an election to repay outstanding personal loans candidates make to their campaigns. In 2018, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-T.X.) put $260,000 of his own money into his reelection and sued the FEC the following year, complaining that this law prevented him from paying off the last $10,000 with post-election contributions. In June, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals sided with Sen. Cruz, striking down the limit on the amount candidates can raise post-election to repay personal loans to their campaigns. 

“At hand here is the risk of corruption posed by what is, functionally, a personal gift to a candidate,” said Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center. “What should concern all voters is that the funds raised for such a purpose are not the typical campaign contributions made to a candidate to support an active campaign; instead, they are solicited after the election has occurred for the sole purpose of repaying the candidate’s personal campaign loans—and thus the money effectively goes right into that candidate’s pocket.” 

“Allowing donors to repay candidates’ loans is a shell game that breeds cynicism about our elections. Campaign donations end up in the candidate’s pocket, after the election – while voters are deprived of information about who’s funding the candidate, while deciding how to vote,” said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. “Without the loan repayment limit, the opportunity for corruption is enormous: an officeholder could raise millions of dollars from special interests and lobbyists after an election and pocket that money in the form of a loan repayment. And with a Senate election, it would be six years before the voters have a chance to act on that information.”

“The Supreme Court should make short work of rejecting Senator Cruz’s constitutional challenge,” Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said. “The money a candidate raises after an election to repay his loans to the campaign goes directly into the candidate’s pocket,” Wertheimer said. “Those contributors are in reality making a gift of money to the candidate for personal use. For a winning candidate this presents an obvious danger for corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Court should uphold the constitutionality of the contribution limit, consistent with the many rules limiting personal gifts to officeholders that are in place for all three branches of government.”

"It is incredibly corrupting to allow unlimited amounts of money given to a campaign after a candidate has won to flow straight into the candidate's hands under the guise of a 'loan repayment,'" said CREW President Noah Bookbinder. "Reinstating the limit will protect the public from the danger of letting candidates personally benefit from donations that have nothing to do with the actual election."

Voters have a right to know which wealthy special interests are writing checks to the candidates on their ballot, a form of knowledge that becomes useless if that check is written after votes are cast. It should be no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly express concern over the potentially corruptive nature of post-election campaign contributions.   

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