Compliance Notes - Vol. 7, Issue 17

RECENT LOBBYING, ETHICS & CAMPAIGN FINANCE UPDATES

U.S. Supreme Court Election Law Developments

Trump v. California: On August 24, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court paused an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and allowed the Trump administration to move forward with implementation of a March 2026 executive order affecting mail voting in 23 states and the District of Columbia. The order directs federal agencies to develop state citizenship lists, prioritize enforcement actions involving ballots issued to ineligible voters and establish new procedures related to mail-ballot administration. The Court did not decide whether the executive order is lawful, instead concluding that the states’ challenge was brought too early because the challenged directives had not yet caused a sufficiently concrete injury to support the lawsuit. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Jackson arguing that the decision could inject uncertainty into the administration of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling allows the administration to continue implementation efforts while litigation over the executive order remains ongoing. (Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog)

Campaign Finance & Lobbying Compliance

Former U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell was the subject of a three-year FBI investigation into alleged campaign finance violations involving Fang Fang (also known as Christine Fang), a woman U.S. authorities suspected of acting on behalf of Chinese intelligence. The probe began after allegations that internships in Swalwell’s office were offered in exchange for campaign contributions. According to FBI records declassified on August 17, 2026, investigators concluded that Fang helped solicit illegal campaign contributions, including donations routed through third parties to conceal donors’ identities, some of which were allegedly made by foreign nationals. The records further stated that investigators found evidence Fang acted as an unregistered foreign agent and noted that she left the United States and has been barred from reentry by the State Department. Prosecutors ultimately declined to pursue charges, citing national security concerns and investigators did not substantiate allegations that Swalwell knowingly participated in any unlawful scheme. (Josh Christenson, New York Post)

New Mexico: In an August 11, 2026, decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit revived former New Mexico State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino’s challenge to a state campaign finance law, finding that a provision restricting the use of campaign funds implicates activity protected by the First Amendment. The case arose after Ortiz y Pino used $200 in campaign funds in 2021 to help a student attend a college and career workshop and was later directed by the New Mexico Secretary of State to reimburse the campaign or face referral to the state ethics committee and the Attorney General. The court concluded that the Campaign Reporting Act’s prohibition on donations to individuals and organizations that are not recognized as 501(c)(3) charities can implicate expressive activity and warrants First Amendment scrutiny. The panel sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings, including consideration of whether Ortiz y Pino’s donation constituted protected expressive conduct. (Joe Duhownik, Courthouse News)

New York: Angela Aquino, a former 2025 candidate for New York City Public Advocate, pleaded guilty to wire fraud after admitting she attempted to unlawfully secure $1 million in public matching funds from New York City’s Campaign Finance Board. According to federal prosecutors, Aquino manipulated campaign fundraising records to create the appearance that she had raised enough money to qualify for public matching funds. Authorities said she disguised funds from personal accounts, including funds originating from the Philippines, as eligible contributions from New York City residents through falsified records and transactions designed to conceal the true source. Authorities also alleged that she used campaign funds for personal expenses while misrepresenting the expenditures as legitimate campaign costs. Aquino faces up to 20 years in prison, and officials said the case underscores the importance of protecting taxpayer-funded campaign finance programs and maintaining the integrity of the electoral process. (U.S. Department of Justice, E.D.N.Y. Press Release)

Government Ethics & Transparency

At an August 20, 2026, status hearing, federal prosecutors said they have not yet decided whether to retry former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggiore and former lobbyist Michael McClain on charges arising from an alleged bribery scheme to provide paid contracts to allies of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan in exchange for support of favorable energy legislation. The hearing was the first proceeding in the case since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the defendants’ convictions, vacated their prison sentences and ordered a new trial earlier this year. Although the appellate court found errors in the jury instructions, it also concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the falsified records charges. Prosecutors said they are prepared to proceed if they elect to retry the case, with a potential trial expected in February 2027. (Matt Masterson, Capitol News Illinois)

Delaware: Americans for Prosperity and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, organizations backed by the Koch network, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to block enforcement of a Delaware law requiring advocacy groups to disclose the names and addresses of donors who contribute more than $100. The groups argue the law violates the First Amendment and contend that compelled disclosure is not sufficiently related to the state’s interest in “informing voters and deterring corruption.” The appeal follows a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction, with the lower court finding the groups had not demonstrated sufficient urgency to justify temporarily halting the law while the case proceeds. During the August 10, 2026, oral arguments, appellate judges questioned whether the groups had shown the irreparable harm necessary for such relief, noting that they waited five years after the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which limited certain donor-disclosure requirements, before challenging Delaware’s law. Delaware defended the statute as promoting transparency in election-related spending. (Jackson Healy, Courthouse News Service)