IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. ) 

Washington, DC 20001, ) 

 ) 

NOAH BOOKBINDER ) 

10206 Brookmoor Dr. ) 

Silver Spring, MD 20901, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 18-1861 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

1050 First St., N.E. ) 

Washington, DC 20463, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA” or “the Act”), 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), challenging the 

Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC” or “Commission”) failure to act on an administrative 

complaint and amended complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 

(“CREW”) and Noah Bookbinder (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Americans for Job Security 

(“AJS”) and Stephen DeMaura, individually and in his capacity as Treasurer of AJS (collectively 

“Respondents”), for violating the FECA by failing to register as a political committee and file 

disclosure statements as required of political committees, despite meeting the requirements of 

and acting as a political committee. Plaintiffs filed the initial administrative complaint on March 

8, 2012, and following extensive litigation, the action was remanded to the FEC, where 

Plaintiffs’ filed an amended administrative complaint on March 20, 2018. The FEC has failed to 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 1 of 18
2

resolve the original administrative complaint, filed over six years ago, and failed to act on the 

amended administrative complaint, filed more than 120 days ago. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 702. This 

Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201(a), and 2202. 

Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation organized under section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

4. CREW is committed to protecting the right of citizens to be informed about the 

activities of government officials, ensuring the integrity of government officials, protecting our 

political system against corruption, and reducing the influence of money in politics. CREW 

works to advance reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and transparency. 

Further, CREW seeks to ensure that campaign finance laws are properly interpreted, enforced, 

and implemented. 

5. To advance its mission, CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, 

advocacy, and public education to disseminate information to the public about public officials 

and their actions, and the outside influences that have been brought to bear on those actions. A 

core part of this work is examining and exposing the special interests that have influenced our 

elections and elected officials and using that information to educate voters regarding the integrity 

of public officials, candidates for public office, the electoral process, and our system of 

government. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 2 of 18
3

6. Toward this end, CREW monitors the activities of those who run for federal 

office as well as those groups financially supporting candidates for office or advocating for or 

against their election. CREW regularly reviews campaign finance reports that groups, candidates, 

and political parties file with the FEC disclosing their expenditures and, in some cases, their 

contributors. Using the information in those reports, CREW, through its website, press releases, 

reports, and other methods of distribution, publicizes the role of these individuals and entities in 

the electoral process and the extent to which they have violated federal campaign finance laws. 

7. CREW also files complaints with the FEC when it discovers violations of the 

FECA. Publicizing violations of the FECA and filing complaints with the FEC serve CREW’s 

mission of keeping the public, and voters in particular, informed about individuals and entities 

that violate campaign finance laws and deterring future violations of campaign finance laws. 

8. CREW is hindered in carrying out its core programmatic activities when those 

individuals and entities that attempt to influence elections and elected officials are able to keep 

their identities hidden. Likewise, the FEC’s refusal to properly administer the campaign finance 

laws, particularly the FECA’s reporting requirements, hinders CREW in its programmatic 

activity, as compliance with those reporting requirements often provides CREW with the only 

source of information about those individuals and groups funding the political process. As a 

result of the FEC’s refusal to enforce the FECA, organizations and individuals are able to 

launder their contributions through third parties. This deprives CREW of information critical to 

advancing its ongoing mission of educating the public to ensure the public continues to have a 

vital voice in our political process and government decisions. 

9. A part of CREW’s work in carrying out its central mission CREW focuses on socalled “pay-to-play” schemes. Toward that end, CREW looks for correlations between donations 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 3 of 18
4

to the campaign of a member of Congress or candidate and that member’s subsequent 

congressional activities, including advocating for policies and legislation that serve the interests 

of the member’s donors. Information that an individual or entity made a large-dollar contribution 

may be very revealing about the influences that donor has brought to bear on the member postelection. Without information about the individuals and entities funding the political activities of 

organizations and individuals, CREW is stymied in fulfilling its central mission. 

10. As an example, in May 2015, CREW issued a report, Welcome to Washington: 

New Members of Congress Attract Special Interest Money, that analyzed fundraising by newly 

elected members of Congress in their first year in office. CREW’s analysis was based on FEC 

campaign contribution records that identified contributions to those members from special 

interest PACs, including PACs tied to corporations, unions, and issues groups. From this data, 

CREW determined that new members of the House of Representatives embraced fundraising 

from special interests after they took office and became more reliant on that money than they had 

been as candidates. Those members raised nearly $17.3 million from special interest PACs in 

2015, an increase of 15.8% over the amount they raised as candidates during the entire 2014 

election cycle. CREW further found that special interest PAC money accounted for an average of 

37.6% of total funds raised by the new members in 2015, more than double the 17.3% rate from 

the 2014 election cycle. CREW was able to obtain this information because of the disclosure 

requirements to which the organizations receiving those contributions – federal candidates, party 

committees, PACs, and super PACs – are subject under the FECA. 

11. As another example, on August 21, 2017, CREW published a blog post entitled 

Synchronized Spending: The Dark Money Phantom’s New Illusion, which highlighted section 

501(c)(4) dark money nonprofits that fully fund multiple federal super PACs that attack or 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 4 of 18
5

support the same candidates. By making the work of one group appear to be the work of two 

independent groups, this tactic misleads the public, exaggerates candidates’ outside support, and 

exacerbates the problems caused by secret money in politics. CREW obtained the information 

used in this post from information the FECA requires political committees to disclose. 

12. Plaintiff Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW. He is a citizen of 

the United States and a registered voter and resident of the state of Maryland. As a registered 

voter, Mr. Bookbinder is entitled to receive all the information the FECA requires those engaged 

in political activities to report publicly. He is further entitled to the FEC’s proper administration 

of the provisions of the FECA. Mr. Bookbinder is harmed in exercising his right to an informed 

vote when a political committee fails to report the true source of its contributions, as the FECA 

requires. 

13. When Plaintiffs file complaints against violators of the FECA, they rely on the 

FEC, as the preliminary civil enforcement authority, to comply strictly with the FECA when 

making its investigative and enforcement decisions. See 52 U.S.C. § 30107(e). Plaintiffs are 

harmed and are “aggrieved” parties when the FEC refuses to act on meritorious complaints, 

refuses to enforce the FECA’s mandatory disclosure requirements, or otherwise acts contrary to 

the requirements of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

14. Defendant FEC is the federal agency established by Congress to oversee the 

administration and civil enforcement of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30106(b)(l). 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

15. The FECA and the implementing FEC regulations impose on “political 

committees” registration, organization, and disclosure requirements. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 5 of 18
6

16. The FECA and implementing FEC regulations define a “political committee” as 

“any committee, club, association, or other group of persons which receives contributions 

aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year or which makes expenditures aggregating 

in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(a). 

17. The FECA defines an “expenditure” as “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). The Supreme 

Court has clarified that an “expenditure” for the purpose of this definition includes only “funds 

used for communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate.” See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 80 (1976). 

18. In Buckley, the Court carved out from the reach of the FECA’s political 

committee provisions groups that, while they met the statutory definition, were neither under the 

control of a candidate nor had the requisite “major purpose” to nominate or elect of federal 

candidates. See 424 U.S. at 79. 

19. An organization’s major purpose may be demonstrated by its activities, and a 

group that devotes a sufficiently extensive amount of its spending to campaign activity may be 

subjected to the FECA’s political committee provisions. See FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc., 

479 U.S. 238, 262 (1986). 

20. Under the FECA, any person who believes there has been a violation of the Act 

may file a sworn complaint with the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(l). Based on the complaint, the 

response from the person or entity alleged to have violated the Act, facts developed by the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”), and any OGC recommendation, the FEC decides whether there is 

“reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 6 of 18
7

21. A “reason to believe” exists where a complaint “credibly alleges” a violation of 

the FECA “may have occurred.” FEC, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in 

Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545 (Mar. 16, 2007). If 

four commissioners find there is “reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred, the 

FEC must notify the respondents of that finding and “shall make an investigation of such alleged 

violation.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). 

22. The FECA and FEC regulations require all political committees to register with 

the FEC within 10 days of becoming a political committee. 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 102.1. 

23. Further, under the FECA and implementing FEC regulations, political committees 

must file periodic reports with the FEC that, among other things: (1) identify all individuals 

contributing an aggregate of more than $200 in a year to the organization, and the amount each 

individual contributed; (2) identify all political committees making a contribution to the 

organization, and the amount each committee contributed; (3) detail all of the organization’s 

outstanding debts and obligations; and (4) list all of the organization’s expenditures, including its 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(4), (b), 

(f)(2); 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3, 104.4, 104.20(b). 

24. Under the FECA, any person who believes there has been a violation of the Act 

may file a sworn complaint with the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(l). Based on the complaint, the 

response from the person or entity alleged to have violated the Act, facts developed by the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”), and any OGC recommendation, the FEC decides whether there is 

“reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). 

25. The district court reviewing the FEC’s dismissal of a complaint may declare the 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 7 of 18
8

FEC’s actions “contrary to law.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). The court also may order the FEC 

“to conform with such declaration within 30 days.” Id. If the FEC fails to abide by the court’s 

order, the FECA provides the complainant with a private right of action, brought in the 

complainant’s own name, “to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.” Id. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

26. The Alexandria, Virginia-based organization Americans for Job Security (“AJS”) 

formed in 1997 and is a tax-exempt organization organized under section 501(c)(6) of the 

Internal Revenue Code. Its president and treasurer is Stephen DeMaura. 

27. AJS describes itself as an “independent, bi-partisan, pro-business issue advocacy 

organization,” with the chief goal of “educating the public on issues of importance to business, 

and encouraging a strong job-creating economy that promotes a pro-growth agenda.” According 

to its articles of incorporation, AJS was incorporated for the purpose of uniting “in a common 

organization businesses, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and associations of businesses” and to 

“promote the common business interest of its members . . . by helping the American public to 

better understand public policy issues of interest to business.” 

28. Between January 15 and October 31, 2010, according to reports AJS filed with 

the FEC, AJS spent $8,971,043 on independent expenditures and electioneering 

communications, largely on broadcasting television and Internet advertisements in 20 primary 

and general elections. 

29. AJS reported to the FEC spending $4,414,524 on independent expenditures and 

$4,556,519 on electioneering communications through October 31, 2010, and $4,908,846 on 

independent expenditures for calendar year 2010. AJS made no additional electioneering 

communications in 2010 after October 31, 2010. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 8 of 18
9

30. AJS spent significant sums on about ten versions of electioneering 

communications covering seven different federal races. For example, AJS spent $479,268 on 

January 15, 2010, producing and broadcasting an advertisement promoting Scott Brown, then a 

state senator and the Republican candidate in the January 19, 2010 special election for a U.S. 

Senate seat in Massachusetts. AJS’s advertisement first told viewers that “behind closed doors, 

Washington decides the future of our health care, with no transparency or accountability. They 

are slashing Medicare and raising taxes, and only listening to the special interests.” AJS then said 

that “one Massachusetts leader says slow down, get health care right. Scott Brown says protect 

Medicare, don’t raise taxes, listen to the people, not the lobbyists.” AJS’s advertisement 

concluded by encouraging voters to “call Scott Brown and tell him you agree Washington should 

listen to us on health care for a change.” 

31. From November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010—AJS’s fiscal year—AJS 

reported to the IRS spending a total of $12,417,809. AJS reported spending only $4,351,478 on 

political expenditures, less than what AJS reported to the FEC it spent on its independent 

expenditures alone. Plaintiffs do not possess knowledge sufficient to determine how much of that 

reported amount to allocate to AJS’s political expenses in 2010. Based on the amounts AJS 

reported to the FEC it spent on independent expenditures and electioneering communications in 

2010, the group’s combined spending on those political activities for its fiscal year comprised 

72.2 percent of its total spending. 

32. On March 8, 2012, CREW and Melanie Sloan filed a complaint with the FEC 

against AJS for violating the FECA (“MUR 6538R”). The complaint alleged that, as 

demonstrated by its extensive spending on federal campaign activities, AJS’s major purpose in 

2010 was the nomination or election of federal candidates. As a result, AJS violated the FECA, 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 9 of 18
10

52 U.S.C. §§ 30103, 30104, and the relevant implementing FEC regulations. 

33. On May 2, 2013, the OGC issued the First General Counsel’s Report (“AJS 

Report”) recommending that the Commission find reason to believe that, because AJS had as its 

major purpose federal campaign activity during 2010, AJS violated 52 U.S.C. § 30102, 30103, 

and 30104 by failing to organize, register, and report as a political committee. The OGC found 

AJS spent approximately $4,908,847 in independent expenditures and $4,598,518 on 

electioneering communications in the 2010 calendar year. The OGC looked to AJS’s activities in 

the 2010 calendar year, rather than the AJS’s “entire history” spanning more than a decade, 

explaining a calendar year test “provides the firmest statutory footing for the Commission’s 

major purpose determination—and is consistent with the FECA’s plain language.” The OGC 

concluded at least 76.5 percent of AJS’s total spending for the 2010 calendar year went to federal 

campaign activity. As a result, the OGC concluded, AJS’s spending showed the group’s major 

purpose during 2010 was federal campaign activity. 

34. Despite the detailed analysis of the AJS Report, on June 24, 2014, the 

Commission by a vote of three to three failed to find reason to believe AJS had violated 52 

U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, and 30104, and by a vote of six to zero closed the file. 

35. On July 30, 2014, the FEC released the statement of reasons of the three 

commissioners voting against finding “reason to believe”—then Chairman Lee E. Goodman and 

Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen (“Goodman, Hunter, Petersen AJS 

SoR”). These commissioners, “[a]s the controlling decision makers,” concluded AJS’s major 

purpose, as “an organization that has spent less than ten percent of its funds on express advocacy 

during its entire existence . . . [was an] issue-advocacy organization [and] cannot be regulated as 

a political committee.” 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 10 of 18
11

36. To reach that conclusion, the Goodman, Hunter, Petersen AJS SoR interpreted the 

First Amendment and judicial precedent to require the FEC to ignore AJS’s communications that 

did not contain express advocacy, and to treat all such non-express advocacy communications, 

including AJS’s electioneering communications, as not indicative of a purpose to nominate or 

elect candidates. The Goodman, Hunter, Petersen AJS SoR further interpreted the Buckley’s 

“major purpose” limitation as considering the group’s activities over its entire life and treating all 

such activity as equally important to determine whether the group’s current major purpose was to 

nominate or elect candidates. 

37. On August 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed suit against the FEC alleging the FEC’s 

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against AJS was “contrary to law,” in violation 

of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

38. On September 19, 2016, Judge Christopher R. Cooper found the FEC’s dismissal 

of Plaintiffs’ complaint against AJS was contrary to law and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment. CREW v. FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2016). Specifically, Judge 

Cooper ruled that the FEC’s controlling commissioners, as explained in the Goodman, Hunter, 

Petersen AJS SoR, committed legal error by concluding that the “First Amendment effectively 

required the agency to exclude from its consideration all non-express advocacy in the context of 

disclosure.” Id. at 93. 

39. Judge Cooper further found that the Goodman, Hunter, Petersen AJS SoR’s 

“refusal to give any weight whatsoever to an organization’s relative spending in the most recent 

calendar year—particularly in the case of a fifteen-year-old organization like AJS—indicates an 

arbitrary ‘fail[ure] to consider an important aspect of the [relevant] problem.’” Id. at 94 (quoting 

Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007)). Accordingly, Judge 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 11 of 18
12

Cooper reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint against AJS and remanded for 

reconsideration within thirty days, to be made in conformity with the Court’s declaration. Id. at 

95. 

40. The Court’s thirty-day deadline expired on October 19, 2016. As of that deadline, 

the Commission had neither informed Plaintiffs nor the Court of any action it had taken on the 

AJS matter beyond the Commissioners deadlocking on the question of whether to appeal Judge 

Cooper’s decision. 

41. On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed suit in district court challenging the FEC’s 

constructive dismissal of or failure to act on CREW’s administrative complaint. This case was 

docketed as Case No. 1:16-cv-2255. 

42. As part of a motion for summary judgment and pursuant to a protective order, the 

FEC provided the Plaintiffs with additional information. 

43. On the basis of the FEC’s representations, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims 

against Respondents without prejudice. See Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, CREW v. FEC, Case 

No. 1:16-cv-2255, ECF 44 (Jan. 5, 2018). 

44. On March 20, 2018, Plaintiffs submitted an amended administrative complaint to 

the FEC against Respondents. A copy of the amended administrative complaint is attached as 

Exhibit 1. The amended administrative complaint served solely to supplement the complainants 

listed in CREW’s original Complaint by substituting CREW’s current Executive Director, Noah 

Bookbinder, for its prior Executive Director, Melanie Sloan. With respect to the allegations 

against the Respondent, the amended administrative complaint was identical to the original 

administrative complaint. 

45. The FEC has not yet sent CREW an acknowledgement following receipt of the 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 12 of 18
13

amended administrative complaint. 

46. On April 3, 2018, counsel for CREW contacted counsel for the FEC to inquire 

about the status of the FEC’s formal acknowledgement letter. Counsel for the FEC confirmed 

receipt of the amended administrative complaint and stated that “an acknowledgement letter 

concerning the AJS matter” would arrive “in the near future.” 

47. To date, CREW has not received an acknowledgement letter from the FEC 

regarding the amended administrative complaint, and a June 26, 2018 email to counsel for the 

FEC regarding this issue has not yet received a response. 

48. As of the date of this filing, the FEC has not reached or made public a final 

decision on MUR 6538R, over six years after receiving the initial administrative complaint, 

nearly two years after Judge Cooper’s decision remanding the initial complaint to the FEC, and 

more than 120 days following the filing of the amended administrative complaint. 

49. Multi-year delays in acting on a pending complaint are not uncommon at the FEC, 

leading one FEC commissioner to express concern that “[e]ffective enforcement of the law is 

undermined by pervasive delays.” In the Matter of American Conservative Union, et al.,

Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Weintraub, MUR 6920, (Dec. 19, 2017), available at 

http://bit.ly/2CDnumJ. 

50. The pervasive delays also often serve as a cause for other FEC commissioners to 

halt enforcement actions. For example, on May 23, 2011, CREW filed a complaint with the FEC 

alleging that the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity (“CHGO”) violated the FECA 

by spending more than $2.3 million to broadcast television ads in 12 elections for seats in the 

House of Representatives. Despite the nature and extent of the spending, CHGO failed to file 

disclosures as required by the FECA and failed to register as a political committee, which CREW 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 13 of 18
14

alleged constituted violations of the FECA. In the Matter of The Commission on Hope Growth 

and Opportunity, Complaint, MUR 6471 (May 23, 2011), available at http://bit.ly/2qHA6aL. 

The complaint languished before the FEC, with months and even years passing between actions. 

See id., Summary, available at http://bit.ly/2o52aBt. Finally, in November 2015, more than four 

years after CREW filed its complaint, three controlling commissioners voted to exercise their 

discretion to dismiss the case and close the file without finding reason to believe that there was a 

violation of the FECA, in part because the “statute of limitations [had] effectively expired.” Id., 

Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman, MURs 6391 and 6471 (Nov. 

6, 2015), available at http://bit.ly/2D8LW0m. CREW has since brought suit challenging this 

dismissal as contrary to law, and litigation is ongoing. See CREW v. FEC, Case No. 17-5049 

(D.C. Cir. June 15, 2018) (panel decision upheld dismissal but deadline for rehearing has not yet 

passed and mandate has not yet issued). 

51. Similarly, on February 27, 2015, CREW filed a complaint against American 

Conservative Union, Now or Never PAC, James C. Thomas III, and Unknown Respondent 

alleging legal violations stemming from a failure to disclosure the true source of a $1.71 million 

contribution to Now or Never PAC. In the Matter of American Conservative Union, et al., 

Complaint, MUR 6920 (Feb. 27, 2015), available at http://bit.ly/2D6UHI7. OGC investigated 

the allegations and recommended finding reason to believe the respondents violated the FECA. 

Id., First General Counsel’s Report (Jan. 20, 2016), available at http://bit.ly/2swd1sQ. That 

report, however, sat before the commissioners for a full year, and by the time the FEC was 

willing to move forward on the matter it was “just about out of time” with regard to the statute of 

limitations. Id., Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Weintraub (Dec. 19, 2017), available at 

http://bit.ly/2CDnumJ. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 14 of 18
15

52. While the FEC eventually found reason to believe that certain respondents 

violated the FECA, resulting in a $350,000 fine, the controlling commissioners ultimately 

declined to pursue investigation and enforcement against other unknown respondents who were 

either the true source of the contribution or also acted as a conduit, justifying this decision in 

large part due to the impending statute of limitations. Id., Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs 

Hunter and Goodman (Dec. 20, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2CTqQ8q. The decision not to 

pursue further investigation constituted “an egregious example of someone using a web of 

organizations to hide the true source of a $1.7 million contribution to a super PAC — and getting 

away with it.” Id., Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Weintraub (Dec. 19, 2017). CREW has 

since brought suit challenging the FEC’s dismissal of the complaint against the other unknown 

respondents as contrary to law. See CREW v. FEC, Case No. 1:17-cv-2770 (D.D.C.) (ABJ) 

(litigation ongoing). 

53. Such delays commonly impact the FEC’s ability to carry out its enforcement 

function, as documents may be destroyed or lost and witness memories may fade. In addition, the 

running of the five-year statute of limitations constrains the FEC’s enforcement, as after the 

statute has run, it can no longer issue fines. 

54. These delays also hamper CREW’s ability to access the information that it is 

entitled to under the statute. Furthermore, to the extent evidence is lost or degraded during a 

multi-year delay at the FEC, the delay undermines CREW’s ability to litigate under the FECA 

should CREW file a suit alleging that an FEC final action is contrary to law. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 15 of 18
16

CAUSE OF ACTION 

(FEC Inaction Contrary to Law) 

55. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein. 

56. The FEC first received CREW’s complaint against AJS and Stephen DeMaura on 

March 8, 2012, more than six years ago. 

57. In the intervening six years, CREW has brought two separate lawsuits regarding 

this administrative complaint. One, which resulted in a ruling that the FEC’s dismissal of the 

complaint was contrary to law, remanded the administrative complaint back to the FEC for 

further action nearly two years ago, and the second challenged the FEC’s failure to act on the 

remanded complaint. 

58. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint and amended administrative complaint 

credibly alleged violations of FECA and FEC regulations by Respondents. 

59. The FEC has failed to act in a timely manner on the administrative complaint 

following remand and on the amended administrative complaint. To date, the FEC has not 

reached a resolution of the matter or disclosed taking any action on the administrative complaint 

or amended administrative complaint since filing an affidavit in November 2017. 

60. Sufficient time has elapsed to allow the FEC to conduct an investigation of MUR 

6538R. The FEC’s failure to act on the administrative complaint is unreasonable and contrary to 

law under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), and the Court may compel the FEC to act. 

61. Any party aggrieved by the failure of the FEC to act on an administrative 

complaint may petition the Court for a declaration that the failure is unlawful and for an order 

that the FEC conform with this declaration within 30 days. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 16 of 18
17

62. Action by the FEC on MUR 6538R may result in the FEC compelling AJS to 

register as a political committee and file the required information disclosures. If the FEC 

determines that any of the Respondents acted knowingly and willfully, it may make a referral to 

the Department of Justice for investigation into possible criminal penalties. 

63. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the FEC’s failure to act on the administrative 

complaint and amended administrative complaint. The FEC’s failure to act has allowed AJS to 

continue to keep confidential information that, under the FECA, it was required to disclose. This 

failure to disclose information to which Plaintiffs are entitled hinders CREW in its programmatic 

activity and hinders Mr. Bookbinder in his ability to review campaign finance information. 

64. Thorough investigation of administrative complaints and timely action by the 

FEC in making a final determination is in the public interest, and the FEC should rule on 

Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint without further delay. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 17 of 18
18

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 

(1) Declare that the FEC’s failure to act on Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (MUR 

6538R) is contrary to law; 

(2) Order the FEC to act on the Amended Complaint within 30 days, pursuant to 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); and 

(3) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_/s/ Stuart McPhail_______________ 

Stuart McPhail 

(D.C. Bar No. 1032529) 

Adam J. Rappaport 

(D.C. Bar No. 479866) 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

 in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202) 408-5565 

Fax: (202) 897-1996 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 1 Filed 08/08/18 Page 18 of 18