1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMERICANS FOR PUBLIC TRUST

107 S. West Street, Suite 442

Alexandria, VA 22314,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20463,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. _______________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or the “Act”), 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), for unlawful agency delay.

2. Plaintiff, Americans for Public Trust (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “APT”), seeks 

injunctive and declaratory relief to compel Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) to 

act on Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint alleging violations of FECA and corresponding FEC 

regulations prohibiting contributions from foreign nationals and conduit contributions, and 

governing political committee registration and reporting requirements.

3. Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on May 14, 2021, alleging

that Hansjörg Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, the New Venture Fund

(including its trademark “The Hub Project”), and the Sixteen Thirty Fund (together, the 

“Administrative Respondents”) violated various FECA provisions by: (i) making and accepting 

prohibited contributions from foreign nationals; (ii) unlawfully concealing the identity of 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 26
2

contributors, and making contributions in the name of another, through the use of conduits; and 

(iii) failing to register and file required disclosures with the FEC. Ex. 1, Administrative Compl.,

¶¶ 4-7. The FEC acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint by letter dated 

May 18, 2021, and informed Plaintiff that the FEC had “numbered this matter MUR 7904.” Ex. 

2.

4. Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint asked the FEC to find that the Administrative 

Respondents violated (1) 52 U.S.C. § 30121 by making and accepting contributions from a foreign 

national, Mr. Wyss, for the purpose of influencing federal elections; (2) 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by 

allowing Mr. Wyss to make unlawful contributions through a network of nonprofit organizations, 

thereby concealing their source; (3) 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a) by failing to register with the FEC as 

political committees after accepting more than $1,000 in contributions for the purpose of

influencing federal elections; and (4) 52 U.S.C. § 30104 by failing to report contributions and 

expenditures made for the purpose of influencing federal elections. Ex. 1, ¶¶ 4-7.

5. The Act provides administrative complainants with a cause of action against the 

FEC if the agency fails to act on an administrative complaint within 120 days. 52 U.S.C. § 

30109(a)(8)(A).

6. Plaintiff’s administrative complaint was filed on May 14, 2021, 346 days before 

the filing of the instant Complaint. Hence, more than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed its 

administrative complaint and the FEC has not yet taken action with regard to that complaint.

7. Plaintiff has suffered an injury-in-fact by being deprived of full disclosure of the 

contributions made and political activities undertaken by the Administrative Respondents, as well 

as other information regarding the nature of the ongoing relationships between the Administrative 

Respondents. Plaintiff lacks information, for instance, about: (i) whether Mr. Wyss, a foreign 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 26
3

national, has made political contributions in violation of federal law; (ii) whether Mr. Wyss has 

funneled contributions through the Administrative Respondent nonprofits to conceal their source; 

(iii) whether Administrative Respondents should have registered with the FEC as political 

committees and reported their political activity; and (iv) the exact amount of unreported 

contributions received and unreported expenditures made by Administrative Respondents. This is 

reportable information to which Plaintiff is legally entitled under FECA and which the FEC should 

determine must be disclosed. 

8. Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court declare the FEC’s failure to act upon 

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint contrary to law and order the FEC to conform within 30 days.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

over the parties pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). This Court also has federal question 

jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

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

11. Plaintiff has Article III standing to bring this suit as it has suffered an injury-in-fact 

in the form of deprivation of information that is required to be disclosed under FECA. See FEC 

v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998) (“[A] plaintiff suffers an ‘injury in fact’ when the plaintiff fails to 

obtain information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant to a statute.”).

THE PARTIES

12. APT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that serves as a watchdog promoting 

open and transparent government by monitoring the activities of policymakers and actors within 

the political arena. APT seeks to shine light on the workings of the federal government and to 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 26
4

promote accountability of elected, appointed, and employed government officials as well as 

candidates for public office.

13. As part of its transparency efforts, APT uses campaign finance disclosure reports 

that are required to be publicly filed with the FEC to educate the public about campaign spending 

and the true sources and scope of candidates’ financial support, thereby enabling the public to fully 

evaluate candidates for public office. APT relies on the accurate and complete reporting of 

campaign finance information to carry out this activity which is central to its organizational 

mission.

14. Further, Americans for Public Trust files administrative complaints with the FEC 

requesting that enforcement actions be taken against individuals and organizations that violate 

federal campaign finance law. Americans for Public Trust uses its analysis of publicly reported 

federal campaign finance information to support its activities before the FEC.

15. When public disclosure reports that are required to be filed with the FEC are 

incomplete, inadequate, or inaccurate (or, worse, never filed), it obstructs APT’s ability to carry 

out these activities in furtherance of its organizational mission. When APT is forced to file an 

administrative complaint to rectify such a situation, the organization is required to divert 

organizational resources and funds from other important operations.

16. Defendant FEC is an independent federal agency charged with the administration 

and civil enforcement of FECA. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(b).

STATEMENT OF LAW

17. FECA defines the term “contribution” to include “any gift, subscription, loan, 

advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 4 of 26
5

influencing any election for Federal office[.]” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added); 11 

C.F.R. § 100.52.

18. “Anything of value” includes “the provision of any goods or services without 

charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services[.]” 

11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1).

19. In-kind contributions are subject to the same source prohibitions and amount 

limitations as ordinary contributions. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A).

20. Corporations, including nonprofit corporations, are also prohibited from making 

contributions to federal candidates, federal political committees, and federal party committees. 52 

U.S.C. § 30118(a).

21. FECA defines the term “political committee” to include “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,” including in-kind contributions. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A).

22. Within ten (10) days of a political committee receiving or expending more than 

$1,000 in a calendar year to influence federal elections, it is required to file a statement of 

organization with the FEC and designate a treasurer. 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a)-(b).

23. Political committees are required to file public disclosure reports with the FEC 

which include details regarding all disbursements made and all contributions received, including 

in-kind contributions. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b); 11 C.F.R. Part 104.

ARGUMENT

24. According to publicly available information, Administrative Respondent Hansjörg 

Wyss is not an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States. In one media 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 5 of 26
6

report, Mr. Wyss claimed that he “carried only a Swiss passport and did not have a U.S. green 

card.” Ex. 1, ¶¶ 12-13. A letter prepared by Mr. Wyss’s attorney confirmed that he was present in

the United States on an E-2 visa and was therefore not a legal permanent resident. Id.

25. Despite his apparent status as a foreign national holding a Swiss passport, Mr. Wyss 

directly contributed nearly $70,000 to federal candidates and political action committees between 

1990 and 2003. Id. ¶ 23. He has contributed even greater sums in recent years to the Administrative 

Respondent nonprofits, which then used some of these contributions to fund electoral advocacy by 

state-based groups with innocuous names. Id. ¶¶ 18-20. This spending has been routed through an 

entity called “The Hub Project” and has not been subject to full public disclosure due to the failure 

of the Administrative Respondents to register with the FEC and report as political committees. Id.

¶ 28.

26. The facts are straightforward: Mr. Wyss contributes tens of millions of dollars to 

two nonprofit organizations that he established, the Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund, 

Inc. Id. ¶ 12. Those entities then transfer the funds contributed by Mr. Wyss to two other nonprofit 

organizations that are not outwardly affiliated with Mr. Wyss, the New Venture Fund and the 

Sixteen Thirty Fund. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Finally, New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund use these 

contributions to fund the political advocacy of “The Hub Project,” which is not a stand-alone entity 

but a trademark registered to the New Venture Fund that operates its own Super PAC, Change 

Now. Id. ¶¶ 18-21. By operating through this network of nonprofits, Mr. Wyss is able to conceal 

his prohibited contributions. By conducting their political spending under a different 

(trademarked) name, the New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund are able to conceal the true 

extent of their political activity and avoid registering as political committees with the FEC, a step 

which would require the public disclosure of their donors.

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 6 of 26
7

27. The Wyss Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Id. ¶ 12.

28. The Berger Action Fund, Inc. is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Id.

29. According to public filings, Administrative Respondents the Wyss Foundation and 

Berger Action Fund, Inc. share facilities and staff. Id.

30. The Wyss Foundation, which Mr. Wyss established, started The Hub Project (a 

trademark now registered to Administrative Respondent New Venture Fund) in 2015. Id. ¶ 14.

31. According to public reporting, the Wyss Foundation also contributed 

approximately $56.5 million to New Venture Fund between 2007 and 2020. Id. ¶ 18.

32. The New Venture Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Id. “The Hub Project” 

is not a separate organization, but a trademark registered to the New Venture Fund. Id.

33. The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Id.

34. Both the New Venture Fund (and, by extension, its registered trademark “The Hub 

Project”) and the Sixteen Thirty Fund are part of the Arabella Advisors network of managed 

nonprofits. Id.

35. According to The Hub Project’s original 2015 business plan, it was intended to be 

“solely funded by the Wyss Foundation at the outset” to work discreetly to “dramatically shift the 

public debate and policy positions of core decision makers.” Id. ¶ 16. The plan further explained 

that The Hub Project was “not intended to be the public face of campaigns.” Id.

36. Charitable nonprofits exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of 

the Internal Revenue Code, such as the Wyss Foundation and the New Venture Fund (and, by 

extension, the Hub Project) are prohibited from “participat[ing] in, or interven[ing] in . . . any 

political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. § 

501(c)(3). Nevertheless, Administrative Respondents have funded or organized political activity 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 7 of 26
8

in express opposition to identified federal candidates without ever registering as political 

committees with the FEC.

37. The New Venture Fund’s Hub Project (which was started by the Wyss Foundation) 

has been extremely active in federal politics in recent years, spending “nearly $30 million” in 2017 

and 2018 “pressuring members of Congress in their districts.” Ex. 1, ¶¶ 12, 14-15. In addition to 

funding advertising campaigns that criticized Republican elected officials by name, The Hub 

Project also started a podcast criticizing conservative policies. Id. ¶ 15.

38. Arkadi Gerney, Executive Director of the Hub Project, has confirmed that the Hub 

Project “controls the money flowing from the Sixteen Thirty Fund into the state-level groups” that 

ran advertising targeting Republican elected officials. Id. ¶ 18. In addition, Mr. Gerney also 

acknowledged that the Hub Project “controls a super PAC of its own, Change Now,” which funded 

political advertising in 2018 targeting Republican elected officials. Id. ¶ 21.

39. The activities described above and in APT’s Administrative Complaint highlight 

several issues pertaining to the unreported political activity of the Administrative Respondents. 

Mr. Wyss is a foreign national and is prohibited from directly or indirectly making contributions 

or expenditures in federal elections. Nevertheless, Mr. Wyss’s two nonprofit organizations, the 

Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund, contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Sixteen 

Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund between 2016 and 2020 to enable them to, among other 

activities, operate The Hub Project, a group that has engaged in substantial political activity 

targeting Republican candidates. Id. ¶ 31. In order to conceal these foreign national contributions, 

Mr. Wyss routed his contributions through a network of “dark money” nonprofits that do not 

disclose their donors.

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 8 of 26
9

40. If the Administrative Respondent nonprofits have accepted contributions from Mr. 

Wyss or made expenditures for the purpose of influencing federal elections, then they have also 

violated federal law. Neither the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, nor the New Venture 

Fund have filed a statement of organization as a political committee with the FEC. Id. ¶ 28.1

Despite its failure to register with the FEC or report its political contributions and expenditures, 

the New Venture Fund has accepted at least $56.5 million from the Wyss Foundation (and, by 

extension, from Mr. Wyss, who has funded the Foundation). Id. ¶ 29. Mr. Wyss’s other nonprofit, 

the Berger Action Fund, has made separate contributions of $135 million to the Sixteen Thirty 

Fund, which has also been made available for spending by the Hub Project. Id.

41. Based upon the public reporting described above, Mr. Wyss—a foreign national—

has served as the primary funder for two nonprofit organizations, the Wyss Foundation and the 

Berger Action Fund, which have subsequently contributed tens of millions of dollars in funding to 

the New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund. New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund have 

put those contributions to use operating the Hub Project, which has run advertising directly

targeting federal candidates across the country and even operates its own Super PAC. Therefore, 

it appears that Mr. Wyss has made unlawful political contributions and that the Administrative 

Respondent nonprofits have failed to register and report with the FEC as political committees as 

required by federal law. Concluding that there existed sufficient evidence based upon the foregoing 

to justify a FEC investigation into the relationships between Administrative Respondents, APT 

filed an Administrative Complaint.

1 The Sixteen Thirty Fund has also filed no statement of organization, although several registered federal political 

committees identify themselves as “A Project of Sixteen Thirty Fund.” See Fed. Election Comm’n, Candidate and 

Committee Profiles, https://www.fec.gov/data/search/?search=sixteen+thirty+fund.

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 9 of 26
10

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

42. On May 14, 2021, Americans for Public Trust, through its Executive Director, 

Caitlin Sutherland, filed an administrative complaint with the FEC against Hansjörg Wyss, the 

Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, the New Venture Fund (including its trademark “The 

Hub Project”), and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, alleging violations of FECA pertaining to source 

prohibitions, conduit prohibitions, and political committee registration and reporting requirements

set forth at 52 U.S.C. §§ 30121, 30122, 30103, and 30104 and corresponding FEC regulations. See

Ex. 1.

43. By letter dated May 18, 2021, the FEC acknowledged receipt of the administrative 

complaint filed by APT. The matter was designated by the FEC as MUR 7904. See Ex. 2.

44. Upon information and belief, the FEC has failed to act on APT’s Administrative 

Complaint against the Administrative Respondents, which has been pending now for more than 

120 days. This unreasonable delay has harmed Plaintiff because it has deprived it, as well as the 

public, of full disclosure concerning Mr. Wyss’s political contributions, the nature of the ongoing 

relationship between the Administrative Respondents, and the unreported political activity of the 

Administrative Respondent nonprofits. This is information to which APT is legally entitled under 

FECA, and information that is central to APT’s mission of informing the public about campaign 

spending and the true sources and scope of candidates’ financial support.

CAUSE OF ACTION 

FECA, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A)

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 – 44 as if fully stated herein.

46. As detailed above, Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint established reason to 

believe that (1) Hansjörg Wyss violated 52 U.S.C. § 30121 by making contributions as a foreign 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 10 of 26
11

national for the purpose of influencing federal elections; (2) Hansjörg Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, 

and the Berger Action Fund violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by concealing Mr. Wyss’s unlawful 

contributions through the use of conduit entities; (3) the New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty 

Fund violated 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a) by failing to register with the FEC as political committees 

after accepting more than $1,000 in contributions and making more than $1,000 in expenditures 

to influence federal elections; and (4) the New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund violated 52 

U.S.C. § 30104 by failing to report contributions and expenditures made for the purpose of 

influencing federal elections. Ex. 1, ¶¶ 12-21.

47. The FEC’s failure to act on APT’s Administrative Complaint is contrary to law 

under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), which provides that “[a]ny party aggrieved ... by a failure of 

the Commission to act on such complaint during the 120-day period beginning on the date the 

complaint is filed, may file a petition with the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia.”

48. More than 120 days have passed since the filing of the Administrative Complaint. 

49. APT seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to compel the FEC to take action on 

APT’s Administrative Complaint alleging violations of FECA and corresponding FEC regulations 

governing contribution source prohibitions, conduit prohibitions, and political committee 

registration and reporting provisions.

50. Due to the illegal inaction by the FEC, APT is being deprived of full disclosure of 

the activities undertaken by the Administrative Respondents and other information regarding the 

nature of the ongoing relationships among the Administrative Respondents. APT is entitled to this 

information under FECA and will use it to further its organizational mission to inform the public 

about the sources and nature of federal candidates’ financial support. 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 11 of 26
12

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:

(1) Declare that the FEC’s failure to act on APT’s Administrative Complaint is contrary to law

under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A);

(2) Order the FEC to conform with such declaration within 30 days pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §

30109(a)(8)(C);

(3) Award APT its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and

(4) Grant such other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Date: April 25, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Jason Torchinsky

Jason Torchinsky (D.C. Bar No. 976033) 

jtorchinsky@holtzmanvogel.com 

Jonathan P. Lienhard (D.C. Bar No. 474253) 

jlienhard@holtzmanvogel.com 

HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN TORCHINSKY 

JOSEFIAK PLLC

15405 John Marshall Highway 

Haymarket, VA 20169 

Tel: (540) 341-8808 

Fax: (540) 341-8809 

Counsel for Plaintiff Americans for Public Trust 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 12 of 26
13

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Plaintiff Americans for Public Trust certifies, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

7.1, that:

1. Americans for Public Trust is a Virginia nonstock corporation that has no parent

corporation.

2. No publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of Americans for Public

Trust’s stock.

/s/Jason Torchinsky

Jason Torchinsky

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 13 of 26
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing complaint will be served as soon as the summons is available 

on the following persons by certified mail, return receipt requested, and that a courtesy copy will 

be emailed to Kevin Deeley, FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Litigation, at kdeeley@fec.gov:

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

And

Attorney General of the United States Merrick Garland

c/o Assistant Attorney General for Administration

Justice Management Division

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Room 1111

Washington, D.C. 20530

And

Matthew M. Graves

United States Attorney for the District of Columbia

Civil Process Clerk

555 4th St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

/s/Jason Torchinsky

Jason Torchinsky

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 14 of 26
15

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 15 of 26
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA 

In the Matter of: 

Hansjorg Wyss 

Wyss Foundation 

Berger Action Fund 

New Venture Fund 

(including its trademark "Hub Project") 

Sixteen Thirty Fund 

MURNo. 

COMPLAINT 

1. ~ompl~~t ~rings ~s coi:nplaint before the Federal Election Commission ("FEC" or 

Comrrussion ) see~g an unmediate investigation and enforcement action against Hansjorg 

W~ss, Wyss Foundation, New Venture Fund (including its trademark "Hub Project"), Sixteen 

Thirty Fund, and Berger Action Fund for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

("PECA" or "Act''). 

2. This complaint is filed pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(l) and is based on information 

providing reason to believe that: 

3. Mr. Wyss indirectly funded federal electoral advocacy through his nonprofit organizations, 

the Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund. The intended recipient of these funds was 

ultimately a variety of organizations whose primary purpose is to engage in electoral 

advocacy, including Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund, the Hub Project, Change Now, 

and affiliated groups. 

4. Mr. Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty 

Fund, and the Hub Project failed to ensure that contributions were not made in violation of 

52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20; 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4. 

5. Mr. Wyss apparently made illegal direct federal campaign contributions during and before 

2003 before recent information casting doubt on his citizenship came to light in violation of 

52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20. Since that time, he has made indirect contributions 

and expenditures by means of an intricate network of organizations in a scheme to obscure 

his role as the source of these funds. 

6. Mr. Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty 

Fund, and the Hub Project failed to file as a political committee in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 

30103(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.l(d); 

7. Mr. Wyss, the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund,_ Ne~ Venture Fund~ Sixteen Thirty 

Fund, and the Hub Project failed to properly report contnbuttons and expenditures as 

required pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3; 

STATEMENT OF THE LAW 

8. The law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributtF.oRns§to11pOo2liOticfualrthcommitt~~it 

whether directly or indirectly. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C. • • er pro 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 16 of 26
foreign nationals from providing any substantial assistance in making any expenditure or 

independent expenditure or participating in any decision making. Expenditures and 

contributions made in the name of another are prohibited by 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R 

§ 110.4. 

9. 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.1 (d) require political committees to file a Statement 

of Organization no later than ten days after becoming a political committee. 

10. 11 C.F.R. § 100.S(a) defines a political committee as any committee, club, association, or 

other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1 ,000 or which 

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

11 . Pursuant to 52 U .S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3, a political committee is required to file a 

report containing all receipts and expenditures, including the itemization of each. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

12. Hansjorg Wyss is a Swiss billionaire who donates to a variety of causes and organizations 

through an established foundation, the Wyss Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, and the 

Berger Action Fund, a 501 (c)(4) organization, which shares facilities and staff with the Wyss 

Foundation. 1 "At the center of the effort is an opaquely named Democratic organization, the 

Hub Project, which is on track to spend nearly $30 million since 2017, pressuring members of 

Congress in their districts. The great bulk of its funding has come from so-called dark money 

- funds from donors who are not legally required to reveal their names." 2 

13. Mr. Wyss is a Swiss-born resident in the United States and when asked about his residency 

and citizenship status has stated that he "carried only a Swiss passport and did not have a U.S. 

green card."3 His attorney confirmed that "HJW is lawfully in the U.S. pursuant to an 'E2VISA' and 'is not a permanent resident of the US under a 'green card.'"4 

14. Mr. Wyss, through his foundation, started the Hub Project in 2015, "for groups backing 

Democrats and their causes .. . [i]t created more than a dozen groups with anodyne-sounding 

names that planned to spend $30 million attacking Republican congressional candidates 

before the 2018 election.''

