IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 20-cv-01778-RCL 

Motion for Order Declaring Defendant 

Has Failed to Conform to Default 

Judgment Order 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DECLARING THAT DEFENDANT HAS 

FAILED TO CONFORM TO THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER 

It has been more than 400 days since Plaintiff Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) filed its 

administrative complaint alleging that Iowa Values, a nonprofit dedicated to reelecting U.S. 

Senator Joni Ernst, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) by failing to register 

with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) as a political committee and file reports 

disclosing its contributors, expenditures, and debts. On June 30, 2020, CLC filed this lawsuit 

over the FEC’s failure to act on its administrative complaint. Compl. (ECF No. 1). On October 

14, 2020, after the FEC had failed to appear or otherwise respond to CLC’s Complaint, this 

Court issued an Order awarding default judgment against the FEC (“Default Judgment Order”) 

(ECF No. 14). 

In the Default Judgment Order, the Court found that the FEC’s failure to act on CLC’s 

administrative complaint in MUR 7674 was “contrary to law” and it ordered the FEC to 

“conform to this Court’s Order within ninety days by acting on the plaintiff’s administrative 

complaint.” Default Judgment Order at 2. The ninety-day deadline for the agency to conform 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 6
2 

was January 12, 2021. Nonetheless, the FEC, which has been restored to a full quorum of 

Commissioners for more than a month, has not made an appearance nor provided any evidence 

that it has conformed with this Court’s Default Judgment Order. Undersigned counsel contacted 

the FEC’s General Counsel and Associate General Counsel for Litigation, advised of CLC’s 

intention to file this motion, and asked FEC counsel to inform undersigned counsel if the FEC 

has conformed with this Court’s Default Judgment Order and/or if it intends to appear in this 

action, but has received no response. 

In light of the foregoing, this Court should find that the FEC has failed to conform to this 

Court’s Default Judgment Order. Moreover, under FECA, the FEC’s failure to conform means 

that CLC is entitled to sue Iowa Values directly “to remedy the violation involved in the original 

complaint.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); see Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash. v. 

Am. Action Network, 410 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7, 8-9 (D.D.C. 2019). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. More than 400 days ago, on December 19, 2019, CLC filed its administrative 

complaint alleging that Iowa Values, a tax exempt corporation organized under section 

501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, had violated FECA by failing to register as a political 

committee and file reports disclosing its contributors, expenditures, and debts. See Compl. 

¶¶ 22, 36 & Ex. 1 (ECF No. 1). 

2. CLC filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2020, after waiting more than 190 days for 

the FEC to take action on its administrative complaint against Iowa Values. Id. ¶¶ 5, 38. To 

date, the FEC has failed to answer or otherwise defend itself in this action. 

3. On October 14, this Court issued an order awarding default judgment against the 

FEC. See Default Judgment Order (ECF No. 14). The Default Judgment Order mandated that 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 6
3 

the FEC “conform to this Court’s Order within ninety days [i.e., by January 12, 2021] by acting 

on the plaintiff’s administrative complaint.” Id. at 2. The Default Judgment Order noted that 

although the FEC lacked a quorum for part of the time during which the underlying 

administrative matter has been pending, the agency “had a quorum during the pendency of 

MUR 7674 from May 19, 2020 to July 3, 2020.” Id. at 2 n.1. 

4. On October 16, two days after the Court entered the Default Judgment Order, the 

Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Statement of Interest purporting to challenge CLC’s 

standing and suggesting that the Court vacate the Default Judgment Order. Statement of Interest 

of the United States of America (ECF No. 16). CLC responded (see ECF Nos. 18, 21), 

explaining that controlling decisions of the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 

which DOJ had neglected even to mention, make clear that CLC has standing in cases like this 

one, where a plaintiff alleges denial of access to information that FECA requires to be disclosed 

and “[t]here is no reason to doubt their claim that the information would help them (and others 

to whom they would communicate it)” to evaluate the role that undisclosed contributions and 

spending “might play in a specific election.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998).1

1

 Although the FEC has not appeared in this case, its Office of General Counsel conceded 

just a few days ago, in another case involving questions of who has standing to challenge FEC 

inaction on an administrative complaint, that an administrative respondent would have standing 

to challenge FEC inaction where, as here, the underlying administrative complaint alleges a 

violation of FECA’s disclosure requirements. See Oral Argument at 15:39, Campaign Legal 

Center v. FEC, No. 20-5159 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2021), 

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2020.nsf/13BFED3D4212E3768525866800

6BF6AC/$file/20-5159.mp3 (FEC counsel arguing that “if a complainant had alleged that there 

were some non-disclosure—whether non-disclosure of a contribution or an expenditure—some 

sort of non-disclosure related to their underlying claim of an alleged FECA violation, then they 

could establish informational injury that could be sufficient for standing.”). Notwithstanding 

DOJ’s own erroneous arguments to the contrary in its Statement of Interest, it has informed this 

Court that it “would defer to the arguments and positions taken by the Commission.” Reply In 

Support of Statement of Interest of the United States of America at 1 (ECF No. 20). 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 6
4 

5. In a Press Release dated December 18, 2020, the FEC announced the full 

restoration of the agency’s quorum with the swearing in of three new Commissioners. See Press 

Release, FEC, Shana Broussard, Sean Cooksey, Allen Dickerson Sworn In as Commissioners 

(Dec. 18, 2020), https://www.fec.gov/updates/shana-broussard-sean-cooksey-allen-dickersonsworn-commissioners/. 

6. The FEC has now had a full quorum of Commissioners for more than a month, 

during which time it has held three days of executive session meetings where the agency 

discusses pending enforcement actions and litigation, among other confidential matters. See 

FEC, Commission Meetings, https://www.fec.gov/meetings/?tab=executive-sessions (listing 

FEC Executive Session meetings on January 12, 14, and 26, 2021). 

7. On January 26, 2021, undersigned counsel contacted the FEC’s General Counsel 

and Associate General Counsel for Litigation, advised of CLC’s intention to file this motion, 

and asked FEC counsel to inform undersigned counsel if the FEC has conformed with this 

Court’s Default Judgment Order and/or if it intends to appear in this action. As of the time of 

this filing, undersigned counsel has received no response. The agency thus apparently has failed 

to take any action on CLC’s administrative complaint, which has now been pending for more 

than a year. 

ARGUMENT 

In the Default Judgment Order, the Court found that the FEC’s failure to act on CLC’s 

administrative complaint against Iowa Values was “contrary to law” and it mandated that the 

FEC “conform to this Court’s Order within ninety days [i.e., by January 12, 2021] by acting on 

the plaintiff’s administrative complaint.” Default Judgment Order at 2. That time to conform has 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 6
5 

now passed.2

 The FEC’s continued failure to appear in this case or otherwise inform the Court 

and CLC of any action on CLC’s underlying administrative complaint against Iowa Values 

indicates that the FEC has failed to conform to the mandate in the Default Judgment Order that it 

act on CLC’s administrative complaint. 

 FECA provides that where, as here, a court declares that the FEC’s failure to act on an 

administrative complaint is “contrary to law” and directs the FEC to conform with such 

declaration, and the FEC fails to conform with the court’s order, the administrative complainant 

may “sue the alleged FECA violator directly ‘to remedy the violation involved in the original 

complaint.’” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash., 410 F. Supp. 3d at 8-9 (quoting 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C)). In other words, under FECA’s citizen suit provision, CLC now has the 

right to sue Iowa Values “directly, [to] seek[] a declaration that [Iowa Values] is a political 

committee and an injunction ordering it to make the attendant disclosures that FECA requires.” 

Id. at 7; see also Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83, 101 

(D.D.C. 2018) (concluding that FEC dismissal of administrative complaint was contrary to law 

and explaining that “[i]f the FEC does not timely conform with the Court’s declaration,” the 

administrative complainant “may bring ‘a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the 

original complaint’” (quoting 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C))). 

2

 Although the FEC lacked a quorum for some time after the Default Judgment Order was 

entered, the agency has been restored to a full quorum of Commissioners for more than a month 

and has met in executive session three times—on January 12, 14, and 26, 2021. See supra at 4 

¶¶ 5-6. During those meetings, the Commission voted to authorize defense of at least one other 

lawsuit alleging FEC inaction—a case filed three months after this one—and the FEC has 

appeared in that case. See Def. FEC’s Mot. for an Order Extending the Time to Answer or 

Otherwise Respond to Pl.’s Compl. Nunc Pro Tunc at 2 ¶ 3, CLC v. FEC, No. 20-2842 (CJN) 

(Jan. 26, 2021) (“The first meetings of the Commission in Executive Session after the quorum 

was regained were on January 12 and January 14, 2021, and defense of this matter was 

authorized on January 14.”). Yet the FEC has neither appeared in this case nor advised of any 

action on CLC’s underlying administrative complaint. 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 6
6 

CONCLUSION 

For foregoing reasons, CLC respectfully requests that the Court issue an order declaring 

that the FEC has failed to conform to this Court’s Default Judgment Order. 

Dated: January 27, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Erin Chlopak 

Erin Chlopak (DC Bar No. 496370) 

Molly E. Danahy (DC Bar No. 1643411) 

Richard A. Graham (DC Bar No. 1500194) 

Campaign Legal Center 

1101 14th St. NW, Ste. 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 736-2200 

echlopak@campaignlegalcenter.org 

mdanahy@campaignlegalcenter.org 

agraham@campaignlegalcenter.org 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 22 Filed 01/27/21 Page 6 of 6