Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 1 of 34 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE 

1320 Centre Street #405 

Newton, MA 02459, 

CAMPAIGN FOR ACCOUNTABILITY 

611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #337

Washington, D.C. 20003, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 22-cv-666 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs Free Speech For People and Campaign for Accountability are 

nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog groups. They bring this action against the Federal 

Election Commission (“FEC”) for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). 

2. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed before the FEC an 

administrative complaint against the Government of the Russian Federation 

(“Russian Federation”) and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (“Trump 

Campaign”), alleging violations of FECA during the 2016 election. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 2 of 34 

3. The main focus of FECA is the money: who paid, how much, to whom, 

and when. Under FECA, foreign entities are prohibited from spending any money to 

influence U.S. elections. And just as Al Capone was obligated to pay taxes on illegal 

income, even illegal political spending—recipients, dates, amounts, and purposes— 

must be publicly disclosed. 

4. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, as amended, alleged that, for the 

purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election, the Russian Federation had: 

paid hackers to hack into Democratic National Committee servers and leak the 

hacked information; paid people to make social media posts; and paid for political 

advertisements. The administrative complaint also alleged that the Russian 

Federation did not disclose any of this spending. Finally, the administrative 

complaint alleged that at least some of the Russian Federation’s political spending 

was “coordinated” with the Trump Campaign. 

5. In federal election law, the term “coordinated” has a specific meaning 

that is distinct from other terms, such as conspiracy. “Coordination” under FECA 

and its regulations does not require agreement or formal collaboration; coordination 

occurs when spending is made “in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at 

the request or suggestion of” a candidate, his committee, or his agent, and even in 

some circumstances short of that. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.20-

21. And when political spending by an outside entity is “coordinated” with a 

campaign, the campaign is also obligated to disclose the dates, amounts, and 

purposes of that spending. 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.20, 109.21(b)(1)-(2). 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 3 of 34 

6. Since the filing of the administrative complaint, some new information 

has emerged. But other investigations, pursuing different angles for different 

purposes and with different mandates, have not focused on bringing transparency 

to campaign financing—the FEC’s mandate. Even today, despite multiple 

investigations, critical information about the money spent in the 2016 election is 

still unknown. How much did the Russian Federation spend? When and for which 

efforts did it make the payments? How much (and which) of that spending was 

“coordinated” with the Trump Campaign? 

7. Upon receiving Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, the FEC was 

charged with answering these questions in determining whether there was “reason 

to believe” that a violation of FECA had occurred. 

8. The nonpartisan professional career staff at the FEC’s Office of 

General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended finding reason to believe that the Russian 

Federation: 

a. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(f) by 

making prohibited foreign national expenditures and independent 

expenditures in connection with the influence campaign targeting 

the 2016 presidential election; 

b. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c) and 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(b) by failing to 

report independent expenditures in connection with the influence 

campaign; and 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 4 of 34 

c. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b) by 

making a prohibited in-kind contribution to Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. by expending resources to hack Clinton-related 

servers in response to a request or suggestion that Trump made at 

a press conference. 

9. OGC recommended finding reason to believe that the Trump 

Campaign: 

a. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g) by 

knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving an in-kind contribution 

from the Russian Federation in connection with Trump’s press 

conference statement; and 

b. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g) by 

knowingly soliciting a prohibited in-kind contribution from 

WikiLeaks. 

10. When the FEC voted on OGC’s recommendations, it failed by a 3-3 

deadlock to find reason to believe that either the Russian Federation or the Trump 

Campaign violated FECA. 

11. On January 13, 2022, the FEC closed its file on Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint. 

12. Under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), if the FEC dismisses an 

administrative complaint, the complainant may file an action in this Court 

challenging the FEC’s dismissal as contrary to law. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 5 of 34 

13. Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the FEC’s dismissal of the 

administrative complaint is contrary to law, and order the FEC to conform with this 

declaration within 30 days under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and 

personal jurisdiction over the parties under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and/or 5 

U.S.C. § 702. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 2201(a), and/or 2202. 

15. Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(e), and/or 5 U.S.C. § 703. 

PARTIES 

16. Plaintiff Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan, non-profit 

501(c)(3) organization that works to restore republican democracy to the people, 

including through legal advocacy concerning the law of campaign finance. Its 

supporters around the country engage in education and non-partisan advocacy to 

encourage and support effective government of, by, and for the people, including 

through efforts to identify and combat foreign influence in our elections. 

17. Plaintiff Campaign for Accountability is a national non-partisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that uses research, litigation, and communications to 

expose misconduct and malfeasance in public life. It works to bring transparency to 

government and corporate actors and reform the campaign finance system to 

eliminate the corruption that flows from unlimited spending. 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 6 of 34 

18. Defendant Federal Election Commission is an independent federal 

agency charged with the administration and civil enforcement of FECA. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30106. 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

Campaign Spending and Disclosure Requirements 

19. Under FECA and FEC regulations, it is unlawful for “a foreign 

national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or 

other thing of value. . . in connection with a Federal . . . election,” or make an 

“expenditure” to influence a federal election. 52 U.S.C. §§ 302121(a)(1)(A), (C); 11 

C.F.R. §§ 110.20(b), (f). An “expenditure” includes “any purchase, payment, 

distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by 

any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30101(9)(A). 

20. Any person that is not a political committee that makes independent 

expenditures exceeding $250 for a particular election in a calendar year “shall file a 

verified statement or report on FEC Form 5 in accordance with 11 CFR 104.4(e) 

containing the information required by [11 C.F.R. § 109.10(e)].” 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.10(b). If the aggregated expenditures exceed $10,000 per election for a 

particular election up to and including the 20th day before an election, the person 

making the independent expenditures “must report the independent expenditures 

on FEC Form 5, or by signed statement if the person is not otherwise required to 

file electronically under 11 CFR 104.18.” 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(c). 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 7 of 34 

21. Under FECA and FEC regulations, expenditures that are 

“coordinated” between an outside party and a campaign or candidate are generally 

deemed to be both in-kind contributions to, and expenditures by, the campaign. 52 

U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.20(b), 109.21(b)(1). 

22. A third-party expenditure is deemed to be “coordinated”—and 

therefore an in-kind contribution—if it is “made by any person in cooperation, 

consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, his 

authorized political committees, or their agents.” 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 

C.F.R. § 109.20(a) (“Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or 

concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's 

authorized committee, or a political party committee.”). 

23. In Section 214 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 

Congress instructed the FEC to promulgate detailed regulations regarding 

coordinated communications, but specifically provided that “[t]he regulations shall 

not require agreement or formal collaboration to establish coordination.” 116 Stat. 

81, 95 (emphasis added). 

24. Under FEC regulations promulgated under this directive, a 

“coordinated communication” is a third-party expenditure that meets at least one 

“content standard” and one “conduct” standard. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.21(a)(1)-(3). 

“Agreement or formal collaboration . . . is not required for a communication to be a 

coordinated communication.” Id. § 109.21(e). 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 8 of 34 

25. A payment for a communication made for the purpose of influencing a 

federal election that either meets the definition of “coordinated communication” 

under 11 C.F.R. § 109.21, or is an “expenditure” that is “made in cooperation, 

consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a 

candidate’s authorized committee” or an agent thereof, but does not meet the 

definition of “coordinated communication,” must be reported as an expenditure by 

the candidate whom it was intended to benefit, and is deemed, expect in specific 

circumstances, as an in-kind contribution to that candidate. 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.20, 

109.21(b)(1)-(2). 

26. Any political committee, including a candidate committee, that 

receives a contribution (including the value of an in-kind contribution) exceeding 

$200 must report that receipt. 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3, 104.8, 104.13. Similarly, political 

committees, including candidate committees, must report expenditures (including 

expenditures by others that are deemed to be made by the campaign because they 

are coordinated) exceeding $200. 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3, 104.9. 

27. No person may knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a contribution from 

a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g). 

Administrative and Judicial Process 

28. Any person who believes there has been a violation of FECA may file a 

sworn complaint before the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 111.4. 

29. The complaint is first reviewed by the staff of the FEC’s Office of 

General Counsel (“OGC”). 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 9 of 34 

30. Based on the complaint, the response from the person or entity alleged 

to have violated FECA, facts developed by OGC, and OGC’s recommendation, the 

FEC votes whether there is “reason to believe” a violation of FECA has occurred. 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). A “reason to believe” exists where a complaint “credibly 

alleges” a violation of FECA “may have occurred.” FEC, Statement of Policy 

Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement 

Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12,545 (Mar. 16, 2007). 

31. If the FEC finds reason to believe that a violation has occurred, it 

conducts an investigation. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 111.10. As part of 

this investigation, it may submit written questions under order; issue subpoenas 

and subpoenas duces tecum; take depositions; and conduct field investigations or 

audits. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30107(a)(1)-(4), 30109(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. §§ 111.10-12. 

32. While most administrative complaints do not require assistance from 

other government agencies, FECA directs that “[i]n carrying out its responsibilities 

under this Act, the Commission shall, to the fullest extent practicable, avail itself 

of the assistance, including personnel and facilities of other agencies and 

departments of the United States,” and authorizes all other such agencies and 

departments to “make available to the Commission such personnel, facilities, and 

other assistance” upon the FEC’s request. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(f)(3). 

33. Under FECA, “any party aggrieved by an order of the Commission 

dismissing a complaint filed by such party . . . may file a petition” in this Court, 

and “the court may declare that the dismissal of the complaint. . . is contrary to 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 10 of 34 

law, and may direct the Commission to conform with such declaration within 30 

days, failing which the complainant may bring, in the name of such complainant, a 

civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.” 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30109(a)(8)(A), (C). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

34. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative 

complaint with the FEC against the Government of the Russian Federation 

(“Russian Federation”) and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (“Trump 

Campaign”), alleging and requesting an investigation into violations of multiple 

provisions of FECA during the 2016 election. 

35. Plaintiffs filed two amendments to the complaint, on May 3, 2017 and 

June 2, 2017, to provide new information.1

36. The administrative complaint, as amended, recited detailed allegations 

regarding Russian political spending prohibited under FECA, and coordination 

between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Federation. 

37. Some of the allegations in the administrative complaint have been 

examined in separate investigations by other entities. However, critical questions 

raised by the administrative complaint have not been answered by other 

investigations, and remain unanswered. Due to the FEC’s failure to proceed with 

1 The May 3, 2017 amendment completely revised and restated the original 

complaint; the June 2, 2017 amendment provided supplemental factual information

and additional counts. For brevity, this complaint uses the term “the administrative 

complaint” to refer to the December 16, 2016 administrative complaint as amended

by the May 3, 2017 and June 2, 2017 amendments. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 11 of 34 

an investigation on their complaint, Plaintiffs lack basic information regarding 

political spending in the 2016 election that is and was required to be (but has not 

been) disclosed under FECA, and which, to this day, is unknown to Plaintiffs or the 

American public. 

The Russian Influence Campaign’s Conduct Prohibited by FECA 

38. As set forth in detail in the administrative complaint, the Russian 

Federation’s efforts to influence the U.S. election involved conduct prohibited by 

FECA including, inter alia, expenditures of funds on activities intended to help 

candidate Donald Trump in his presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton. 

39. In 2016, key members of the Democratic National Committee and 

Clinton’s campaign were victimized by a “phishing” attack. The attack involved 

communications transmitted directly to the targets in the United States. The 

information obtained through the phishing attack permitted hackers to gain access 

to thousands of internal Democratic Party and campaign emails stored on U.S. 

servers, including those of Clinton’s campaign chairman. Hackers then transmitted 

the stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks, a web site that released this information 

beginning in the summer of 2016, just before the Democratic National Convention. 

The release of these email messages is widely agreed to have had the purpose of 

harming Clinton’s electoral chances and of benefitting her competitor Trump. 

40. As the U.S. government concluded, the phishing attacks, subsequent 

hacking of e-mails, and distribution of stolen e-mails to WikiLeaks were performed 

by individuals employed or paid by the Russian Federation. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 12 of 34 

41. With the apparent purpose of influencing the 2016 election, the 

Russian Federation sponsored cyber intrusions directly into over 20 U.S. state and 

local election systems, and successfully penetrated at least four. 

42. In addition, the Russian Federation paid individuals to communicate 

political messages via social media (such as Facebook) and other means to persons 

in the United States, for the purpose of influencing the election. 

43. A Russian Federation-paid team at a St. Petersburg, Russia-based 

entity called the Internet Research Agency posted substantial amounts of proTrump, anti-Clinton material on third-party web sites and communications media, 

such as Twitter. Some of these Russian Federation-paid actors used false or 

deceptive profiles suggesting that they were American citizens. 

44. The Russian Federation paid for political advertisements on web sites, 

such as Facebook, regarding the 2016 election. 

45. Many of these posts use words that in context could have had no other 

reasonable meaning than to urge the election of Donald Trump or the defeat of 

Hillary Clinton, and/or could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as 

containing advocacy of the election of Donald Trump or defeat of Hillary Clinton. 

46. The Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign concealed their 

wrongdoing through deception separate from the FECA violations themselves. 

Notably, through at least 2019, agents of the Trump Campaign (including Trump 

himself) issued false or misleading public statements, and obstructed official 

investigations into this wrongdoing. Examples of this deception include: 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 13 of 34 

a. Trump attempted to prevent Attorney General Jeff Sessions from 

recusing himself from an investigation into Russian activities in the 

2016 election and potential Trump Campaign coordination. 

b. Trump fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 

an attempt to protect himself from the investigation. 

c. Trump attempted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was 

charged with investigating Russian activities in the 2016 election 

and potential Trump Campaign coordination. 

d. Trump attempted to force Sessions to curtail the Mueller’s 

investigation, to prevent further investigative scrutiny of Trump’s 

and his campaign’s conduct. 

e. Trump ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to falsely deny 

that Trump had ordered him to fire Mueller. 

f. Trump attempted to have Sessions take control of Mueller’s 

investigation, with an intended purpose that Sessions would 

supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope. When Sessions 

refused or failed to curtail the investigation, Trump forced him out 

and replaced him ultimately with William Barr. Barr had been 

highly critical of the Mueller investigation publicly and had sought 

to influence the investigation (and curtail it) in his communications 

to the Department of Justice even while Sessions was still in office. 

Soon after taking office, Barr ensured that the investigation was 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 14 of 34 

wound down and then made a series of public statements designed 

to mislead the public about its findings before releasing Mueller’s 

actual report. 

g. Trump made statements directed to influence his former campaign 

manager Paul Manafort to influence Manafort’s thinking on 

cooperation, with the intent of encouraging Manafort not to 

cooperate with the government, and made other public statements 

to influence Manafort’s criminal trial jury. 

Coordination Between the Trump Campaign 

and the Russian Federation 

47. As set forth in detail in the administrative complaint, the Russian 

Federation evinced a clear preference for Trump, and its agents held numerous 

personal connections to the Trump Campaign. By December 2016, the existing 

record of public communications between the Trump Campaign and Russian 

Federation actors provided a prima facie case warranting a complete FEC 

investigation into whether the Russian Federation coordinated its expenditures 

with the Trump Campaign in a manner violating FECA. 

48. On June 27, 2016, in reference to Clinton’s email messages, Donald 

Trump stated at a news conference: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able 

to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded 

mightily by our press.” 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 15 of 34 

49. As set forth in detail in the administrative complaint, close associates 

of the Trump Campaign—most notably, Roger Stone—appeared to have advance 

knowledge of WikiLeaks publication of stolen e-mails. 

50. As set forth in detail in the administrative complaint, multiple highlevel members of (and surrogates for) the Trump Campaign had direct and unusual 

communications with senior Russian Federation officials. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

51. Plaintiffs filed the administrative complaint with the FEC on 

December 16, 2016. 

52. On or about December 22, 2016, the FEC sent each Plaintiff a letter 

acknowledging receipt of the administrative complaint, designating it Matter 

Under Review (“MUR”) No. 7207. 

53. On May 3, 2017 and on June 2, 2017, Plaintiffs filed amendments to 

the complaint providing additional information. 

54. As amended, the administrative complaint alleged six separate counts 

of violations of FECA: 

a. Count I: The Russian Federation, a “foreign national” under 52 

U.S.C. § 30121(b)(1), paid money to computer hackers to gain access 

to Democratic National Committee emails and to transmit those 

emails to WikiLeaks for the purpose of public distribution, for the 

purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, 

in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(f). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 16 of 34 

b. Count II: The Russian Federation paid money to individuals 

operating on social media to post material on others’ web sites to 

promote Trump’s candidacy and/or oppose Clinton’s candidacy, in 

violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(f). 

c. Count III: The Russian Federation failed to file any FEC disclosure 

reports regarding its independent expenditures, in violation of 11 

C.F.R. §§ 109.10(b) and (c). 

d. Count IV: The Russian Federation’s release of hacked emails 

through a third-party conduit, and its paid social media posts, 

constituted either “coordinated communications” under 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.21, or expenditures otherwise coordinated under 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.20(b), with the Trump Campaign. Such coordinated spending 

would violate 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.20(b) 

and 109.22 on the part of the Russian Federation, and 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.120(g) on the part of the Trump 

Campaign. Further, Count IV alleged, the Trump Campaign failed 

to report this spending as in-kind contributions, in violation of 11 

C.F.R. §§ 104.3(a)-(b) and 109.21(b)(3). 

e. Count V: The Russian Federation paid money to buy 

advertisements on Facebook for the purpose of influencing the 

election, in violation of 52 U.S.C § 30121(a)(1)(C) and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.20(f). 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 17 of 34 

f. Count VI: The Russian Federation failed to file disclosure reports 

for monies spent on political advertisements on Facebook that may 

constitute independent expenditures, in violation of 11 C.F.R. 

§§ 109.10(b) and (c). 

55. The May 2017 amendment to the administrative complaint also 

specifically urged that “in light of the potential national security implications of 

this case and FECA’s requirement (52 U.S.C. § 30106(f)(3)) that ‘[i]n carrying out 

its responsibilities under this Act, the Commission shall, to the fullest extent 

practicable, avail itself of the assistance, including personnel and facilities of other 

agencies and departments of the United States,’ the FEC should avail itself of the 

assistance of such other agencies and departments of the United States as 

necessary to conduct a full investigation.” 

The Office of General Counsel’s Findings and Recommendations 

56. On February 23, 2021—over four years after Plaintiffs filed their 

administrative complaint—the FEC’s Office of General Counsel finalized its First 

General Counsel’s Report (“Report”).2

57. Portions of the Report have been redacted.3

58. The Report consolidated Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint with 

several other later-filed complaints by unrelated parties. 

2 The Report is available at https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_17.pdf. 3 E,g., Report at 47 lines 1-9, 48 line 13 – 49 line 2. 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 18 of 34 

The Report’s Findings and Recommendations 

Regarding the Russian Federation 

59. The Report described in detail how the Russian Federation perpetrated 

an “influence campaign,” also known as “active measures,” by (1) by conducting a 

social media campaign through the Internet Research Agency (“IRA”), a Russian 

LLC; and (2) a hack-and-release operation through a Russian military agency, the 

Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (“GRU”).4

60. The Report described the Russian social media influence campaign and 

attempted to estimate the IRA’s total budget.5 However, the Report stated, 

“[c]urrently available information does not indicate precisely how much the IRA 

spent on operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election.”6

61. The Report described the Russian hack-and-release operation 

conducted by the GRU, and how the GRU delivered hacked documents to 

WikiLeaks for public dissemination.7 The Report stated that “there is no public 

information regarding specific amounts” spent by the GRU, but OGC assumed that 

the GRU had spent money on salaries and computer infrastructure as part of its 

hack-and-release operation.8

62. The Report concluded that the Russian Federation (and the IRA) 

engaged in several distinct categories of illegal foreign national expenditures under 

FECA: paid advertising in the form of express advocacy communications; 

4 Report at 1-2. 

5 Report at 9-17. 

6 Report at 9. 

7 Report at 17-22. 

8 Report at 53-54. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 19 of 34 

expenditures in unknown amounts for various costs in connection with IRAorganized candidate rallies held in U.S. cities; payments made by the GRU in 

connection with the hack-and-release operation; salaries paid to IRA staff members 

to write and post “organic” express advocacy communications on social media; and 

general administrative costs relating to its 2016 election influence campaign, 

including to pay staff to post organic, non-express advocacy content necessary to 

develop the fake personas that attracted audiences to subsequently receive 

“payload” content directed at the election, and costs for computer infrastructure 

necessary to orchestrate the social media campaign.9

63. Consequently, the Report recommended that the FEC find reason to 

believe that the Russian Federation violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(C) and 11 

C.F.R. § 110.20(f) by making prohibited foreign national expenditures and 

independent expenditures with respect to each of the five categories listed above, 

and that the Russian Federation violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c) and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.10(b) by failing to report independent expenditures to the FEC.10

64. The Report recommended that after finding reason to believe that the 

Russian Federation had violated FECA, the FEC take no further action. 

The Report’s Findings and Recommendations 

Regarding the Trump Campaign 

65. The Report analyzed three interactions between the Trump Campaign 

and the Russian Federation, two of which are relevant here: (1) Trump’s “Russia, if 

9 Report at 55-61. 

10 Report at 61. 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 20 of 34 

you’re listening” statement; and (2) contacts with WikiLeaks regarding the release 

of documents hacked by the Russians.11

66. The Report concluded that Trump’s statement during a campaign 

press conference (“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 

emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our 

press”) constituted both a prohibited solicitation of a foreign national contribution 

and a request or suggestion within the meaning of the “coordination” regulation, 11 

C.F.R. § 109.20(a).12

67. The Report concluded, based on then-available evidence, that: 

a. Trump made an express, direct oral communication addressed to 

the Russian Federation, asking, requesting, or recommending that 

the foreign country provide something of value within the meaning 

of “contribution” under FECA; 

b. The Russian Federation made a contribution to the Trump 

Campaign by acting immediately in response to Trump’s 

solicitation; 

c. The Russian Federation’s expenditures were coordinated with the 

Trump Campaign, because they were made at Trump’s request or 

suggestion, in response to Trump’s press conference statement; 

11 Report at 23-39. 

12 Report at 64. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 21 of 34 

d. Because they were coordinated, the Russian Federation’s 

expenditures for the post-statement hacking operation constitute 

prohibited contributions to Trump and the Trump Campaign; and 

e. Because the Russian Federation made an expenditure by hacking 

his opponent at Trump’s request or suggestion, Trump and the 

Trump Campaign therefore unlawfully accepted or received a 

prohibited in-kind contribution from a foreign government.13

68. The Report distinguished a previous criminal investigation by Special 

Counsel Robert Mueller, who had declined to prosecute the Trump Campaign for 

this misconduct, because “[t]he Special Counsel’s publicly known decisions to not 

criminally prosecute were based on considerations that are materially distinct from 

the Commission’s consideration of these matters in an administrative and civil 

context,” including mens rea, the lower threshold for an administrative “reason to 

believe” finding, and the fact that criminal prosecutions (but not civil enforcement) 

under FECA require a minimum monetary threshold.14

69. The Report additionally concluded that Roger Stone, acting as an 

agent of the Trump Campaign, solicited hacked documents about Clinton from 

WikiLeaks, an apparent foreign national organization. Specifically, Stone's 

requests through intermediaries for specific emails from WikiLeaks represent 

solicitations of material provided at no cost that would relieve the Trump 

13 Report at 64-68. 

14 Report at 70-72. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 22 of 34 

Campaign of the expense of obtaining such valuable information themselves, and 

that were not otherwise publicly available for the campaign’s use.15 The Report 

specifically found that Stone did this on behalf of the Trump Campaign because 

Trump and the most senior officers of the Trump Campaign appear to have 

granted Stone actual authority to solicit WikiLeaks by instructing Stone to contact 

WikiLeaks regarding future releases of hacked documents.16

70. The Report distinguished the previous criminal investigation by 

Special Counsel Mueller, who had declined to prosecute the Trump Campaign for 

this misconduct, because the Special Counsel focused on WikiLeaks’s release of 

stolen materials, not on Stone’s solicitation of contributions from WikiLeaks.17

71. In relevant part, the Report recommended that the FEC find reason to 

believe that the Trump Campaign violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.20(g) by knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving an in-kind contribution 

from the Russian Federation in connection with Trump’s press conference 

statement; and find reason to believe that the Trump Campaign violated 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g) by knowingly soliciting a prohibited in-kind 

contribution from WikiLeaks.18

72. Although the Office of General Counsel recommended finding that the 

Russian Federation made a prohibited in-kind contribution to the Trump 

15 Report at 72-80. 

16 Report at 78s-79. 

17 Report at 79-80. 

18 Report at 94, ¶¶ (3), (5). 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 23 of 34 

Campaign by expending resources to hack Clinton-related servers in response to 

Trump’s press conference statement, and that the Trump Campaign knowingly 

solicited, accepted, or received this exact prohibited in-kind contribution, the Report 

omitted any mention of whether to recommend finding reason to believe that the 

Trump Campaign had failed to disclose receipt of this in-kind contribution. 

The Commission’s Action and Inaction 

73. On April 22, 2021, the FEC failed by a vote of 3-3 to find reason to 

believe that either the Russian Federation or the Trump Campaign had violated 

FECA. Commissioners Broussard, Walther, and Weintraub voted to find reason to 

believe that both had violated FECA. Commissioners Cooksey, Dickerson, and 

Trainor dissented. 

74. The FEC voted 4-2 to dismiss claims against the Russian Federation 

on the basis of prosecutorial discretion. However, a separate motion to dismiss the 

Trump Campaign on that basis failed by a vote of 3-3. Commissioners Cooksey, 

Dickerson, and Trainor voted to dismiss the Trump Campaign. Commissioners 

Broussard, Walther, and Weintraub dissented. 

75. On April 22, 2021, the FEC voted 6-0 to close the file as to the Russian 

Federation and the Trump Campaign (the only respondents identified in Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint), but left the file open as to a congressional candidate not 

identified in Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

76. By letter dated August 18, 2021, the FEC informed Plaintiffs of its 

April 22, 2021 decision, and that the FEC had closed its file on August 10, 2021. 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 24 of 34 

The letter further stated, “Documents related to the case will be placed on the 

public record within 30 days.” 

The FEC’s Unexplained Six-Month Further Delay 

77. Thirty days after August 18, 2021 was September 17, 2021. 

78. As of September 21, 2021, documents related to the case had not been 

placed on the public record. 

79. On September 21, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs emailed counsel for the 

FEC, and inquired about the status of the public record. Counsel for the FEC 

responded, “We are currently in the process of preparing the public file and it will 

be released shortly. . . . Unfortunately, at this time, I don’t have a precise date but 

we are working diligently to make the file available.” 

80. On September 23, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs emailed a letter to 

counsel for the FEC, advising that Plaintiffs would consider suing the FEC to 

compel the required publicization. 

81. On October 1, 2021, the FEC sent to Plaintiffs a letter stating in 

relevant part, “This letter is to inform you that, on September 28, 2021, the 

Commission voted to reopen the matter for further consideration.” 

82. On January 19, 2022, the FEC sent to Plaintiffs a letter stating in 

relevant part, “On January 13, 2022, the Commission closed the file in this matter 

without making any additional findings.” 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 25 of 34 

83. On February 18, 2022—six months after the FEC’s August 18, 2021 

letter, and ten months after its April 22, 2021 vote—the FEC publicized its record 

in the case via its web site. 

84. The record reveals only one action during the entire period between 

September 28, 2021, when the FEC reopened the matter for further consideration, 

and January 13, 2022, when the FEC voted 6-0 to close the file. However, that 

other action appears to have been redacted in its entirety.19

The Commissioners’ Explanations for their Votes 

85. Two of the three commissioners who had voted to find reason to believe 

that the Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign violated FECA issued a 

“Statement of Reasons” explaining their vote.20 They explained how, with respect 

to the Russian Federation, they voted in accordance with the Office of General 

Counsel’s recommendation to find reason to believe, but also to then take no 

further action because, in their view, “there was no realistic prospect that the 

Russian Federation or the IRA would cooperate and voluntarily enter into 

conciliation with the Commission[, t]he likelihood of success in obtaining a 

collectible judgment through litigation was low[. . . , and] other parts of the 

government were better situated to address these serious attacks on our national 

sovereignty and were taking steps to do so.”21

19 Certification for MURs 7207, 7268, 7274, and 7623, Jan. 13, 2022 (executed Jan. 

14, 2022), at 1 ¶ 1 (redacted), https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_41.pdf. 20 Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Shana M. Broussard & Ellen L. Weintraub, 

https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_47.pdf. 21 Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Shana M. Broussard & Ellen L. Weintraub at 5. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 26 of 34 

86. However, they explained, “No similar factors militated against 

pursuing the non-State actor respondents.” Thus, they supported the Office of 

General Counsel’s recommendation to proceed to the next stage of the process with 

the Trump Campaign.22

87. The three “dissenting” commissioners, who had voted against finding 

reason to believe that the Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign violated 

FECA (and for dismissing them based on prosecutorial discretion) issued their own 

Statement of Reasons, dated November 22, 2021 (seven months after their vote).23

In it, these three commissioners explained, “We voted to dismiss these 

Respondents as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion for two principal reasons.”24

88. First, they stated, “the Commission’s decision to await the completion 

of other ongoing investigations into these same events—including by the 

Department of Justice’s Special Counsel Robert Mueller—undermined the 

Commission’s ability to resolve these matters within the statute of limitations.” In 

their view, “there was no reasonable chance for the Commission to bring an 

investigation and enforcement action to fruition in the time remaining” within the 

five-year statute of limitations for civil monetary penalties, 28 U.S.C. § 2462.25

22 Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Shana M. Broussard & Ellen L. Weintraub at 5. 

23 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson & Comm’rs Sean J. Cooksey & 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7207/7207_48.pdf. 24 Id. at 2. 

25 Id. at 2. 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 27 of 34 

89. The dissenting commissioners did not mention the availability of nonmonetary relief, such as “a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, 

or any other appropriate order” under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6). 

90. Second, they stated, “we believe that the Commission’s interests have 

already been vindicated by the investigations conducted by other parts of the 

federal government.”26

91. Although the dissenting commissioners’ Statement of Reasons 

explained why they voted for the motions to dismiss the Russian Federation and 

Trump Campaign as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, it did not address why 

they voted against finding reason to believe that either the Russian Federation or 

the Trump Campaign had violated FECA in the first place. 

92. Vice Chair Allen Dickerson provided a Supplemental Statement of 

Reasons in his own name only.27 He stated, “I am persuaded that there is reason to 

believe the Russian Federation violated the Act.”28 He explained that, in his view, 

the FEC should “pursue such alleged violations as were supported by the record 

and let the courts judge Russia’s claims of immunity.”29

26 Id. at 2. 27 Supp. Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson, 

https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/7207_49.pdf. 28 Id. at 2. 

29 Id. at 3. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 28 of 34 

93. However, for reasons partly redacted from the record, he stated that he 

would not vote to take administrative action against the Russian Federation 

without first informing the State Department and (unspecified) “others.”30

94. Vice Chair Dickerson’s Supplemental Statement of Reasons did not 

address the question of why he voted against finding reason to believe that the 

Trump Campaign had violated FECA. It said, “This Statement addresses only the 

subset of these allegations concerning action by foreign entities.”31

Injury to Plaintiffs 

95. Due to the Russian Federation’s and Trump Campaign’s failure to 

disclose spending and prohibited in-kind contributions, and the FEC’s closure of 

the file on the administrative complaint without further action, Plaintiffs have 

been deprived of information regarding campaign financing. 

96. If the FEC had voted to find reason to believe, it could have sought to 

conciliate with the respondents and to further investigate Plaintiffs’ administrative 

complaint. Through these processes, the FEC could have sought not only monetary 

fines, but also non-monetary relief, including but not limited to requiring the 

Trump Campaign to disclose the monetary value of the in-kind contributions that 

it received from the Russian Federation. 

97. Plaintiffs’ work on campaign finance-related issues—including public 

education, litigation, administrative advocacy and enforcement, and legislative 

30 Id. at 10. 

31 Id. at 2 n.9. 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 29 of 34 

reform efforts—depends on accurate and complete campaign finance reporting as 

required by FECA. This work is obstructed where, as here, campaign finance 

information subject to mandatory disclosure under FECA is not available. 

Plaintiffs have a cognizable interest in the underlying information that an entity 

making independent expenditures, or accepting or receiving in-kind contributions, 

has not accurately or fully disclosed to the FEC. Without this information, 

Plaintiffs’ campaign finance advocacy, public education work, and legislative 

reform efforts are inhibited. The withholding of information to which Plaintiffs are 

legally entitled also forces Plaintiffs to divert resources from other projects 

furthering their mission towards efforts to obtain the information. 

98. Plaintiffs are also involved in monitoring major social media and other 

technology companies (including Facebook) and their practices as they affect our 

democracy and elections. Information concerning foreign, coordinated, or other 

unlawful payments made to technology companies to influence the 2016 election, 

as alleged in the administrative complaint, would inform Plaintiffs’ efforts to 

educate their members and the public regarding these companies’ business 

practices, and to propose and advocate for legal reforms to such practices. 

99. The information that Plaintiffs lack includes information that the 

Russian Federation and/or the Trump Campaign were obliged to report to the FEC, 

and the FEC was obliged to make public, includes but is not limited to: 

a. With respect to the Russian Federation’s independent expenditures, 

including those in connection with its influence campaign, that 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 30 of 34 

aggregated over $250 with respect to a given election in a calendar 

year, and in accordance with 11 C.F.R. § 109.10: 

i. The reporting person’s name, mailing address, occupation, 

and the name of his or her employer, if any; 

ii. The identification (name and mailing address) of the person 

to whom the expenditure was made; 

iii. The amount, date, and purpose of each expenditure; 

iv. A statement that indicates whether such expenditure was in 

support of, or in opposition to a candidate, together with the 

candidate’s name and office sought; if the expenditure meets 

the criteria set forth in 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(vii)(C), the 

states in which the communication was distributed; 

v. Whether such expenditure was made in cooperation, 

consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion 

of a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their 

agents, or a political party committee or its agents; and 

vi. The identification of each person who made a contribution in 

excess of $200 to the person filing such report, which 

contribution was made for the purpose of furthering the 

reported independent expenditure. 

vii. The date of public distribution or dissemination, in 

accordance with Schedule 5-E of FEC Form 5. 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 31 of 34 

b. With respect to those expenditures by the Russian Federation 

(including the expenditure of resources to hack Clinton-related 

servers in response to Trump’s press conference statement) that 

were coordinated with the Trump Campaign under 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.20(b), or that were solicited, accepted, or received by the 

Trump Campaign: each person to whom an expenditure was made 

in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $200, together with 

the date, amount and purpose of each expenditure, in accordance 

with 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3 and 104.13. 

100. To this day, Plaintiffs do not have this information. 

101. Plaintiffs’ need for this information is ongoing, despite the passage of 

time. If Plaintiffs had access to this information, they would use it in some or all 

the following ways: 

a. Publicizing the disclosed information to the general public via 

Plaintiffs’ web sites and on social media. 

b. Analyzing trends and patterns in the spending, including via inkind contributions, and publicizing their analyses through research 

reports and in major news media. 

c. Using the information and analyses to (1) determine whether to 

propose further federal or state legislation or oversight, and (2) 

brief legislators accordingly. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 32 of 34 

d. Analyzing the recipients of the payments to determine how to 

engage with them. 

e. Other uses that can only be determined after reviewing the 

information. 

102. The Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign are still, as of 

today, obligated to disclose this information to the FEC, which in turn is required 

to make it public. The fact that the information required to be disclosed derives 

from unlawful spending does not absolve either party of their obligations. 

103. Due to both the Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign’s 

underlying violations, and the FEC’s failure to enforce the reporting, disclosure, 

and transparency requirements of FECA, Plaintiffs have not had access to stillunknown information regarding campaign financing. 

104. Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to disseminate this information 

to their members or supporters, and have not had the opportunity to act on the 

information. Plaintiffs lacked this information during the 2018 and 2020 election 

cycles, when it could have been useful in informing their work on campaign 

finance-related issues, and continue to lack it as the 2022 election approaches. 

105. Both the Russian Federation and the Trump Campaign have been 

active in federal elections since the filing of the administrative complaint. In both 

2018 and 2020, the Russian Federation attempted to influence U.S. federal 

elections. In 2020, Trump mounted an unsuccessful run for re-election. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 33 of 34 

106. Because Plaintiffs lacked (and continue to lack) the information that 

was required to be disclosed in the 2016 election as alleged in the administrative 

complaint, they did not have the opportunity to disseminate this information to 

their members or supporters, or to otherwise act upon it, during the past nearly 

five years during which the information could have been useful in informing their 

work on campaign finance-related issues. 

107. The Russian Federation is already interfering in the 2022 election. 

According to President Biden, by July 2021 it was already apparent that the 

Russian Federation was again engaged in election interference.32

108. Donald Trump is widely expected to run for president again in 2024. 

109. The Trump Campaign, now renamed Make America Great Again PAC 

but still operating under the same committee ID (C00580100), received nearly 

$12.8 million and spent nearly $16.9 million in calendar year 2021. 

110. The continued federal political activity of both the Russian Federation 

and the Trump Campaign, and the significant risk of future harm, highlights 

Plaintiffs’ ongoing need for the information that they previously failed to disclose. 

CAUSE OF ACTION 

Count I—FECA (Dismissal of Complaint) 

111. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding 

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

112. The FEC dismissed Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

32 Steve Herman, “Biden Accuses Russia of Already Interfering in 2022 Election,”

VOA News, July 27, 2021, https://bit.ly/3HT5mWP. 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-00666 Document 1 Filed 03/10/22 Page 34 of 34 

113. The FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint was 

contrary to law under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 

a) Declare that the FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint was 

contrary to law under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); 

b) Order the FEC to conform with this declaration within 30 days, under 52 

U.S.C. §§ 30109(a)(8)(A)-(C), failing which Plaintiffs may bring, in their own 

names, a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original 

complaint, under § 30109(a)(8)(C); 

c) Award legal fees and costs of suit incurred by Plaintiffs; and 

d) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ronald A. Fein 

March 10, 2022 Ronald A. Fein (D.D.C. Bar No. MA0012) 

Courtney Hostetler*

John C. Bonifaz* 

Ben Clements* 

Free Speech For People

1320 Centre St. #405 

Newton, MA 02459 

(617) 244-0234

rfein@freespeechforpeople.org 

Counsel for plaintiffs 

*Motion for pro hac vice admission 

forthcoming 

34