Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Campaign Legal Center

Through litigation, policy analysis and public education, CLC works as a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization to protect and strengthen the U.S. democratic process across all levels of government. There mission is:

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonpartisan organization that advocates for every eligible voter to meaningfully participate in the democratic process – no matter where they live, the color of their skin, or how much money they make. We use tactics such as litigation, policy advocacy and communications to make systemic impact at all levels of government.


We are guided by the following principles:

  • Our commitment will always be to democracy, not to political parties or electoral results.
  • We respect the American people and their freedom to vote. We are fighting for every American to participate in and affect the political process regardless of race, economic status, or political affiliation. We advocate for every eligible voter, while recognizing that Black Americans and communities of color, in particular, have historically been and continue to be excluded from participating in the democratic process.
  • We practice excellence and prioritize accuracy. We are thoughtful and proceed with care.
  • We are committed to acting with respect and empathy both in our work and within our organization.
  • We strive to be good partners and collaborators while staying true to our nonpartisan principles.
  • We think about systemic impact when choosing what work to take. We work at any level of government when it introduces an innovative idea, could drive significant change at scale or sets an important precedent.

Campaign Legal Center was founded in 2002 by its current president, Trevor Potter, a Republican former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less