Federal campaign finance regulations are being challenged in court by a candidate who argues that these rules maintain longstanding inequalities in American democracy. The complaint was filed by Shelby Campbell, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, on March 12, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants named are the Federal Election Commission and the United States of America.
According to the filing, Campbell asserts that current federal campaign finance laws operate within economic structures historically closed to women and many people of color. The complaint outlines how legal exclusions from property ownership, professional participation, and financial independence have led to disparities in wealth accumulation and political influence that persist today. Citing Supreme Court cases such as Minor v. Happersett (1875) and Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), Campbell describes how women were legally barred from voting and practicing law, reinforcing their exclusion from public life.
The document highlights that even after formal barriers were removed—such as with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920—many women remained disenfranchised through practices like poll taxes and literacy tests until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted. These historical exclusions, according to Campbell, continue to affect modern political participation because access to wealth and donor networks is shaped by these legacies.
Campbell’s complaint details her own experience as a candidate subject to federal campaign finance regulations established under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). She reports significant personal financial expenditures required to participate in the electoral process, including liquidating retirement savings for campaign operations such as voter data access, digital outreach tools, merchandise, and operational expenses. “Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer concrete injury as a candidate for federal office because the campaign finance framework challenged herein affects Plaintiff’s ability to raise funds, communicate with voters, and compete effectively in the electoral process,” states the filing.
The lawsuit alleges that women remain underrepresented in federal elected office despite constituting approximately half of the U.S. population. It points out that women candidates raise less funding on average than male candidates due to limited access to established donor networks—a situation attributed to historical patterns of exclusion from professional and economic institutions.
The legal arguments presented include claims under both the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component and the First Amendment’s protections for political speech. In Count I, Campbell contends that “Defendants administer and enforce the federal campaign finance regulatory framework established by FECA,” which conditions effective participation on unequal access to resources developed during periods when women were excluded from full civic life. The complaint references Buckley v. Valeo (1976) regarding protected political expression through spending money on campaigns but argues this doctrine allows those with greater resources disproportionate influence.
Count II alleges violation of First Amendment rights by asserting that meaningful participation in elections requires substantial financial resources; thus disparities in fundraising restrict candidates’ ability to communicate with voters on equal terms. The complaint states: “Because effective political advocacy in modern elections requires financial resources, disparities in access to fundraising networks and capital restrict Plaintiff’s ability to disseminate political messages…and compete on equal terms.” Count III seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 regarding these constitutional questions.
Campbell requests several forms of relief: declarations that current federal campaign finance regulations violate both her First Amendment right to free speech and her Fifth Amendment right to equal protection; injunctions preventing enforcement of these rules in ways found unconstitutional; costs; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Shelby Campbell is representing herself pro se in this matter. The case is assigned number 2:26-cv-10849-LJM-KGA.
Source: 226cv10849_Shelby_Campbell_v_Federal_Election_Complaint_Eastern_District_Of_Michigan.pdf