5 As explained in paragraph 18, the Hub Project is a trademark of 

New Venture Fund. 

15. The Hub Project is intended to " shape media coverage to help Democratic causes" through 

organizing advertising campaigns criticizing Republican congressional candidates and 

organizing marches that demanded the release of President Trump's tax returns in 2017. 

Additionally, the Hub Project hosts a podcast, "Made to Fail" which criticizes conservative 

policies.6 

16. According to the Hub Project's business plan, prepared for the Wyss Foundation in 2015, it 

"recommended that the group 'be solely funded by the Wyss Foundation at the outset' and 

that it would work behind the scenes to 'dramatically shift the public debate and policy 

1 Kenneth P. Vogel, S1J1iJS Billionaire Quiet!)• Becomes Influential Force Among Democrats, The New York Times (May 3, 2021). 

2 Alexander Burns, With SJ0 Million, O/,scm~ Democratic Gro11p Floods the Zone in Ho11se Races, New York Times (Oct. 31, 2018). 

J Kenneth P. Vogel and Katie Robertson, Top Bidder for Trib11ne Ne/Jlspapen ls an Influential I.ibm,J Donor, The New York Times (Apr. 13, 2021 ). 

• Richard Pollock, "Foreign Clinton Donor Made Donations To US Campaigns," The Daily Caller, (Feb. 28, 2016). 

5 Vogel and Robertson, supra note 3.; Vogel, s11pra note I. 

6 Vogel and Robertson, supra note 3. 

2 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 17 of 26
positions of core decision makers."' The plan added that The Hub Project "is not intended to 

be the public face of campaigns."7 

17. Currently, the Hub Project employs 60 staffers, including political organizers, researchers, and 

communications specialists.8 It is run by former Obama officiai Leslie Dach, and Arkadi 

Gerney, a former political strategist for Center for American Progress. 9 

18. The Hub Project is not a stand-alone entity but a registered trademark of the New Venture 

Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization.10 Since 2007, the Wyss Foundation has given approximately 

$56.5 million to New Venture Fund. 11 The Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization 

and both are part of the Arabella Advisors managed nonprofits. 12 Additionally, "Mr. Gerney 

confirmed that the Hub Project controls the money flowing from the Sixteen Thirty Fund 

into the state-level groups, but the larger nonprofit does not have to disclose its funding 

sources."13 

19. The Berger Action Fund gave over $135 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund between 2016 

and 2020. The Sixteen Thirty Fund is considered to be "among the leading dark money 

spenders on the left" including a vast array of organizations engaged in electoral advocacy as 

their primary purpose. 14 Contributions from the Sixteen Thirty Fund were used to fund 

political activities of the state affiliates under the Hub Project. 15 

20. Mr. Arkadi described the Hub Project's operation as "unfolding in stages, first targeting five 

congressional districts in the summer of 2017, then expanding to a map of 19 seats over the 

next 11 months. In some districts, the Hub Project's state affiliates were running paid 

advertising months before other outside groups got involved - and before members of 

Congress mobilized to defend themselves." 16 One of the groups, Not One Penny, ran an 

independent expenditure in opposition to congressional candidate Rick Saccone. Floridians 

for a Fair Shake reported an independent expenditure for $7,541.09 in opposition to Vern 

Buchanan.17 

21. "Mr. Gerney also confirmed that the Hub Project controls a super PAC of its own, Change 

Now, which has been funding advertising this fall against a smaller list of Republican-held 

districts that includes some of the same targets. The group has filed a report with the Federal 

Election Commission showing it received $1.75 million in funding from the League of 

Conservation Voters, the influential environmental group, and several people involved with 

the effort said future reports were expected to show contributions from national labor 

unions."18 In 2018, the group Change Now "emerged as a large spender seemingly out of 

nowhere" and spent $7.9 million for House Democrats. 19 During that election cycle, the 

super PAC spent a total of $752,382 for Democrats and $7,160,047 against Republicans.20 

7 V ogeI and Robertson, supra note 3. 

'Id 

9 The Hub Project~ 

1o United States Patent and Trademark O ffice, Trademarks. The Hub Project 

11 Vogel and Robertson, s11pra note 3. 

12 Arabella Advisors, Fiscal Sponsorship 

B Burns, supra note 2. 

Voge~ supra note 1. 

1s Burns, s11pra note 2. 

16 Jd. 

17 Federal Election Commission, Itemized Independent Expenditures, Sixteen Thirty Fund/Not One Penny, Schedule 5-E Report: Federal Election 

Commission, Itemized Independent Expenditures, Sixteen Thirty Fund/Floridians for a Fair Shake, Schedule 5-E Report. 18 Burns, fllpra note 2. 

19 Karl Evers-Hillstrom, 'Dark 111o"eJ' 'gro,,ps fmmeltd millio"s lo po,ve,ful s11ptr PA Cs d,,,i"g 2018 midterms," Center for Responsjye Politics (Ian. 3, 2019). 

20 Center for Responsive Politics, Open Secrets, Change Now PAC. Independent Expenditures 

l 

3 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 18 of 26
CAUSES OF ACTION 

AGAINST RESPONDENTS MR. WYSS, WYSS FOUNDATION, BERGER ACTION 

FUND, NEW VENTURE FUND (INCLUDING ITS TRADEMARK "HUB PROJECT"), 

AND SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND 

Prohibited Contributions in Violation of the Foreign National Ban 52 U.S.C. § 30U1 

and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20; Prohibited Conduit Contributions 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 

C.F.R. § 110.4 

22. Foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures direct/y or indirect/y. 

Commissioner Weintraub made it abundantly clear in her draft interpretive rule that, "Indeed, 

the Commission has recognized the 'broad scope' of the foreign national contribution 

prohibition and found that even where the value of a good or service 'may be nominal or 

difficult to ascertain,' such contributions are nevertheless banned." 21 

23. Mr. Wyss publicly stated that he does not possess a U.S. green card, making him a lawful 

permanent resident, but still maintains his Swiss passport.22 His attorney verified that Mr. 

Wyss is in the country on an E-2VISA.23 As a foreign national, Mr. Wyss is strictly prohibited 

from making direct contributions to political committees; yet, from 1990 to 2003, Mr. Wyss 

made direct contributions to federal candidates totaling nearly $70,000. 24 Since that time, Mr. 

Wyss' contributions have not decreased, but rather he continues to make sizeable 

contributions indirectly. By giving over $190 million to Arabella Advisor's New Venture Fund 

and Sixteen Thirty Fund to operate the Hub Project, its super PAC, Change Now, and the 

affiliated trade groups, Mr. Wyss has obscured his connection to these contributions. 25 Mr. 

Wyss has also given to various other Democratic supporting groups and causes, including $1 

million from the Berger Action Fund to former Attorney General Eric Holder's effort to flip 

statehouses to benefit congressional Democrats in state redistricting efforts. 26 

24. However, the most glaring crack in the armor of this elaborate scheme to utilize a foreign 

national's funds to indirectly make contributions and expenditures is the admission by Hub 

Project Executive Director, Arkadi Gerney " that the Hub Project controls a super PAC of its 

own, Change Now'' to run advertisements against Republicans."27 

25. Further, foreign nationals are prohibited from providing any substantial assistance in making 

any expenditure or independent expenditure or participating in any decision-making regarding 

election related activities. 28 However, Mr. Wyss and his foundations "created a sophisticated 

political operation to advance progressive policy initiatives and the Democrats who support 

them" in setting up the Hub Project as a conduit to influence the 2018 congressional races.29 

The elaborate structure of Mr. Wyss' contributions demonstrates a scheme to conceal the true 

source of these funds and the evade the prohibitions on foreign nationals. 

21 Ellen L Weintraub (@EllenLWeintraub), Lri.tfil (Sept 26, 2019). 

22 Vogd and Robertson, sllj)ra note 3. 

22 Id. 

23 Richard Pollock, supra note 4. 

24 Vogei s11pra note 1 

25 Vogel, s11pra note 1; Vogd and Robertson, s11pra note 3. 

26 Melissa Klein, Swiss Billionaire Um His Fortune To Help Swtry US Elections, New York Post (May 10, 2021). 

Z7 Burns, sllj)ra note 2. 

28 11 C.F.R. § 110.20. 

29 Vogel and Robertson, 111pra note 3. 

4 

l Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 19 of 26
26. Federal law is clear that contributions made in the name of another are strictly prohibited.30 

The Hub Project has served as a vehicle for the political spending of Mr. Wyss. This is 

demonstrated by the fact that Mr. Wyss has not publicly disclosed his role in founding the 

Hub Project. Neither his influence nor his financial support can be found anywhere on the 

group's website. Rather, information regarding his involvement with the Hub Project was the 

result of "interviews with five people with knowledge of The Hub Project, an internal memo 

from another liberal group that was obtained by The New York Times."31 

27. Mr. Wyss did not establish the Hub Project through one of his two foundations; rather he 

structured the project to be overseen by another entity, the New Venture Fund, which 

received $56.5 million from the Wyss Foundation with additional funds of $135 million made 

available through the Berger Action Fund to the Sixteen Thirty Fund.32 This financial 

arrangement enabled Mr. Wyss to avoid any connection with the sizeable election activities 

carried out by the Hub Project and Change Now. 33 Merely because the scheme developed by 

Mr. Wyss has made his contributions difficult to ascertain does not mean that they should be 

free from being treated as though they were made directly. 

Failing to Register with the FEC as Required by 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 

102.1(d) 

28. Neither the Wyss Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, nor New Venture Fund (and its 

trademark "Hub Project") have filed a statement of organization with the FEC. Any 

organization which receives contributions in excess of $1,000 or makes expenditures 

exceeding $1,000 in a calendar year is considered a political committee for the major purpose 

of influencing elections.34 

29. In 2015, Mr. Wyss set up the Hub Project to operate under the New Venture Fund for the 

purpose of helping Democratic causes.35 Since 2007, the Wyss Foundation has contributed at 

least $56.5 million to the nonprofit housing the Hub Project.36 Additionally, Mr. Wyss made 

contributions of $135 million from his (c)(4) organization, Berger Action Fund, to the Sixteen 

Thirty Fund, made available for spending by the Hub Project.37 

30. To achieve the Hub Project's purpose of helping Democratic causes, the group oversaw a $30 

million spending campaign in the 2018 congressional cycle to support Democrats and oppose 

Republicans in congressional races across the country through its affiliated trade groups and 

through its super PAC, Change Now, thereby triggering classification as a political 

committee.38 The law makes clear that a political committee must register with the FEC 

within ten days of meeting the requirements of this classification.39 Operating since 2015 

without the requisite FEC filing, the Hub Project has been immune to any oversight and 

accountability despite significant spending in federal elections. 

Failing to Properly File Reports and Disclosing Contributions and Expenditures in 

Violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3 

lli 52 U.S.C. § 30122; 11 C.F.R. § 110.4. 

JI Vogel and Robertson, s11pra note 3. 

J2 Vogel, s11pra note 1; Vogel and Robertson, mpra note 3. 

JJ Vogel, s11pra note 1; Vogel and Robertson, mpra note 3; Bums, s11pra note 2. 

3411 C.F.R. § 100.S(a); Bucklev v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 80 (1976). 

JS Vogel and Robertson, s11pra note 3. 

J6 Vogel and Robertson, mpra note 3. 

l 7 Vogel, mpra note I; Vogel and Robertson, mpra note 3. 

l 8 11 C.F.R. § 100.S(a); Vogel, s11pra note I. 39 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a); 11 C.T'.R. § 102.l(d). 

5 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 20 of 26
31. As a political committee, the Hub Project would be subject to reporting requirements under 

FECA.40 The Hub Project is a beneficiary of over $190 million dollars from its financial 

backer, Mr. Wyss, contributed through the Wyss Foundation and the Berger Action Fund to 

Arabella Advisors' network of nonprofits. 41 Despite these significant contributions and 

potentially other sizeable contributions, the Hub Project has failed to properly file the source 

of the contributions.42 

32. With these contributions, the group oversaw political spending, including at least two known 

independent expenditures against Republican congressional candidates and operated Change 

Now, a super PAC that spent $7.9 million supporting Democrats and opposing 

Republicans.43 According to the executive director, Arkadi Gerney, the expenditures were 

coordinated to target five congressional districts in 2017 followed by expanding efforts to 

target 19 congressional districts.

44 The Hub Project exerts significant and coordinated 

influence into elections around the country but fails to provide any transparency in doing so.

45 

Yet, other registered entities with the FEC, influencing the very same districts, are required to 

adhere to the reporting requirements under FECA.

46 The absence of properly filed reports 

removes necessary safeguards and fails to give an accurate picture of the extent of their 

influence. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

33. Wherefore, the Commission should find reason to believe that Mr. Wyss, the Wyss 

Foundation, the Berger Action Fund, New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, and the Hub 

Project have violated fundamental compliance and transparency rules with prohibited 

contributions by a foreign national pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20, 

prohibited conduit contributions under 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R § 110.4, failing to 

register with the FEC pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30103(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.l(d), and failing 

to report contributions and expenditures required by 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R § 

104.3. The Commission should conduct an immediate investigation under 52 U.S.C. § 

30109(a)(2) and determine and impose appropriate sanctions for any and all violations. 

Further, the Commission should enjoin respondent from any future violations, and impose 

any necessary and appropriate remedies to ensure respondent future compliance with PECA. 

May 14, 2021 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Caitlin Sutherland, Executive Director 

Americans for Public Trust 

107 South West Street, Suite 442 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

40 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3. 

41 Vogel and Robertson, supra note 3; Vogel, s11pra note I. 42 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3. 

43 Federal Election Commission, Itemized Independent Expendirures, Sixteen Thirty Fund/Not O ne Penny, Schedule 5-E Report: Federal Election 

Commission, Itemized Independent Expendirures, Sixteen Thirty Fund /Floridians for a Fair Shake, Schedule 5-E Report.; Karl Evers-Hillstrom, supra 

note 12. 

44 Burns, supra note 2. 

45 Vogel, supra note 1. 

46 52 U.S.C. § 30104 and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3. 

6 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 21 of 26
VERIFICATION 

34. The complainants listed below hereby verify that the statements made in the attached 

Complaint are, upon their information and belief, true. 

For Complainant "Americans for Public Trust" 

c~1=J~-

City of Arlington 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Caitlin Sutherland 

The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of May 2021 by 

Caitlin Sutherland. 

Notary registration number: 'i'f?09 S--5/~ 

My commission expires, 5/3 '/ 2 0 !;/ '.:1c= 

,,, ,,, ti I II f I I I l t/11, 

,,,,, oN A S4t1 ,,,,, 

,,,' :-1_\; ••••••••••• ".iS- ,,, ••• •·· ··• ••. <.P.~~ 

§ 0 .. •• NOTARY \ ',p : PUBLIC •• -:. : : REG. #7809548 : ':. 

,._ : MY COMMISSLON E § ~O \ EXPIRES : ,-.. :: 

•• •• 65/31/2022 ..... Ji 

-;.,,~ ·•... ..•· ,,Q~•········· ,, ·· N'~ 

,,,,,,, AL TI-\ 0 ,,,,,,, 

,,,,,, .. ""'''' 

7 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 22 of 26
16

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 23 of 26
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

RE: MUR 7904

May 18, 2021

VIA EMAIL

csutherland@americansforpublictrust.org

Caitlin Sutherland

Americans for Public Trust

107 South West Street, Suite 442

Alexandria, VA 22314

Dear Ms. Sutherland: 

This letter acknowledges receipt of your complaint on May 14, 2021, alleging possible violations of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. The respondents will be notified of this complaint within 

five business days. 

You will be notified as soon as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) takes final action on your 

complaint. Should you receive any additional information in this matter, please forward it to the Office of the 

General Counsel. Such information must be notarized and sworn to in the same manner as the original 

complaint. We have numbered this matter MUR 7904. Please refer to this number in all future 

communications. For your information, we have attached a brief description of the Commission's procedures 

for handling complaints. 

Please note that you still must file the paper copy of the electronic complaint with the Commission, 

within 15 days of this letter, in order for the matter to be further processed as a proper complaint. Any 

additional correspondence sent to the Commission must be addressed to one of the following below. As 

indicated in the FEC’s Notice found at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/status_of_fec_operations_8-10-2020.pdf, the office’s mailroom is open on a limited basis 

and, therefore, processing paper correspondence may be delayed. Accordingly, we strongly encourage you to 

file via email, except amendments to your complaint, which should be filed by paper even if email 

correspondence is used.

Mail OR Email

Federal Election Commission cela@fec.gov

Office of Complaints Examination 

 & Legal Administration

Attn: Kathryn Ross, Paralegal

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20463

Sincerely,

Jeff S. Jordan

Assistant General Counsel

Complaints Examination &

Legal Administration

Enclosure:

Procedures

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 24 of 26
DESCRIPTION OF PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES 

FOR PROCESSING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 First Street, NE 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

EMAIL cela@fec.gov FAX (202) 219-3923 

Complaints filed with the Federal Election Commission shall be referred to the 

Enforcement Division of the Office of the General Counsel, where they are assigned a MUR 

(Matter Under Review) number and forwarded to Complaints Examination & Legal 

Administration ("CELA") for processing. Within five days of receipt of the complaint, the 

Commission shall notify all respondents referenced in the complaint, in writing, that the complaint 

has been filed, and shall include with such notification a copy of the complaint. Simultaneously, 

the complainant shall be notified that the complaint has been received. The respondents shall then 

have 15 days to demonstrate, in writing, that no action should be taken against them in response to 

the complaint. If additional time is needed in which to respond to the complaint, the respondents 

may request an extension of time. The request must be in writing and demonstrate good cause as 

to why an extension should be granted. Please be advised that not all requests are granted. 

After the response period has elapsed, cases are prioritized and maintained in CELA. 

Cases warranting the use of Commission resources are assigned as staff becomes available. Cases 

not warranting the use of Commission resources are dismissed. 

If a case is assigned to a staff person, the Office of the General Counsel shall report to the 

Commission, making recommendations based upon a preliminary legal and factual analysis of the 

complaint and any submission made by the respondent. The report may recommend that the 

Commission: (a) find reason to believe that the complaint sets forth a possible violation of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, (hereinafter the “Act"); or (b) find no reason 

to believe that the complaint sets forth a possible violation of the Act and, accordingly, close the 

file.

 If, by an affirmative vote of four Commissioners, the Commission determines that there is 

reason to believe that a respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of the Act, the 

Office of the General Counsel shall open an investigation into the matter. During the 

investigation, the Commission has the power to subpoena documents, to subpoena individuals to 

appear for deposition, and to order written answers to interrogatories. A respondent may be 

contacted more than once by the Commission during this phase. 

 If during this period of investigation, a respondent indicates a desire to enter into 

conciliation, the Office of the General Counsel may recommend that the Commission enter into 

conciliation prior to a finding of probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed. 

Conciliation is an attempt to correct or prevent a violation of the Act by informal methods of 

conference and persuasion. Most often, the result of conciliation is an agreement signed by the 

Commission and the respondent. The Conciliation Agreement must be adopted by four votes of 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 25 of 26
2

the Commission in order to become final. After signature by the Commission and the respondent, 

the Conciliation Agreement is made public within 30 days of closing of the entire file.

 If the investigation warrants, and no conciliation agreement has been entered into prior to a 

probable cause to believe finding, the General Counsel must notify the respondent of his/her intent 

to recommend that the Commission proceed to a vote on probable cause to believe that a violation 

of the Act has been committed or is about to be committed. The General Counsel shall send the 

respondent a brief setting forth his/her position on the legal and factual issues of the case. A 

response brief stating respondent’s position on the issues may be submitted within 15 days of 

receipt of the General Counsel’s Brief. Both briefs are then filed with the Commission Secretary 

and considered by the Commission. Thereafter, if the Commission determines, by an affirmative 

vote of four Commissioners, that there is probable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has 

been committed or is about to be committed, the Commission must conciliate with the respondent 

for a period of at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days. If the Commission is unable to correct 

or prevent any violation through conciliation, the Office of the General Counsel may recommend 

that the Commission file a civil suit to enforce the Act against the respondent. Therefore, the 

Commission may, upon the affirmative vote of four Commissioners, institute civil action for relief 

in the United States District Court.

See 52 U.S.C. § 30109 and 11 C.F.R. Part 111. 

March 2018 

Case 1:22-cv-01126 Document 1 Filed 04/25/22 Page 26 of 26