Election Law Violations

• Author: Madeline C. Alagia
• Pages: 609-666

ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610

II. CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

1. History of the Federal Election Campaign Act . . . . . . . . . 611

2. Introduction of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act . . . . 612

3. Free Speech Challenges to FECA/BCRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614

a. Recent Successful Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614

i. Electioneering Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

ii. Making and Soliciting Money to Make

Independent Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

iii. Aggregate Contribution Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

b. Recent Unsuccessful Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

i. Reporting and Disclosure Requirements . . . . . . 620

ii. Party Expenditure and Coordinated Contributions 622

B. FECA/BCRA-Covered Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623

1. Limitations on Contributions and Expenditures . . . . . . . . 623

2. Contributions or Expenditures by National Banks,

Corporations, or Labor Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625

3. Contributions by Government Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . 625

4. Contributions and Donations by Foreign Nationals . . . . . . 626

5. Contributions in Name of Another Prohibited. . . . . . . . . . 630

6. Limitation on Contribution of Currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630

7. Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Campaign Authority . . . . 631

8. Soft Money of Political Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631

9. Prohibition on Conversion of Campaign Funds. . . . . . . . . 632

C. General Issues Pertaining to Criminal Prosecution . . . . . . . . . 633

III. ELECTION FRAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635

2. Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637

3. Executive Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637

4. DOJ Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638

B. Election Fraud Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640

1. Voter Interference Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640

a. Conspiracy Against Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640

b. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law . . . . . . . . 644

c. Voter Intimidation Statutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 646

i. Intimidation in Voting and Registering . . . . . . . 646

ii. Voter Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647

609

iii. Federally Protected Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648

iv. Troops at Polls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

2. Voter Fraud Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

a. False Information in Registering or Voting . . . . . . . . 650

b. Fraudulent Registration or Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652

c. Voting More than Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654

d. False Citizenship Claims to Register or Vote . . . . . . . 655

e. Voting by Aliens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656

f. State Voter Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657

3. Alternative Avenues of Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

a. Travel Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663

b. Mail Fraud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664

I. INTRODUCTION

Under the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to enact federal

election laws and punish public officials, candidates, voters, and other political

actors who violate those laws.

1

Statutes discussed in this Article may contain over-

lapping civil, criminal, and administrative penalty provisions.

This Article focuses on conduct deemed criminal by Congress and prosecutable

by the United States Department of Justice; it focuses on campaign finance and

election fraud offenses. Since the turn of the millennium, campaign finance law

has gained renewed attention due to several landmark judicial decisions.

2

Section

II discusses these decisions and explores campaign finance crimes in general.

Section III examines election fraud offenses.

3

Election fraud—distinct from cam-

paign finance crimes—“involves a substantive irregularity relating to the voting

act—such as bribery, intimidation, or forgery—which has the potential to taint the

election itself.”

4

1. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (granting Congress the power to determine the times, places, and

manner of holding elections of Senators and Representatives); U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 18 (Necessary and

Proper Clause); U.S. DEP’T OF JUST., FED. PROSECUTION OF ELECTION OFFENSES 5–7 (Richard C. Pilger ed., 8th

ed. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/file/1029066/download [hereinafter DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION

MANUAL] (discussing federal jurisdiction over certain election crimes).

2. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 227 (2014) (invalidating federal limit on aggregate campaign

contributions); Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 362 (2010) (invalidating prohibitions on independent

expenditures and electioneering communication by corporations under FECA); Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 744

(2008) (invalidating the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002).

3. The third category of election law statutes, covering patronage crimes, is beyond the scope of this Article.

Refer to the DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 99–115 for information about these

violations.

4. DOJ ELECTION PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 22.

610 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 59:609

II. CAMPAIGN FINANCE CRIMES

A. Introduction

Campaign finance laws seek to regulate the influence of money on the political

process by placing limitations on who may contribute, how much they may con-

tribute, and how contributions may be used.

5

Many of these laws are found in the

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”),

6

as amended by the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”).

7

Several subsequent judicial decisions

have brought campaign finance regulation under these statutes into the national

spotlight.

8

This section will introduce the background of both FECA and BCRA

before reviewing free speech challenges to each.

1. History of the Federal Election Campaign Act

Campaign finance regulation began in the United States over a century ago with

the Tillman Act of 1907,

9

which was followed by the Federal Corrupt Practices

Act of 1925

10

and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.

11

Over the subsequent decades,

the Supreme Court decided several high-profile campaign-finance cases regarding

the influence of unions.

12

In 1971, Congress enacted the Federal Election

5. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 115 (2003) (describing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as

legislation “designed to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of ‘big

money’ campaign contributions” (quoting United States v. Auto. Workers, 352 U.S. 567, 572 (1957) (internal

quotation marks omitted))), overruled in part by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); DOJ ELECTION

PROSECUTION MANUAL, supra note 1, at 122.

6. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972) (codified at 52 U.S.C.

§§ 30101–30104).

7. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (codified at 52 U.S.C.

§§ 30125–30145). This law is also known as “McCain-Feingold,” named for the principal senators who

sponsored the legislation. See, e.g., Seth Gitell, Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign-Finance

Reform, THE ATLANTIC (July/Aug. 2003), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/07/making-

sense-of-mccain-feingold-and-campaign-finance-reform/302758/.

8. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 227 (2014) (invalidating federal limit on aggregate campaign

contributions an individual can give to all candidates during a two-year cycle); Am. Tradition P’ship v. Bullock,

567 U.S. 516, 516–17 (2012) (overturning a Montana ban prohibiting corporations from spending their own

money on political campaigns); Ariz. Free Enter. Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, 755

(2011) (invalidating Arizona’s matching-funds law on the ground that it substantially burdened political speech);

Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 372 (invalidating independent expenditure limitations and electioneering

communication prohibitions for corporations under FECA); Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 728–30, 743–44 (2008)

(invalidating the BCRA provision known as the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which attempted to equalize

campaign spending by increasing contribution limits and coordinated party expenditure limits for candidates who

were challenged by opponents spending a significant amount of personal funds).

9. Tillman Act of 1907, Pub. L. No. 59-36, 34 Stat. 864 (prohibiting corporate contributions “in connection

with any election to any political office”).

10. Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, ch. 368, title III, 43 Stat. 1070 (2 U.S.C. §§ 241–248) (repealed

1972).

11. Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-101, § 304, 61 Stat. 136, 159–60 (prohibiting contributions or

expenditures by labor organizations in connection with federal elections).

12. See, e.g., Pipefitters Local No. 562 v. United States, 407 U.S. 385, 414 (1972) (holding labor union must

segregate political funds from the union treasury, and that political funds may only be volunteered by union

2022] ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS 611