BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

)

In the Matter of )

 ) MUR 6589R

American Action Network ) 

)

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB 

More than a billion dollars of dark money has flooded into our elections since Citizens 

United.

1 This matter is one in a long line of cases where the Commission has failed to ensure the 

transparency about money in politics that Congress has required, that the Supreme Court has 

upheld, and that the American people deserve.

2 The Commission’s repeated failure to pursue 

investigations into dark-money groups like American Action Network is sadly well known. 

I have written extensively about the merits of this matter over the years. I incorporate by 

reference the analysis and discussion made in my previous statements on all points:

• Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel and Commissioners Steven T. Walther 

and Ellen L. Weintraub, MURs 6538 and 6589 (AJS & AAN) (July 30, 2014)3;

1 Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). See Michael Beckel, Dark money spending since 

Citizens United set to eclipse $1 billion, ISSUE ONE (Sep. 10, 2020), found at https://issueone.org/articles/dark-moneyspending-since-citizens-united-set-to-eclipse-1-billion/; Anna Massoglia and Karl Evers-Hillstrom, ‘Dark money’ 

topped $1 billion in 2020, largely boosting Democrats, OPEN SECRETS (Mar. 17, 2021) found at

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/03/one-billion-dark-money-2020-electioncycle/.

2 See, e.g., MURs 7672, 7674, and 7732 (Iowa Values, et al.) (OGC recommended finding reason to believe respondent 

violated the Act by not registering and reporting as a political committee, but an insufficient number of Commissioners 

voted to support OGC’s recommendations; see FGCR dated Sept. 25, 2020 and Cert. dated Feb. 11, 2021); MUR 7860 

(Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc., et al.) (same; see FGCR dated Aug. 27, 2021 and Cert. dated Nov. 2, 2021); MUR 7513 

(Community Issues Project) (same; see FGCR dated Sept. 18, 2019 and Cert. dated Sept. 12, 2021); MUR 7479 

(Keeping America in Republican Control PAC, et al.) (same; see FGCR dated Apr. 26, 2019 and Cert. dated Apr. 5, 

2021); MUR 7181 (Independent Women’s Voice) (same; see FGCR dated Jan. 21, 2020 and Cert. dated Mar. 1, 2021); 

MUR 6596 (Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies) (same; see FGCR dated Mar. 7, 2014 and Certs. dated Nov. 2, 

2015, Nov. 18, 2015, Dec. 18, 2015, and Mar. 27, 2019); MUR 6872 (New Models) (same; see FGCR dated May 21, 

2015 and Cert. dated Nov. 15, 2017); MURs 6391 and 6471 (Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity) (same; 

see FGCR dated Dec. 26, 2013 and Cert. dated Sept. 18, 2014); MUR 6402 (American Future Fund) (same; see FGCR 

dated Jan. 17, 2013 and Cert. dated Nov. 20, 2014); MUR 6538 (Americans for Job Security) (same; see FGCR dated

May 2, 2013 and Cert. dated June 26, 2014).

3 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel and Commissioners Steven T. Walther and Ellen L. Weintraub, 

MURs 6538 and 6589 (Americans for Job Security and American Action Network) (July 30, 2014), found at

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044362039.pdf. 

C O M M I S S I O N E R E L L E N L . W E I N T R A U B

F E D E R A L E L E C T I O N C O M M I S S I O N

W A S H I N G T O N , D . C . 2 0 4 6 3

MUR6589R00385
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 2 of 17

• Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Ann M. Ravel and Ellen L. Weintraub, MUR 

6589R (AAN) (Dec. 5, 2016)

4

; 

• Statement of Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub Regarding CREW v. FEC & American Action 

Network (April 19, 2018).5

This case also raises broader issues. The D.C. Circuit’s jurisprudence regarding the 

dismissal of Commission enforcement complaints has seriously damaged this agency’s ability to 

enforce the law. The Circuit’s legal fictions conflate important and distinct Commission votes, 

leading to a marked departure from what Congress intended in the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”).

6

Interestingly, the legal fictions in this particular matter amount 

to science fiction – time travel in particular. 

This matter demonstrates clearly why the D.C. Circuit’s deference to so-called “controlling 

commissioners” is woefully misplaced. We have a dismissal in this matter not because I abstained 

on a reason-to-believe vote in 2018. We have a dismissal in this matter because five of my 

colleagues voted to dismiss this matter on Aug. 29, 2022.7If the D.C. Circuit wants to know why 

the Commission dismissed this (or any) matter – which is the question before a court every time a 

complainant files a dismissal lawsuit against the Commission pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) –

it might want to ask the commissioners who, you know, voted to dismiss the matter.8

Since the 1980s, the D.C. Circuit has focused on the Commission’s split reason-to-believe 

(“RTB”9) votes (which are nothing but failed motions) and de-emphasized the successful vote at a 

later point in time that actually dismisses an enforcement matter. This matter is, also, then, an object 

lesson in how dismissal votes and their timing play a consequential and independent role in how the 

Commission’s enforcement matters play out.

Enforcement matters generally follow this sequence of events: 1. Commissioners vote on 

whether to pursue the matter; 2. If that vote fails, commissioners vote on whether to dismiss the 

matter; and 3. If that vote succeeds, commissioners who voted No in Step 1 write statements 

explaining their vote.

4 Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Ann M. Ravel and Ellen L. Weintraub, MUR 6589R (AAN) (Dec. 5, 2016), 

found at http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044403699.pdf.

5 Statement of Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub Regarding CREW v. FEC & American Action Network (April 19, 2018) 

(“2018 Weintraub AAN Statement”), found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2018-04-19-

ELW-statement.pdf. 

6 5 U.S.C. § 30101, et seq.

7

In FEC parlance, the final action the Commission takes in an enforcement matter is to “close the file.” That is the act 

that dismisses the matter, authorizing public release of the files and triggering the complainant’s right to sue “within 60 

days after the date of the dismissal.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(B).

8 None of the five commissioners who voted to dismiss this matter ever voted on the merits of the complaint.

9 The trigger for Commission action in an enforcement matter is a finding, based on information received in a complaint 

or in the course of its supervisory responsibilities, that the Commission has “reason to believe that a person has 

committed, or is about to commit, a violation” of the Act (“reason to believe” or “RTB,” in FEC shorthand). 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(2).

MUR6589R00386
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 3 of 17

In the first round of this matter, for example, the Commission split 3-3 on June 24, 2014 on 

whether to pursue the complaint and then immediately dismissed the matter by unanimously voting 

to close the file. On July 30, 2014 – just over a month later – the commissioners who voted against 

pursuing the complaint published a statement explaining their vote.

10

Here’s the time-travel element: When the commissioners published their statement on July 

30, D.C. Circuit precedent retroactively applied their reasoning to the June 24 vote to not pursue 

the complaint. The Commission’s reasoning on June 24, in other words, was what those

commissioners wrote five weeks later, on July 30.

Although the time lag is longer, the same principle applies here. I am writing in September 

2022 to explain my May 10, 2018 vote that prevented the Commission from pursuing RTB in this 

matter. As soon as this statement is published, the rationale it contains will travel back in time more 

than four years to explain why, in May 2018, the RTB vote failed. And if the complainant wishes to 

sue the Commission within 60 days after its August 29, 2022 vote to dismiss the matter, the 

rationale contained in this statement will be evaluated by the court to determine whether the 

dismissal is contrary to law.11

But this matter has far more going on. The gory details of the procedural history of this 

matter are laid out in Appendix A.

12 Here are the highlights: 

CREW filed an FEC enforcement complaint against the American Action Network (“AAN”) 

in June 2012, alleging that AAN should have registered with the Commission as a political 

committee.

13 In June 2014, the Commission split on whether to move forward with the complaint 

10 See MUR 6589 (American Action Network (“AAN”)), found at https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-underreview/6589/; Certification, MUR 6589R (June 24, 2014) (Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes 

and Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen voting No), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6589/14044361924.pdf; Statement of Reasons of Chairman Lee E. Goodman and 

Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen, MUR 6589 (AAN) (July 30, 2014) (“2014 Republican 

SOR”), found at http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044362004.pdf.

11 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(B). The D.C. Circuit currently requires courts to defer to the statement of reasons written by 

the commissioner or commissioners whose votes at the reason-to-believe stage prevent a complaint from moving 

forward against the advice of the Commission’s attorneys. See, e.g., Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 

F.2d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“If three or more Commissioners vote against moving forward, this controlling group 

must provide a statement of reasons for that decision”). I have argued strongly that the Circuit’s precedent stems from a 

fundamental misreading of how the Commission actually handles its enforcement matters, but for the moment, this is 

the law. The Circuit is currently considering whether to review the panel decision in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics 

in Wash. v. FEC, 993 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (“New Models panel decision”). See Ellen L. Weintraub, Statement On 

the Opportunities Before the D.C. Circuit in the New Models Case To Re-Examine En Banc Its Precedents Regarding 

‘Deadlock Deference’ (March 2, 2022) (“Weintraub New Models Statement”), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/documents/3674/2022-03-02-ELW-New-Models-En_Banc.pdf. Petition for Rehearing En Banc,

CREW v. FEC (“New Models en banc petition”), No. 19-5161 (D.C. Cir.), found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/crew_195161_pet_rhrg.pdf.

12 Two decisions also play an important role in this timeline: CREW v. FEC, 892 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“CHGO”), 

found at https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A0A7C6C35F1863B3852582AD0054B275/$file/17-

5049- 1736010.pdf; pet. for reh’g en banc denied, 923 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2019); and New Models panel decision, 

supra note 11. Key dates from those cases are included in the Appendix. 

13 See Appendix A for details and references regarding these dates. 

MUR6589R00387
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 4 of 17

and voted to dismiss it. The naysaying commissioners published a statement explaining their 

votes.

14 CREW sued the Commission and won in Sept. 2016. The Commission again split on 

whether to move forward and again dismissed the complaint. The naysaying commissioners 

published another statement explaining their votes.

15 CREW sued again and won in March 2018. 

The Commission did not conform to the court’s declaration that the second dismissal was 

contrary to law, so under the Act, on April 19, 2018, CREW became authorized to sue AAN 

directly to remedy the violation alleged in its original FEC complaint. It filed that suit four days 

later. Even though the court’s deadline for the Commission had expired and the third-party lawsuit 

was already in court, the Commission held three RTB votes and one dismissal vote on May 10, 

2018. All RTB motions failed, the final one when I withheld my Yes vote and abstained; the 

dismissal motion failed when I voted against it.

16

The May 10 votes – disclosed today for the first time by the Commission’s publishing of the 

public file in this matter now that the complaint has been dismissed – transformed the posture of 

this matter. It is instructive to examine exactly where everything stood on May 10, 2018. On that 

day, two proceedings had concluded entirely, and two proceedings were ongoing:

• Entirely Concluded: CREW v. FEC (“CREW I”), No. 14-1419 (D.D.C.) 

The complaint in CREW I was filed Aug. 20, 2014. CREW won that case on Sept. 19, 

2016 when the district court declared the 2014 Republican SOR to be contrary to law, 

writing, that its theory of the case “blinks reality.”17 At that moment, the district court’s 

decision that the Commission’s dismissal was contrary to law was consistent with 

applicable circuit precedent.

Following the Act’s provisions, the district court then remanded the matter back to the 

Commission for it to act in accordance with the court’s declaration within 30 days.18 On 

Oct. 8, 2016, the Commission held further RTB votes19 and dismissed the matter again.20

The Oct. 8 dismissal vote was the last action the Commission took related to this lawsuit. 

14 2014 Republican SOR, supra note 10.

15 2016 Republican SOR, supra note 10.

16 Certification, MUR 6589R (May 10, 2018).

17 Opinion, CREW v. FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77, 93 (D.D.C. 2016) (finding the initial dismissal of CREW’s complaint 

against AAN “contrary to law” and remanding matter to the Commission), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/crew141419_dc_opinion2.pdf. 

18 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C).

19 Certification, MUR 6589R (Oct. 8, 2016) (Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen voting No). The Commission’s 30 days ran out on Oct. 19, 2016; any 

successful votes between Oct. 8 and Oct. 19 could have served as the Commission’s final word on the matter. 

20 Id. (Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and Commissioner Ravel voting 

No).

MUR6589R00388
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 5 of 17

On Oct. 19, 2016, when the 30-day period expired, CREW I, No. 14-1419 (D.D.C.) was 

finished: All the requirements of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) governing such lawsuits had 

been fulfilled.21

• Entirely Concluded: CREW v. FEC (“CREW II”), No. 16-2255 (D.D.C.)

CREW filed suit again on Nov. 14, 2016. It won that case on March 20, 2018, when the 

district court declared the 2016 Republican SOR to be contrary to law and remanded the 

matter to the Commission to conform with this declaration within 30 days. At that 

moment, the district court’s decision that the Commission’s dismissal was contrary to 

law was consistent with applicable circuit precedent. Thirty days passed and the 

Commission took no action on the matter.

On April 19, 2018, when the 30-day period expired, CREW II, No. 16-2255 (D.D.C.) 

was finished: All the requirements of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) governing such lawsuits 

had been fulfilled.

• Quite Open: CREW v. AAN (“CREW III” or the “third-party suit”), No. 18-945 

(D.D.C.)

On April 23, 2018, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C), CREW filed its third-party 

suit against AAN,22 noting that it had gained jurisdiction to do so on April 19, 2018,23

when CREW II was finished. On May 10, 2018, the third-party suit was proceeding, just 

as the Act contemplated, having been authorized by a district court with jurisdiction over 

the matter. 

• Quite Open: MUR 6589R, the underlying enforcement matter

The Court’s March 20, 2018 remand to the Commission re-opened this matter. The 

Commission’s May 10, 2018 RTB votes became the working disposition of this 

complaint. The May 10 votes are disclosed for the first time by the Commission’s 

release, today, of the enforcement file in this matter, pursuant to the August 29, 2022 

dismissal.24

On April 9, 2021, a D.C. Circuit panel decided the New Models appeal.25 This ill-advised 

opinion rendered any Commission dismissal invulnerable to judicial review if the commissioners 

21 On April 26, 2017, the district court denied CREW’s motion asking it to (a) order the FEC to show cause why it 

should not be held to have violated the court’s order and (b) authorize a third-party suit under the Act. The court denied 

the motion, holding that the Commission’s Oct. 8 dismissal vote had served as conformance to the court’s declaration. 

See Opinion and Order Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

v. Federal Election Commission, No. 14-1419 (D.D.C.) (CREW I) at 6, found at

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04516007951 [fee site] (holding that Commission had complied with the court’s order 

because “the Court directed the FEC to reconsider its decision without excluding from its major purpose consideration 

all non-express advocacy. The FEC did just that.” (internal references and quotes removed)). See also 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(C).

22 CREW v. AAN, No. 18-945 (D.D.C.) (CREW III).

23 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C).

24 Certification, MUR 6589R (Aug. 29, 2022).

25 New Models panel decision, supra note 11.

MUR6589R00389
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 6 of 17

explaining themselves cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the reason they had voted to not pursue the 

complaint.

AAN, the defendant in the third-party suit, took note of this development. The district court 

denied AAN’s motion to dismiss the third-party suit on New Models grounds on Sept. 23, 2019.26 It 

did so taking the 2016 Republican SOR as the Commission’s then-current reasoning.27 But on 

March 2, 2022, the district court reversed itself and held that the intervening 2021 New Models

panel decision precluded the district court’s earlier review of the Commission’s reasoning. Because 

of that, the district court held, it should not have held the 2014 Republican SOR to be contrary to 

law. It held that the 2016 Republican SOR presently before the court either: 

(a) should not have existed at all because the New Models panel decision precluded review

of the 2014 Republican SOR’s invocation of prosecutorial discretion and “the Court lacked 

the power to issue the remand order that resulted in the second statement,” or 

(b) could not be reviewed because the 2016 Republican SOR incorporated by reference the 

2014 Republican SOR’s invocation of prosecutorial discretion, thus rendering itself 

unreviewable.28

And so the district court dismissed CREW’s third-party suit against AAN.29

But the court did not know that on the day the New Models panel decision hit the streets on 

April 9, 2021, the 2014 and 2016 Republican SORs had been dead letters for almost two years,

30 as 

the Commission had superseded its 2014 and 2016 RTB votes on May 10, 2018, when it held three

further RTB votes and a dismissal vote on the matter. And the commissioners who had held the pen 

for the first two statements of reasons no longer held that pen: Whatever status my colleagues’ 

previous votes may have earned them as “declining-to-go-ahead commissioners” was entirely 

undone that day because all three of them voted in favor of that day’s RTB motions.31

The D.C. Circuit’s rule for civil litigation is that “a retroactive decision can affect only suits 

pending in the courts or not yet brought, but cannot be raised by previously unsuccessful 

litigants.”32 Neither CREW I nor CREW II were pending when the New Models panel decision was 

26 CREW v. AAN, 410 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019) (CREW III).

27 Id. at 10.

28 Memorandum Opinion and Order, CREW v. AAN (No. 18-945) (March 2, 2022) (CREW III), at 16 note 7. (“But as 

AAN points out, if the passing reference to prosecutorial discretion in the initial statement made the first dismissal 

unreviewable under New Models, then the Court lacked the power to issue the remand order that resulted in the second 

statement. The result would have been a dismissal of CREW’s case, and the Commissioners never would have issued a 

second statement. In any event, the second Statement of Reasons ‘incorporate[d] by reference’ the first one ‘on all 

points except for aspects deemed contrary to law’ by this Court,” citing 2016 Republican Statement at 2).

29 Id. at 17.

30 The district court’s dismissal of the third-party suit in March 2022 took only the New Models decision into account, 

but it is worth noting that the 2014 and 2016 Republican statements of reasons had been dead letters for more than a 

month even when the panel decision in CHGO was released on June 15, 2018.

31 Certification, MUR 6589R (May 10, 2018).

32 Zweibon v. Mitchell, 606 F.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The Supreme Court has held that when it “applies a rule 

of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be given full 

MUR6589R00390
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 7 of 17

published. The Commission had lost both cases, and the remainder of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)’s 

terms governing such lawsuits had been fulfilled. The Commission – and AAN as intervenor – were 

the “previously unsuccessful litigants” barred by the Circuit rule from raising a decision 

retroactively.

Under the D.C. Circuit’s rule on retroactivity, then, the New Models decision can only be 

applied to the two matters that were open at the time the decision landed: MUR 6589R, the 

underlying enforcement matter, and CREW v. AAN, No. 18-0945 (D.D.C.), the third-party suit.

MUR 6589R was dismissed by the Commission in August 2022. The New Models decision 

could apply to a dismissal lawsuit filed by the complainant pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) if 

the controlling statement of reasons cites prosecutorial discretion as the reason the matter had not 

been pursued. (Spoiler alert: That’s this statement. It will not cite prosecutorial discretion.)33

Now, remember the time travel mentioned at the outset of this statement? It comes into play 

here. When the motions to find RTB in this matter failed on May 10, 2018, and then the motions to 

dismiss this matter succeeded August 29, 2022, D.C. Circuit jurisprudence required that May 10, 

2018, outcome to have an explanation. Pursuant to binding D.C. Circuit precedent, this September 

2022 statement today retroactively becomes the rationale for the Commission’s May 10, 2018, RTB 

votes.

With all that in mind, the New Models decision is irrelevant to the third-party suit. The thirdparty suit is not litigating whether the Commission’s dismissal of the complaint in this matter was 

contrary to law. That ship has sailed. The third-party suit is litigating the merits of the original 

administrative complaint.34 CREW gained jurisdiction to file the third-party suit because the 

Commission did not conform to the court’s declaration that the second dismissal was contrary to 

law within 30 days.

retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate 

or postdate our announcement of the rule.” Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Tax'n, 509 U.S. 86, 97, (1993) (emphasis 

added).

33 Note that the Commission has considered this file to be open ever since March 20, 2018, when the district court 

declared the Commission’s dismissal of the matter to be contrary to law and remanded it back to us. Opinion, CREW v. 

FEC, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2018) (CREW II) (finding the second dismissal of CREW’s complaint contrary to 

law, and again remanding to the Commission), found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/litigation/crew_162255_dc_opinion.pdf. 

A court reviewing the Commission’s August 2022 dismissal of this matter should note that when the Commission 

conducted its vote, it was well aware of the district court’s March 2022 decision reconsidering that March 2018 

declaration, the decision that dismissed the CREW v. AAN third-party lawsuit. None of the six commissioners who voted 

on the matter raised any objection that the Commission was somehow acting unnecessarily or improperly. Though I 

voted against dismissing the matter on that day, I accepted the view of our Office of General Counsel that the file was 

open and that a close the file dismissal vote was in order. 

34 Complaint, CREW v. AAN, 18-945 (D.D.C.) (CREW III), at ¶1 (“This is an action to remedy American Action 

Network’s (‘AAN’) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (‘FECA’), brought pursuant to 52 U.S.C.

§ 30109(a)(8)(C).”); 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C) (the “complainant may bring, in the name of such complainant, a civil 

action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint”).

MUR6589R00391
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 8 of 17

The district court applied the correct legal standard to the then-active Commission positions 

in CREW I in 2016 and CREW II in 2018, but by March 2022, the Commission’s position had 

changed. When the New Models decision was published April 9, 2021, unbeknownst to the court, 

the underlying complaint was not being pursued because of the May 10, 2018, RTB votes, not any 

previous Commission votes. The 2014 and 2016 Republican SORs were no longer active; within the 

Commission, they had been superseded by subsequent votes, and beyond the Commission, all the 

litigation that had challenged them had concluded. On April 9, 2021, the rationale for the 

Commission’s failure to pursue this complaint was not any sort of prosecutorial discretion. 

SO, WHAT IS THE CONTROLLING-COMMISSIONER EXPLANATION OF THE MAY 10, 2018

RTB VOTES?

My vote on May 10, 2018 prevented the Commission from finding reason to believe that a 

violation had occurred in this matter – as I intended it to do. Because this was the last time such a 

motion was made in this matter, my reasoning, and my reasoning alone, controls as the 

Commission’s position. 

Oddly, in this case, D.C. Circuit caselaw demands an explanation from the commissioner

who voted against RTB but also against dismissing this matter – a commissioner who believes that 

this dismissal is firmly contrary to law.35 And this is hardly the most serious distortion the D.C. 

Circuit’s conflations have inflicted upon the Commission’s ability to enforce the law. The D.C. 

Circuit should take the opportunity presented by the New Models en banc petition to reverse its New 

Models, CHGO, and NRSC36 precedents.

Now, ordinarily, those explaining a dismissal’s rationale agree with the outcome and explain 

all the ways the dismissal was not contrary to law. Not this time. This controlling statement of 

reasons will explain why dismissing the complaint in this matter was absolutely contrary to law.

As an initial matter, here’s what the reasoning is not: 

• I explicitly disclaim in its entirety the reasoning contained in the Statements of Reasons 

of Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen in MURs 6589 and 6589R.37

35 And this is not the only matter where this is the case. I am also the controlling commissioner in MURs 6915 and 6927 

(Bush). This kind of outcome from the D.C. Circuit’s conflations was predictable and predicted. See, e.g., Weintraub

New Models Statement, supra note 11, at 12, note 50 (“This is made even more clear when there are significant 

temporal or voting-lineup differences between the RTB vote and the dismissal vote. If three commissioners voted 

against RTB in a matter where the Commission’s General Counsel counseled otherwise, the President replaced the 

entire lineup of commissioners, and the newly constituted Commission then simply voted to close the file, from whom 

is an explanation required? Former commissioners cannot speak for the Commission, nor did their votes cause the 

matter to be dismissed. Only the sitting commissioners who just dismissed the matter by voting to closing the file can 

provide the Commission’s rationale.”).

36 FEC v. NRSC, 966 F.2d 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1992). I discuss this case’s flaws in depth here: Weintraub New Models 

Statement, supra note 11, at 4-8.

37 See 2014 Republican SOR, supra note 10, and Statement of Reasons of Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and 

Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Lee E. Goodman, MUR 6589R (AAN) (Oct. 19, 2016) (“2016 Republican 

SOR”), found at http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044401031.pdf. 

MUR6589R00392
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 9 of 17

• The Commission did not dismiss this matter pursuant to its prosecutorial discretion.38

To be clear: this statement, this matter’s Controlling Statement of Reasons 

unequivocally disclaims prosecutorial discretion as a rationale for the Commission’s 

dismissal of this matter.

• The Commission did not dismiss this matter because the statute of limitations had 

elapsed.39 The Commission has considerable equitable remedies available to it that are 

not subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The general statute limits itself quite specifically to any 

action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, 

pecuniary or otherwise.” This describes some of the tools Congress has given the 

Commission to enforce the law, but not all of them.

One power of the Commission is to levy “a civil penalty.”40 This falls directly under the 

“civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2462. The law is clear that past 

the five-year statute of limitations, the Commission may not impose a civil penalty on a 

respondent. But the Act separately gives the Commission the power to “institute a civil 

action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or 

any other appropriate order[.]”41 These are the Commission’s “equitable remedies.” 

Equitable remedies are had when the Commission compels a respondent to, say, file 

missing reports, amend its filings, register as a political committee, halt a current 

practice, or attend compliance training. Equitable remedies are also had when the 

Commission signs agreements with respondents where respondents agree to desist from 

violating the law going forward, or not to work for a federal political committee for a 

specified period of time, or to secure their own independent compliance audits and 

provide the Commission with the results.42 None of these equitable remedies involve 

paying a fine or suffering some other monetary penalty. 28 U.S.C. § 2462 cannot 

reasonably be read to extend to the Commission’s equitable remedies.

In this matter, the Commission has substantial equitable remedies available to it. This is 

a classic political-committee status matter. AAN styled itself as a 501(c)(4) socialwelfare organization that does not have to disclose its donors. But the evidence before 

38 See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985).

39 It is worth noting that whether the statute of limitations has elapsed is a legal judgment not properly subject to 

prosecutorial discretion. If the statute has indeed run on a matter, the Commission lacks the discretion to choose to 

pursue financial penalties in that matter. Every assertion that the statute of limitations has elapsed draws on an 

evaluation of the facts of the matter and an evaluation of a statutory provision outside the Act (28 U.S.C. § 2462) and 

the judicial glosses on that statute – all of which are matters subject to judicial review under the Act. See 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8).

40 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(5)(A).

41 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(6); see also Christian Coalition, 965 F.Supp. at 72 (“Under the FECA, the Commission has the 

authority to seek injunctive relief wholly separate and apart from its authority to seek a legal remedy”) (citing 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(6)’s antecedent).

42 Courts also have equitable remedies available in FECA-related matters, such as issuing a declaratory judgment that 

the conduct at issue violated the Act.

MUR6589R00393
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 10 of 17

the Commission showed that AAN met the definition of a political committee, which 

does have to disclose the identity of its donors. Had the Commission successfully 

pursued this matter, it would have been well within its authority to require AAN to 

update its filings with the Commission to include all the information about its 

contributors that the Act requires.43

Now, the practice of courts has been to accept Statements of Reasons published by 

controlling commissioners after the Commission has voted to dismiss the matter and even after the 

60-day deadline has passed for complainants to challenge the dismissals.44 This approach raises 

questions under basic administrative law principles.45

43 The Commission’s ability to secure such an outcome was demonstrated in MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security), 

found at https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/6538R/. 

44 See 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(8)(B).

45 The lurking question here is: what constitutes the FEC’s administrative record in this or any other enforcement 

matter? This statement, for instance, was not before this agency when it decided to dismiss this matter. Can it be 

considered by a court to be part of the administrative record of this matter? The question has not been put directly 

before the D.C. Circuit in the context of FEC decisions. 

The D.C. Circuit defines an agency’s administrative record as all materials compiled by the agency that were before the 

agency at the time a decision was made, and it confines a court’s review to the administrative record. See, e.g., James 

Madison Ltd. by Hecht v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“The APA requires courts to “review the whole 

record or those parts of it cited by a party.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. “Ordinarily, courts confine their review to the 

“administrative record.” Edison Elec. Inst. v. OSHA, 849 F.2d 611, 617–18 (D.C.Cir.1988). The administrative record 

includes all materials “compiled” by the agency, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 419, 

91 S.Ct. 814, 825, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), that were “before the agency at the time the decision was made,” 

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 284 (D.C.Cir.1981).”).

My April 2018 statement, (2018 Weintraub AAN Statement, supra note 5), which explained in advance my eventual 

controlling non-RTB vote in the matter, was in the record when the Commission voted to close the administrative 

record in this matter and dismiss the complaint in August 2022 (and even when the Commission took its May 2018 

RTB votes).

(Note that this analysis would render the 2014 and 2016 dismissals of this matter as textbook arbitrary and capricious 

contrary-to-law actions, because when the Commission voted to close the administrative file and dismiss the matter on 

June 24, 2014 and Oct. 8, 2016, respectively, the reasoning of the Commission (released July 30, 2014 and Oct. 16, 

2016, respectively) was not before the Commission.)

As I explained in my 2018 statement, I was withholding my affirmative vote on RTB motions because I believed that 

dismissing this matter was contrary to law. I knew from long and painful experience that providing a fourth vote for 

RTB at that moment would only serve to eventually sink the matter, and that voting to instead send the matter to a thirdparty suit was the best way to get the law enforced. As I wrote of my colleagues in that statement: “Their actions in this 

matter – and over the past decade – have convinced me that despite two clear defeats before the District Court, they will 

eventually find a way to block meaningful enforcement of the law in this and any other dark-money matter that comes 

before us.” 2018 Weintraub AAN Statement, supra note 5 at 1. So I voted to take the matter out of their hands. My 

expectations were sadly confirmed by the subsequent dismissals without action on many more dark-money complaints, 

dispositions exacerbated when the D.C. Circuit utterly destroyed the statutory right of complainants to challenge 

contrary-to-law dismissals through its CHGO and New Models precedents.

My April 2018 statement explained why dismissing this matter was contrary to law by incorporating the rationale of the 

CREW I district court: “I fully support the sound reasoning of the [District] Court’s March 20[, 2018] opinion.” The 

statement references the opinion in CREW v. FEC, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83, 101 (D.D.C. 2018) (CREW II) (finding the 

second dismissal of CREW’s complaint contrary to law, and again remanding the matter to the Commission), found at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/crew_162255_dc_opinion.pdf.

MUR6589R00394
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 11 of 17

But unless and until a court outlaws that practice, the reasoning contained in this statement 

will control. Though released after the Commission’s Aug. 29, 2022, dismissal vote in this matter, 

this statement is available to the complainant well before its Oct. 30, 2022, statutory deadline to 

challenge this dismissal.46

As noted above, I incorporate by reference the analysis and discussion made in my previous 

statements on all points.

47 Because the dismissal of this matter was unreasonable, given the facts 

before the Commission, the law governing this activity, and the reasoning referenced above, I voted 

against dismissing it. The Commission’s dismissal of this matter was contrary to law. 

THE EASE WITH WHICH A COMMISSIONER CAN KILL WORTHY COMPLAINTS

The New Models decision has made it absurdly easy for less than a majority of 

commissioners – or even a single commissioner – to nullify the ability of complainants to challenge 

the dismissals of their complaints, thus insulating Commission dismissals from any sort of judicial 

oversight. New Models empowers any and every justification for prosecutorial discretion:

• Legal judgments regarding the Act, no matter how inaccurate: “I voted to dismiss 

this matter in an exercise of the Commission’s prosecutorial discretion because the 

Act does not cover such activity.”

• Legal interpretations of any non-FECA statute or judicial decision, no matter how 

inaccurate: “I voted to dismiss this matter in an exercise of the Commission’s 

prosecutorial discretion pursuant to Marbury v. Madison,48 which declared the 

Federal Election Campaign Act to be unconstitutional.”

• Even an inaccurate factual statement related to or entirely unrelated to the facts of 

the matter would be upheld under New Models as an unreviewable rationale: “I voted 

to dismiss this matter in an exercise of the Commission’s prosecutorial discretion 

because the Moon is made of green cheese.”

• No reason need be given at all: “I voted to dismiss this matter in an exercise of the 

Commission’s prosecutorial discretion, period.”

Were I to include any of the above statements in the reasoning of my statement in this 

matter, New Models would render the Commission’s dismissal of this matter invincible to 

Should a court decide that the Commission is indeed subject to basic administrative law principles, my April 2018 

statement should be taken as controlling, and this present statement should merely be taken as illuminating.

46 See 52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(8)(B).

47 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel and Commissioners Steven T. Walther and Ellen L. Weintraub, 

MURs 6538 and 6589 (Americans for Job Security and American Action Network) (July 30, 2014), found at 

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044362039.pdf; Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Ann M. Ravel and Ellen L. 

Weintraub, MUR 6589R (AAN) (Dec. 5, 2016), found at http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044403699.pdf; 2018 

Weintraub AAN Statement, supra note 5.

48 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

MUR6589R00395
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 12 of 17

challenge. This eviscerates the citizen-suit provisions Congress built into the Act to provide 

oversight over the Commission’s conduct of its enforcement duties. 

The point I am raising is not speculative. My colleagues recently cited prosecutorial 

discretion in explaining their votes that blocked the Commission from pursuing a complaint that 

alleged a violation in excess of $780 million.49 They based their opinion on their factual and legal 

assessments of the matter. Commissioner Broussard and I forcefully disputed those assessments,50

and I wrote separately to note that my colleagues’ entire statement was based on nothing but factual 

and legal assessments.51 But our colleagues’ claims were enthusiastically picked up by the 

Commission’s litigators, who, understandably enough, always like a slam-dunk argument. The 

Commission’s litigators filed a motion earlier this month to dismiss a complainant lawsuit filed 

under § 30109(a)(8) arguing that New Models so entirely protected my colleagues’ invocation of 

prosecutorial discretion that it caused the plaintiff’s complaint to fail to state a claim, and it should 

therefore be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).52

My colleagues also brazenly asserted controlling-commissioner authority over the judicial 

branch in their June 8, 2022 “policy statement”53 regarding CREW v. FEC, 971 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 

2020).

54 In CREW v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit had affirmed the district court’s characterization of the 

Act’s reporting mandates. But my colleagues dismissed this as “vague and imprecise” and 

announced that they would be enforcing the law as they – not the D.C. Circuit – saw it. They 

embraced the Second Circuit’s reasoning in FEC v. Survival Educ. Fund,55 and announced their 

intent to enforce 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(1) only as to contributions earmarked to independent 

expenditures. They would, they announced airily, dismiss other activity pursuant to their powers of 

prosecutorial discretion.

56

49 Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. “Trey” 

Trainor, III, MUR 7784 (Make America Great Again PAC, et al.) at 1 (June 9, 2022), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7784/7784_42.pdf.

50 Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub, MUR 7784 (Make America 

Great Again PAC, et al.), (June 15, 2022), found at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7784/7784_43.pdf.

51 Supplemental Statement of Reasons of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, MUR 7784 (Make America Great Again 

PAC, et al.) (July 14, 2022), found at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7784/7784_44.pdf.

52 Motion to Dismiss, Campaign Legal Center v. FEC, No. 22-1796 (Sept. 12, 2022) (“Plaintiff now challenges the 

FEC’s decision not to pursue this matter further, but under binding D.C. Circuit precedent, judicial review is not 

available where, as here, the votes of the Commissioners who declined to go forward were explicitly based on 

prosecutorial discretion. See Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 892 F.3d 434, 438 (D.C. Cir. 2018) 

(‘Commission on Hope’). And because this was an exercise of ‘unreviewable prosecutorial discretion,’ id., plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim for relief that can be granted. Plaintiff’s court complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”).

53 Policy Statement of Chairman Allen Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. “Trey” Trainor, 

III Concerning the Application of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c) (June 8, 2022) (“Republican Policy Statement”), found at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/CREW_contributions_earmarked_political_purposes_Dickerson_Cooksey_Trainor_06082022.pdf.

54 971 F.3d 340 (D.C. Cir. 2020), aff’g 316 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D.D.C. 2018).

55 65 F.3d 285, 295 (2d Cir. 1995).

56 Republican Policy Statement, supra note 53, at 6.

MUR6589R00396
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 13 of 17

This amazingly arrogant statement (a) directly contradicted the binding holding in CREW v. 

FEC that the term “earmarked for political purposes” applies more broadly and (b) ignored that the 

district and circuit courts in CREW v. FEC had expressly rejected the Second Circuit’s reasoning on 

exactly that point.

57 But as outrageous as all that is, what’s more outrageous is that they will likely

get away with it under the CHGO and New Models decisions.

• • •

I am deeply disappointed that the Commission has, once again, dismissed a meritorious and 

important complaint for reasons that are contrary to law. Fortunately, Congress created two more 

paths to get the law enforced. They are both available to this complainant. 

First, within 60 days after the Commission’s Aug. 29, 2022 vote to dismiss the matter by 

closing the file, CREW can sue the Commission on the grounds that the dismissal of its complaint 

was contrary to law.58 This lawsuit should succeed, as the position of the Federal Election 

Commission, as set forth in this controlling Statement of Reasons, is that the dismissal of MUR 

6589R was indeed contrary to law.

Next, the complainant has already successfully alleged that the Commission failed to act on 

its complaint.59 That suit’s conclusion gave rise to the third-party lawsuit the complainant filed 

against several of the respondents.60 (The appeal61 of the dismissal of that lawsuit is on hold until 

the D.C. Circuit makes a decision regarding the pending New Models en banc petition.) The 

complainant’s third-party lawsuit should not be affected by the Commission’s dismissal of this 

matter. The complainant’s cause of action against the respondent arose on April 19, 2018, after a 

thirty-day period during which the Commission did not conform with the district court’s March 20, 

2018 declaration that the Commission’s failure to act on the complainant’s complaint was contrary 

to law.62 The Commission’s dismissal of this matter did nothing to cure the injury that provided the 

complainant with the Article III standing it needed to maintain its 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) 

lawsuit against the Commission and its 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C) lawsuit against respondents.

• • •

In a more functional era for the Commission, commissioners worked hard to find a place 

where four commissioners could find common ground. Now, however, it has become common 

practice for half the Commission to simply block enforcement of the law. Such was the case in this 

matter. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that many complainants have sought recourse 

57 See 971 F.3d. at 353; 316 F. Supp. 3d at 401 n.43.

58 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) & (B).

59 CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255 (D.D.C.) (CREW II).

60 CREW v. AAN, 18-945 (D.D.C.) (CREW III).

61 CREW v. AAN, 22-7038 (D.C. Cir.).

62 CREW v. AAN, 18-945 (D.D.C.) (CREW III).

MUR6589R00397
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 14 of 17

from the courts. Congress anticipated that this bipartisan Commission would sometimes split on 

enforcement votes and provided a mechanism for the Commission’s failure to enforce the law to 

obtain judicial review. I make no apologies for using the provisions that Congress enacted to try to 

ensure that those complaints can get a fair hearing in the courts. Those who file complaints before 

the Commission deserve a meaningful review of their allegations, either by a Commission that will 

do its job to enforce the law or by a court that will do so. 

__________________________

Sept. 30, 2022 Ellen L. Weintraub

 Commissioner

MUR6589R00398
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 15 of 17

APPENDIX A: TIMELINE

2012 June 7: Complaint filed.63 Commission opens MUR 6589. 

2013 Jan. 17: Office of General Counsel recommends that the Commission pursue the 

allegations contained in the complaint.64

2014 June 24: Commission conducts first reason-to-believe votes. They fail 3-3 along 

partisan lines.65

June 24: Commission votes 6-0 to dismiss complaint.66

July 30: Chairman Lee E. Goodman and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and

Matthew S. Petersen publish their first statement of reasons.67

Aug. 20: Complainant files its first lawsuit.68

2016 Sept. 19: District Court declares July 30, 2014 Republican SOR to be contrary to 

law, writing that it “blinks reality”69; remands to Commission to conform with its 

declaration within 30 days.

Oct. 8: Commission conducts second round of reason-to-believe votes.70

Oct. 8: Commission votes 5-1 to dismiss complaint.71

Oct. 12: Commission opens MUR 6589R.

63 Complaint, MUR 6589 (AAN) (June 7, 2012), found at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6589/14044361739.pdf.

64 First General Counsel’s Report, MUR 6589 (Jan. 17, 2013) (“FGCR”), found at

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6589/14044361896.pdf. 

65 Certification, MUR 6589 (June 24, 2014), found at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/6589/14044361924.pdf

(Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen voting 

No).

66 Id.

67 Statement of Reasons of Chairman Lee E. Goodman and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. 

Petersen, MUR 6589 (AAN) (July 30, 2014) (“2014 Republican SOR”), found at

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044362004.pdf.

68 Complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission, No. 14-1419 

(D.D.C.) (“CREW I”), found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/crew141419_complaint.pdf.

69 Opinion, CREW v. FEC (CREW I), 209 F. Supp. 3d 77, 93 (D.D.C. 2016) (finding the initial dismissal of CREW’s 

complaint against AAN “contrary to law,” and remanding to the Commission), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/crew141419_dc_opinion2.pdf. 

70 Certification, MUR 6589R (Oct. 8, 2016) (Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen voting No).

71 Id. (Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and Commissioner Ravel voting 

No).

MUR6589R00399
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 16 of 17

Oct. 16: Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and 

Lee E. Goodman publish their second statement of reasons, this time regarding 

MUR 6589R.72

Nov. 14: Complainant files its second lawsuit against Commission.73

2018 March 20: District Court declares 2016 Republican SOR to be contrary to law, 

remands to Commission to conform with its declaration within 30 days.74

April 19: Commission does not conform by court’s deadline. Third-party suit is 

authorized.75

April 19: I publish my third statement regarding this matter.76

April 23: CREW files third-party suit against AAN.77

May 10: Commission conducts third and final round of reason-to-believe votes. One 

RTB vote fails 2-1, with the Commissioners Matthew S. Petersen and Caroline C. 

Hunter voting for, Commissioner Steven T. Walther voting against, and me 

abstaining. Two RTB votes fail 3-0-1 on my abstention.78

May 10: Motion to close the file and dismiss complaint fails 3-0-1 on my 

abstention.79

June 15: In the CHGO case, the D.C. Circuit affirms district court and establishes 

circuit precedent of unreviewable deference to invocations of prosecutorial 

discretion under Heckler v. Chaney.

80

72 Statement of Reasons of Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Lee E. 

Goodman, MUR 6589R (AAN) (Oct. 19, 2016) (“2016 Republican SOR”), found at

http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/16044401031.pdf.

73 Complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission, No. 16-2255 

(CREW II), found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/crew_162255_fec_complaint.pdf. 

74 CREW II, supra note 45.

75 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C).

76 2018 Weintraub AAN Statement, supra note 5.

77 CREW v. AAN, No. 18-945 (D.D.C.) (CREW III).

78 Certification, MUR 6589R (May 10, 2018) (Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen voting Yes and 

Commissioner Weintraub abstaining).

79 Id. (Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voting Yes and Commissioner Ravel voting 

No).

80 CHGO, supra note 12. See also Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985); see also Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub, 

Statement on the D.C. Circuit’s Decision in CREW v. FEC, June 22, 2018, found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/2018-06-22_ELW_statement_re_CREWvFEC-CHGO.pdf.

MUR6589R00400
MUR 6589R (American Action Network) 

Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 17 of 17

2019 March 29: In the New Models case, the district court dismisses, on CHGO grounds, 

lawsuit challenging Commission’s dismissal of CREW’s complaint against New 

Models.81

May 14: In the CHGO case, the D.C. Circuit denies petition to rehear the matter en 

banc.82

Sept. 23: District Court denies AAN’s motion to dismiss CREW’s citizen suit.83

2021 April 9: In the New Models case, the D.C. Circuit affirms the district court.84

June 23: In the New Models case, CREW files petition with D.C. Circuit seeking en 

banc review of the April 9 panel decision.85

2022 March 2: District Court grants motion for reconsideration of its Sept. 23, 2019 

decision and dismisses third-party lawsuit.86

Aug. 29: Commission dismisses CREW’s complaint regarding AAN by voting to 

close the file.87

81 District Court Opinion, CREW v. FEC, 380 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2019), found at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/crew_180076_dc_mem_opinion_03-29-19.pdf. 

82 Order (denying pet. for reh’g en banc), CREW v. FEC (CHGO), 923 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2019), found at 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/crew152038_ac_order2.pdf. 

83 CREW v. AAN (“CREW III”), 410 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019). 

84 New Models panel decision, supra note 11.

85 New Models en banc petition, supra note 11.

86 Memorandum Opinion and Order, CREW v. AAN (No. 18-945) (March 2, 2022) (CREW III).

87 Certification, MUR 6589R (AAN) (Aug. 29, 2022).

MUR6589R00401