Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across all legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
        Legal resources
- ›
        Court cases
- ›
      BEAM v. GONZALES (07CV1227)

BEAM v. GONZALES (07CV1227) 
 BEAM v. GONZALES (07CV1227)
 BackgroundDuring February and March 2007, Barry Bialek, Jon Marcus and Jack and Renee Beam filed separate, but substantially similar complaints with district courts in Colorado, Arizona and Northern Illinois, respectively, alleging that the Commission violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) by "tacitly cooperating and conspiring with" Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to circumvent the Act.According to the complaint filed February 14, 2007, Plaintiff Barry Bialek made contributions towards John Edwards’ 2004 Presidential campaign. In November 2005, the U.S. Attorney General began an investigation into possible violations of the Act by the plaintiff. See April 2007 Record [PDF]. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the District Court in Colorado, alleging that the Commission must refer, by a vote of the majority of the Commission, a matter to the Attorney General prior to the Attorney General investigating or prosecuting a violation of the Act.These cases are related to the Fieger v. Gonzales case currently pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, in which Geoffrey Fieger alleges that the Act grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over criminal violations and bars the Department of Justice from conducting any grand jury investigations unless and until the Commission makes a referral. See March 2007 Record [PDF].ComplaintsThe plaintiffs made contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign. According to the complaints, the plaintiffs are being investigated by the Department of Justice for violations of the Act. Mr. Bialek was summoned before a grand jury in November 2006 and Mr. Marcus was summoned before a grand jury in October 2006.The plaintiffs assert that by giving "exclusive jurisdiction" over the Act to the Commission, Congress determined that no criminal investigation can take place unless the Commission has formally referred the criminal matters to the Attorney General. The plaintiffs claim that the Attorney General’s investigations are unlawful and unconstitutional since the Commission did not refer the plaintiffs’ alleged violations to the Attorney General.In addition to those allegations, the Beam plaintiffs allege that Attorney Gonzales intentionally interfered with the Commission’s investigation and that the Commission’s failure to conduct its own investigation violates the Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.ReliefThe Bialek and Marcus complaints seek a declaration that the defendants’ actions are unlawful and the award of costs and attorneys’ fees. In addition to this relief, the Beam complaint asks the court to declare the that the Commission has failed to uphold the Act and to issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Commission to conduct its own investigation into the matter prior to any investigation by the Attorney General.Plaintiffs BeamOn March 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Jack and Renee Beam (the plaintiffs) against the U.S. Attorney General and the Chairman of the FEC. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing, the case was not ripe for review and the FEC did not violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act).The District Court found in favor of the Commission and the Department of Justice on every issue addressed in the decision. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing necessary for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. The plaintiffs did not allege in their complaint that the Department of Justice had "raided" their own home or seized their own bank records, but alleged only raids affecting other Fieger associates and employees. The plaintiffs did not show that they had suffered any harm and thus did not meet the judicial requirement of "injury in fact." The Court also found plaintiffs failed to establish standing with respect to the RFPA claim because they relied only upon "unsubstantiated speculation" that the Commission had possession of their private banking records and that the Commission had illicitly obtained those records.The court also found that the plaintiffs’ case was not ripe for review. The court stated that because neither the Attorney General nor the FEC had made decisions about whether or how to enforce applicable laws against the plaintiffs, the court could not assess whether any agency misconduct affected the plaintiffs. Additionally, the plaintiffs identified no hardship that they would suffer if the court were to wait to decide their claims until the alleged investigations were complete.Although the plaintiffs alleged that the Commission violated the Act in several ways, the court found that the allegations provided no basis for relief. The court agreed with the other District Court decisions in Fieger v. Gonzales and Bialek v. Gonzales. The court held that, contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, the FEC is not required to refer a matter to the Department of Justice prior to the Attorney General initiating an investigation. The Attorney General has sole authority to investigate and prosecute criminal violations of the U.S. Code, unless Congress clearly and unambiguously restricts that authority.The court found no evidence that Congress intended to limit the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute criminal violations of the Act. Regarding the plaintiffs’ request that the court order the FEC to conduct an investigation into the alleged illegal activities, the court found that "the judiciary has no power to dictate the timing or nature of an investigation," or require the FEC to conduct an investigation at all.The court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their new complaint on March 24, 2008.Related Litigation:Bialek v. Mukasey [formerly Bialek v. Keisler; Bialek v. Gonzales], U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 07-CV-00321-WYD-PAL.Marcus v. Mukasey [formerly Marcus v. Gonzales], U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, CV070398-PCT-EHC.Source:   FEC Record -- April 2007 [PDF]; August 2007 [PDF]; May 2008 [PDF]; August 2008 [PDF].Related Documents:District Court Documents (Northern District of IL) (07-1227)Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from a Judgment or Order for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (10/21/11) [PDF; 2 pages]Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of its Bill of Costs (11/30/10) [PDF; 11 pages]Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (09/13/10) [PDF; 18 pages]Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law (09/13/10) [PDF; 13 pages]Defendant's Memo in Support of its Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings Pursuant to Rule 52(c) (08/26/10) [PDF; 13 pages]Defendant's Memo in Support of its Motion to Compel Compliance with Local Rule 83.12(b) (08/13/10) [PDF; 5 pages]Defendant's Motion to Compel Compliance with N.D. Ill. Civ. R. 83.12(b) and Notice of Motion (08/13/10) [PDF; 2 pages]Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion in Limine (08/9/10) [PDF; 3 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply Memo in Support of Motion in Limine (07/22/10) [PDF; 8 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion in Limine (07/6/10) [PDF; 2 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Memo in Support of Motion in Limine (07/6/10) [PDF; 15 pages]Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Combined Petition for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Motions to Amend Order and Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (06/3/10) [PDF; 7 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply in Support of its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (05/18/10) [PDF; 11 pages]Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Jury Demand (05/18/10) [PDF; 5 pages]Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (05/04/10) [PDF; 5 pages]Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment (04/01/10) [PDF; 3 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Memorandum in Support of its Second Motion for Summary Judgment (03/29/10) [PDF; 66 pages]Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand (03/29/10) [PDF; 8 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue (03/29/10) [PDF; 5 pages]Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (08/07/09) [PDF; 9 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment (07/10/09) [PDF; 2 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (02/25/09) [PDF; 6 pages]Defendant Attorney General's Reply Memorandum In Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (07/15/08) [PDF; 13 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to the FEC's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (07/15/08) [PDF; 8 pages]Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (07/01/08) [PDF; 14 pages]Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum In Support of His Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (05/27/08) [PDF; 16 pages]Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (05/23/08) [PDF; 16 pages]Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand (3/24/08) [PDF; 9 pages]Plaintiffs' Response In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (09/28/07) [PDF; 18 pages]Memorandum In Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (08/24/07) [PDF; 27 pages]Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (08/23/07) [PDF; 26 pages]First Amended Complaint and Application for Writ of Mandamus and Jury Demand (06/29/07) [PDF; 12 pages]Defendant Federal Election Commission's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss (05/24/07) [PDF; 7 pages]Defendant Attorney General's Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (05/23/07) [PDF; 6 pages]Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss (05/17/07) [PDF; 8 pages]Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Gonzales's Motion to Dismiss (05/17/07) [PDF; 8 pages]Brief in Support of Defendant Federal Election Commission's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment (05/10/07) [PDF; 27 pages]Defendant Attorney General's Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Declaratory Judgment and in Support of His Motion to Dismiss (5/10/07) [PDF; 16 pages]Application for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint (03/02/07) [PDF; 7 pages]


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          No FEAR Act
          Strategy, budget and performance
 Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
          FOIA
 OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms