Campaign Finance

My dream is to live in an inclusive democracy that lives up to its promise. Where everyone has a say in the future for their family and community; where anyone can run for public office; where everyone plays by the same fair rules; and where our government reflects who we are because people vote in high numbers. We must not yield to a cynicism that says we can never improve. Making the dream real means ensuring those who represent us are reflective and responsive to the people—not the wealthy who dominate campaign and lobbyist spending. It means ending voter suppression that silences Black and brown voters; replacing unaccountable secret money in elections with small dollar donor laws that shift power from wealthy special interests to the people; ending racial and partisan gerrymandering by shifting power from politicians to impartial commissions; and preventing election sabotage that would steal power from voters by overturning elections. —Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause

Washington-based Common Cause in 2019 filed a complaint with the Department of Justice, asking for an investigation. Campaign finance experts at the time pointed to the lack of a “paid for” disclosure in the message and said if Kobach didn’t pay a fair market price for access to the email list, it could be a violation of campaign finance law. “Any time a candidate for public office is associated with an outside political organization, it warrants scrutiny to make sure the candidate is not getting an unfair or even illegal boost from the outside organization,” Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause’s vice president of policy and litigation, said in an interview this week.

“Political committees are [standalone] — free-standing corporations … separate from the humans who set them up,” said Paul Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the watchdog group Common Cause. “While it’s entirely fair to think of them as the alter ego, in the case of candidate committees, … as a legal matter, they go on in existence even in the event of the death of the candidate or officeholder who set them up.”

Keshia Morris Desir, mass incarceration project manager at Common Cause, told me that The Paid Jailer report, which was released in January, “tries to shine a light on a blind spot in efforts toward criminal justice reform.” “We’re really trying to call attention to this issue because we usually only think about the police department when we talk about law enforcement reform, even though sheriffs are actually elected officials,” Desir said. Desir, at Common Cause, told me campaign finance reporting systems across the country are so varied and poorly run that some sheriffs’ offices responded to inquiries with handwritten lists of their political contributions. The Common Cause report includes a series of important policy recommendations, including restricting contributions to campaigns from individuals and entities that conduct or seek business with the state or city. “The reason we studied this is that sheriffs control really large swaths of the mass incarceration system, including in immigration, and they make major decisions about the health and safety of millions of incarcerated people,” Desir said. “Bringing attention to their offices presents an opportunity to strengthen disclosure laws and make other reforms to improve campaign financing” for these powerful, publicly elected officials.

"Trump very well may find a way to spend the money he raised in 2021 in support of a 2024 campaign and get away with it," said Paul Ryan, a campaign finance specialist at Common Cause, a nonpartisan group that advocates for government reform.

“Texas has the weakest, most corruption-prone campaign finance system in the country,” said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas. “It is striking that our top law enforcement official can’t manage to meet our extremely low disclosure requirements.” It’s important for voters to know who is donating to a candidate, Gutierrez said, especially in a state where there’s no cap on contributions. “We really can’t make decisions about whether a public official is acting in our best interest or the interest of some random rich person unless we know who those rich people are giving their money to,” he said.