SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campaign legal center
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 88 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Correction: This article originally said Trump faces 91 federal and state felony charges. The correct number is 88.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Toothless PR Stunt,' Supreme Court Publishes Ethics Code With No Enforcement Mechanisms
"This unenforceable public relations document serves absolutely no purpose other than to permit the media to revert to pretending that our unaccountable and unethical Supreme Court retains legitimacy," one advocate said.
Nov 13, 2023
In the wake of a series of high-profile scandals surrounding the relationship between right-wing justices and billionaires, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday that it had formally adopted a new Code of Conduct.
The 14-page code is based on requirements for lower court judges, and most of the rules it outlines are not new, the court said. Watchdog groups have been widely critical of the new document, which does not stipulate how the conduct it promotes will be enforced, with the Revolving Door Project labeling it a "toothless PR stunt."
"This unenforceable public relations document serves absolutely no purpose other than to permit the media to revert to pretending that our unaccountable and unethical Supreme Court retains legitimacy," the project's executive director Jeff Hauser said in a statement.
Pressure on the Supreme Court to reform its ethics rules has mounted since ProPublica revealed in April that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose more than two decades worth of trips he had taken that had been paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow. Additional reporting in June uncovered the fact that Justice Samuel Alito had also taken undisclosed trips financed by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who had appealed to the court to side with him in business disputes.
In response to these and other revelations of financial gifts to justices from wealthy and influential individuals, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation in July that would require the court to follow stricter disclosure rules, adhere to an enforceable ethics code, and explain any recusal decisions to the American people. It would also enable investigations of any suspected breaches of the ethics code. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who led the push for the law, said that the Supreme Court's newly announced code was not an effective substitution.
"This is a long-overdue step by the justices, but a code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules," Whitehouse said in a statement. "The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court. My ethics bill would create a transparent process for complaints and allow a panel of chief judges from the lower courts to investigate and make recommendations based on those complaints."
In the newly published code, the justices promised to "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary" and "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," among other key points. It stipulated that "a justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment," or "knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the justice."
However, the code begins with a statement that the court had "largely" already adhered to the tenets of the document, saying that the lack of an official code had "led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules." It says the primary purpose of the new code was "to dispel this misunderstanding."
"This document reeks of a cover-up for, among others, Justice Clarence Thomas," Hauser said in response to the preamble. "The list of weak ethics-adjacent aphori[s]ms is prefaced by a statement from the justices that they have 'largely' been complying with the loose norms they set forth today. Yet Thomas' conduct, in particular, has long been at odds with any pretense to any remotely serious standard of ethics."
"Will a risible PR stunt succeed in relieving pressure off a Supreme Court that is rightly widely deemed to be in crisis?"
Stand Up America managing director for policy and political affairs Brett Edkins said the document was "clearly" a response to public outrage over the ProPublica revelations.
"The court is attempting to halt momentum for transparency and real reform," Edkins said in a statement. "Congress must use its authority as a co-equal branch of government to pass a code of ethics with real enforcement mechanisms, and the Senate Judiciary Committee should move forward with subpoenas of Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo. The American people deserve to know the full scope of this court's corruption."
A committee vote on the committee on whether or not to issue such subpoenas was postponed last week, as NBC News reported.
Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet also saw the code as a response to public pressure.
"With 53 uses of the word 'should' and only six of the word 'must,' the court's new 'code of ethics' reads a lot more like a friendly suggestion than a binding, enforceable guideline," Lipton-Lubet said in a statement.
Lipton-Lubet added that the document's lack of enforcement was more evidence that the court "cannot police itself."
"We've all seen what happens when it is left to do so, and the result is public confidence in the illegitimate Supreme Court has reached an all-time low," Lipton-Lubet continued. "Now is not the time to let up. Congress should move forward with actual ethics rules as soon as possible."
Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center and a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, said the code "may seem like a step in the right direction" but was "little more than an effort to assuage public outrage without assuming any actual accountability."
"Every other branch of government has a dedicated body responsible for enforcing its ethics code, yet the court does not even attempt to create one for itself here," Potter continued. "This 'code' changes nothing about the existing system of ethics self-policing in the Supreme Court. In fact, buried at the end of the document, the Court says they may rely on a variety of sources in interpreting the requirements of the ethics code—business as usual."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the code was an "important first step," but added that "the lack of any way to enforce the code of conduct should any justice decide to ignore it is a glaring omission."
Ultimately, Hauser said the code was a "big test" for media and legal elites.
"Will a risible PR stunt succeed in relieving pressure off a Supreme Court that is rightly widely deemed to be in crisis?" Hauser asked. "People who care about the rule of law must hope those who lead our national coverage about the Supreme Court are not readily co-opted by lawyering that, truth be told, is not even especially slick or sophisticated."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Looking to End '12 Years of Rule by Right-Wing Interests,' Groups Challenge Wisconsin Maps
"In the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."
Aug 03, 2023
Voting rights organizations and law firms joined forces Wednesday to file a legal challenge against Wisconsin's aggressively gerrymandered state legislative maps, which have allowed Republicans to cling to power in the Assembly and Senate for more than a decade.
Filed by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter, the petition argues that "Wisconsin's current legislative districts are unconstitutional in multiple ways," intentionally fragmenting Democratic voters in mid-sized cities and towns and giving Republicans an unlawful advantage.
The state's maps haven't changed much since 2011, when Republican lawmakers crafted GOP-friendly districts under then-Gov. Scott Walker.
"They are extreme partisan gerrymanders that violate multiple provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution," reads the new lawsuit, which was filed directly with the state Supreme Court. "The maps violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because the Legislature, through these maps, has created superior and inferior classes of voters based on viewpoint, subordinating one class to the abusive fiat of the other. The maps also violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech because they retaliate against voters who express a political view by stripping them of political power."
The groups filed the challenge on behalf of 19 Wisconsin voters a day after liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in to the state Supreme Court, ending 15 years of conservative dominance. Protasiewicz criticized Wisconsin's maps as "unfair" during her campaign for the seat—the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.
Jeff Mandell, a partner at Stafford Rosenbaum and board president of Law Forward, said Wednesday that "in the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."
"Despite the fact that our legislative branch is meant to be the most directly representative of the people, the gerrymandered maps have divided our communities, preventing fair representation," said Mandell. "This has eroded confidence in our political system, suppressed competitive elections, skewed policy outcomes, and undermined democratic representation."
"We have endured 12 years of rule by right-wing interests," Mandell added, "and the voters of Wisconsin deserve fair representation."
"Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."
After a legal battle last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court implemented Republican-drawn voting maps that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in late 2021. Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature tried and failed to override the governor's veto.
The new lawsuit argues that by imposing on the state the exact maps Evers vetoed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the separation-of-powers principle.
The petition notes that the maps "did precisely what Republicans hoped" in 2022, "increasing their majority to 64 assembly seats (two shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority) and 22 senate seats (a veto-proof majority)."
"An equally divided electorate yielded near two-third majorities for Republicans in both chambers," the petition adds.
The plaintiffs ask that the state's current legislative maps be redrawn and call for special elections for state Senate seats that would otherwise not be up for reelection until 2026. If the lawsuit succeeds, state Assembly races would also be held under newly drawn maps.
"The legislators elected in November 2022 took office in unconstitutionally configured districts," the lawsuit states. "That constitutional infirmity has persisted for over a decade now, and Wisconsinites have suffered under this unconstitutional system for long enough. Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."
Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said Wednesday that "for far too long, Wisconsinites have had their voices illegally silenced by extreme gerrymandering."
"Gerrymandering is a stain on our democracy no matter which party does it," said Gaber. "It's common sense: Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular