WASHINGTON - Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against 23 super PACs that had worked to illegally conceal their affiliation - denying voters the right to know who is spending big money to influence their vote.

Established, D.C-based super PACs tied to the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties are among the 23 groups listed in the complaint, as are a number of so-called “pop-up super PACs” that existed solely to influence one congressional race.

Between 2017 and 2020, 18 of these super PACs falsely presented themselves to voters as independent groups, with most utilizing names that suggested ties to the given state or region in which they were trying to influence voters. Wealthy special interests often run election ads that are deliberately misleading. Voters need to know who is funding these ads so they can weigh their credibility and cast an informed vote.

What these groups illegally concealed from voters was their affiliation with established national super PACs tied to Congressional leadership. Combined, these 18 groups spent more than $200 million attempting to influence voters in competitive federal elections across the country, with nearly all of that funding coming from the 5 national groups.

"Senior leaders of both parties have been steering money from wealthy special interests to front groups specifically designed to trick voters," said Adav Noti, Senior Director of Trial Litigation and Chief of Staff at CLC Action, and former Associate General Counsel of the FEC. "Voters have a right to know when big money is flowing into their elections from D.C.-based groups hiding their agendas and funding behind fake names. The vast scope of this illegal concealment should prompt swift investigation and a firm crackdown by the FEC."

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires that political committees publicly disclose “the name, address, relationship, and type of any connected organization or affiliated committee” within 10 days of becoming a political committee. The fact that these 18 “pop-up super PACs” received most or all of their funding from these established D.C-based groups clearly demonstrates such affiliation.

The FEC, which is the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of our political campaigns, must hold these groups accountable for concealing this important information from American voters. We need real transparency about who is spending big money on elections.

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

Washington - In a 6-3 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California reporting rule designed to prevent charitable fraud and self-dealing. In doing so, the Court sidestepped established precedent recognizing the important public interests in nonprofit reporting and relatively minimal burdens such reporting imposes. This limited, nonpublic information served a key role in helping the state maintain oversight over organizations soliciting donations.

However, this decision does not call into question the longstanding laws and regulations requiring public disclosure of campaign spending. The standard of review applied by the Court is one transparency laws in the electoral context easily meet, limiting the reach of this case.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta addressed nonpublic tax reporting by charities, not public disclosure by those spending money to influence elections. Still, this ruling needlessly brushes aside precedent in favor of wealthy special interests—toughening the standard of scrutiny applied to California’s law beyond what the Court’s earlier disclosure decisions would have required.

“Some could worry that this case might have an impact on other states and their efforts to prevent charitable fraud and self-dealing,” said Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy, Campaign Legal Center. “But, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that public interests tied to electoral transparency justify laws governing disclosure. There is really no reason to believe this ruling will have a broad impact on electoral transparency measures.”

"We’re disappointed with today’s decision, which departs from precedence to protect super wealthy donors from accountability. Still, it is clear that election related disclosure easily meets the Court’s standard: only fulsome disclosure of the financial backers to a candidate can protect our democracy," said Stuart McPhail, CREW Senior Litigation Counsel.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to reject California’s disclosure requirement is disappointing and, although narrow, could open the door for further exploitation by wealthy special interests,” said Stephanie Doute, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California. "The League will continue to advocate for transparent campaign finance rules that let voters know who is seeking political influence.”

“It is disappointing that the Court missed an opportunity to reaffirm the freedom of states to monitor fundraising by nonprofit organizations for compliance with state laws, including “dark money” groups that raise and spend unlimited money in politics,” said Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn. “But it’s important to emphasize that this was not a campaign finance disclosure case, and campaign finance laws remain constitutional and vitally important despite the Court’s decision today.”

As American voters continue to overwhelmingly support transparency measures that seek to fight fraudulent activities—understanding them to be essential to governmental integrity—the desire of wealthy special interests to make anonymous political contributions cannot be permitted to overrule well-established precedents. 

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