The U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote H.R. 1069, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act, to reveal the identities of donors to presidential libraries, prompted by reports raising concerns about sitting Presidents fundraising for such institutions.  H.R. 1069 was introduced by Rep. John Duncan (R-TN).  A companion bill, S. 558, introduced by Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), has been reported out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and is awaiting final action on the Senate floor.

The Campaign Legal Center again urged the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to establish a Task Force to review and recommend changes to clarify House rules concerning recusal and conflicts of interest by Members.  In a letter to Ethics Committee Chair Charles Dent (R-PA) and Ranking Member Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and OCE Co-Chairs David Skaggs and Judy Biggert, CLC offered new accounts that raise questions of potential Member conflicts on a large scale in the fields of biomedicine and healthcare.

The Campaign Legal Center urged the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to review the actions taken by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) in offering an amendment that would benefit his own business during House consideration of the transportation reauthorization legislation.  In a letter to Ethics Committee Chair Charles Dent (R-PA) and Ranking Member Linda Sanchez (D-CA) and OCE Co-Chairs David Skaggs and Judy Biggert, CLC urged a review of Rep. Williams’ conduct and further urged the Committee to recommend changes to clarify House rules concerning recusal and conflicts of interest by Members.

The Campaign Legal Center, joined by Common Cause, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen urged the Committee on House Administration to adopt new rules making clear that expenditures from Members’ Representation Allowances (MRAs) are subject to review and approval by the Committee.  Lax oversight of Members’ expenses has led to a series of scandals, the most recent leading to the resignation of Rep. Aaron Schock.  The letter also urged the Committee to allow MRA budgets to be periodically audited for compliance with the Members’ Congressional Handbook and House ethics rules.

The Campaign Legal Center called on the House Ethics Committee to issue a public report or statement on the findings, recommendations and conclusions of a “working group” established in 2013 to review House conflict of interest rules and guidance.  The Campaign Legal Center urged the Committee to publicly release the group’s recommendations and the changes made in the guidance, as well as disclose the “ethics experts” with whom the working group met.

On December 2, 2011, Campaign Legal Center President Trevor Potter addressed the current state of affairs of  our federal campaign finance system in a speech in Austin before the Professional Advocacy Association of Texas.  The remarks recount the series of actions that brought us to where we are today and chart a path toward a remedy for a system veering toward election-by-auction. 

I’m glad that my work as the lawyer for Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC makes introductions so easy:  you can just show some of the clips of me giving legal advice on air!  As that video illustrated, though, even the communications genius of Stephen Colbert cannot always make the legal intricacies of Super PACs easy.  So, let me start by summarizing how we got to where we are today.

To read the full speech, click here.

Lecture by CLC President Trevor Potter to the Chautauqua Institution as part of the Chautauqua Lecture Series session on "Markets, Morals and the Social Contract" in July 2013.

After the elevated philosophical thoughts of Michael Sandel and David Brooks the last two mornings, I am afraid I am going to lower the tone and be crass and talk about Money---and not just any money, but Money in Politics.

To read the full speech, click here.

To view video footage of the lecture, click here. 

Lecture by CLC President Trevor Potter to the Wilson School of Public & International Affairs at Princeton University, April 22, 2014.

It is often said of history that those who forget it are doomed to repeat it. For the last 125 years, the subject of money in politics — of campaign funding and disclosure — has been at the center of our political and public policy debates, and yet it sometimes sounds as if these issues are new to us.

To read the full lecture, click here.

House Speaker Paul Ryan should suspend privately-funded foreign travel by House members and staff and launch a formal review of the rules governing it, said the Campaign Legal Center and other advocacy organizations.

Testimony of Lawrence M. Noble before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts hearing on the IRS’s enforcement of the restrictions on political activity by non-profit tax-exempt groups who do not disclose their donors. The testimony is entitled "Revisiting IRS Targeting: Progress of Agency Reforms and Congressional Options". 

Comments filed by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 informing the FEC of their strong objections to the changes to the agency’s Enforcement Manual that have been proposed by Commissioners McGahn, Hunter and Petersen. They argue that the proposed changes must be rejected by the Commission because they would prevent the free exchange of information between the professional staff of the agency and the Justice Department, United States Attorneys and other agencies, at the expense of enforcing the nation’s campaign finance laws. 

In states that choose their judges through elections, judicial codes of conduct are “‘[t]he principal safeguard against judicial campaign abuses’ that threaten to imperil ‘public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the nation’s elected judges.’” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009) (citation omitted). For this reason, it is universally acknowledged that judicial codes further “a vital state interest.” Id.

A brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Common Cause, and Democracy 21. This brief discusses why partisan gerrymandering poses a threat to our democracy and how, without judicial recourse, partisan gerrymandering can be prevented by allowing the people to exercise their lawmaking power over the redistricting process. 

The amicus brief on behalf of former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau, produced in conjunction with the Campaign Legal Center.

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision reflects a fundamental and indefensible misunderstanding of this Court’s precedents on redistricting. If allowed to stand, the decision would encourage states to eliminate coalition districts—districts in which white voters join in sufficient numbers with minority voters to elect the minority’s preferred candidate—and replace them with unjustifiably race-driven districts, all with the purported aim of ensuring compliance with the VRA. This result turns the VRA on its head and runs afoul of the clear dictates of the Equal Protection Clause. It should be reversed. 

Supplemental comments submitted jointly by the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 in response to questions posed by Commissioner McGahn to Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center at the Commission’s March 3 rulemaking hearing regarding coordinated communications under 11 C.F.R. § 109.21

Letter sent to the U.S. Census Bureau from 34 organizations, including the Campaign Legal Center. The organizations urge the Bureau to count incarcerated people at their home address, rather than at the particular facility that they happen to be located at on Census day.