IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 20-cv-01778-RCL 

PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF STATEMENT OF INTEREST 

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

As permitted by the Court’s December 21, 2020 Order ( ECF No. 19), Plaintiff Campaign 

Legal Center (“CLC”) respectfully submits this sur-reply to the Reply in Support of the Statement 

of Interest of the United States of America (ECF No. 20). In its Reply, the Department of Justice 

(“DOJ”) declines to address whether the recent restoration of the Federal Election Commission’s 

quorum should affect the default judgment in this case, responding only that it “would defer to the 

arguments and positions taken by the Commission” should the agency “seek to appear in this case.” 

Reply at 1. Instead, DOJ’s Reply purports to advance DOJ’s challenge to Plaintiff’s standing by 

continuing to dismiss controlling Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit decisions while 

mischaracterizing the nature of Plaintiff’s legal claims. 

DOJ has failed to establish any basis for this Court to question Plaintiff’s standing, and has 

not even attempted to identify any reason why the recent restoration of the FEC’s quorum warrants 

alteration of this Court’s default judgment award. It does not. The Court has already recognized 

that the FEC’s lack of quorum on the date by which its answer was due did not preclude the agency 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 21 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 5
2 

from acting on the underlying administrative complaint—or authorizing its General Counsel to 

defend this case—when it had a quorum. The default judgment should stand. 

ARGUMENT 

I. RESTORATION OF THE FEC’S QUORUM DOES NOT ALTER OR JUSTIFY 

ITS DEFAULT IN THIS CASE. 

As this Court’s recent Order observes, the FEC’s quorum was recently restored. ECF No. 

19. That development indicates that the FEC is statutorily capable of complying with this Court’s 

default judgment Order (ECF No. 14), in which the Court “ORDERED that, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(C), Defendant conform to this Court’s Order within ninety days by acting on the 

plaintiff’s administrative complaint.” Order at 2 (ECF No. 14). But the restoration of the FEC’s 

quorum now does not change the fact that the FEC defaulted when it failed to timely answer or 

otherwise appear in this case. As Plaintiff explained in its Response to DOJ’s Statement (ECF No. 

18), and as this Court recognized in its Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, 

Order at 1 n.1 (ECF No. 14), the FEC’s lack of quorum on the date by which its answer was due

did not preclude the agency from acting on the underlying administrative complaint—or 

authorizing its General Counsel to defend this case—when it had a quorum. As this Court 

previously recognized, the FEC “had a quorum during the pendency of MUR 7674 from May 19, 

2020 to July 3, 2020,” Order at 1 n.1 (ECF No. 14), and thus, during that time period, the FEC 

could have acted on the complaint and authorized its Office of General Counsel to appear and 

defend this case. The recent restoration of the FEC’s quorum changes none of these facts. 

II. PLAINTIFF’S STANDING TO SUE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS WELL 

SETTLED 

DOJ’s Reply (ECF No. 20) continues to press its baseless challenge to Plaintiff’s standing. 

But as Plaintiff previously explained, the law is well settled that “a plaintiff suffers an ‘injury in 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 21 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 5
3 

fact’ when the plaintiff fails to obtain information which must be publicly disclosed pursuant to a 

statute.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998). Here, plaintiff’s administrative complaint alleges 

that Iowa Values, a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organization whose “mission” was to help reelect U.S. 

Senator Joni Ernst, violated FECA by failing to register as a political committee and file reports 

disclosing its contributors, expenditures, and debts. In circumstances like these, 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,” the Supreme Court has found “a genuine ‘injury in fact.’” Id. Indeed, the denial 

of access to information FECA requires to be disclosed is “injury of a kind that FECA seeks to 

address.” Id. at 20; see also Campaign Legal Center v. FEC, 952 F.3d 352, 354 (D.C. Cir. 2020) 

(“As the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, the electorate has an interest in knowing ‘where 

political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate.’” (quoting Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 66 (1976) (per curiam); citing McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 223 (2014))). 

DOJ appears to concede that this denial of access to information about Iowa Values’s 

contributors, expenditures, and debts would provide CLC with standing if the FEC eventually acts 

on and dismisses CLC’s administrative complaint. See Reply at 4 (citing Akins and Campaign 

Legal Center). DOJ’s conflicting assertion, see id., that “CLC has not been denied any 

information” is thus wrong on its face. CLC has already been harmed by the denial of access to 

that information, as a result of Iowa Values’s unlawful failure to disclose it. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 2-

3, 8-12. The FEC’s failure to act on Plaintiff’s administrative complaint compounds that harm, by 

perpetuating the denial of Plaintiff’s access to that information, including during the run-up to 

Senator Ernst’s recent election. DOJ’s view that CLC may be harmed by Iowa Values’s failure to 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 21 Filed 01/12/21 Page 3 of 5
4 

disclose information required by law only if and when the Commission dismisses CLC’s 

administrative complaint, but not “while the Commission considers the administrative complaint,” 

Reply at 3, makes no sense. 

Moreover, under DOJ’s cramped view of the law, it appear that no party would ever have 

standing to challenge FEC delay. See Reply at 3 (challenging Plaintiff’s standing based on the fact 

that CLC lacks foresight of “how the Commission will ultimately rule”); id. at 4 (arguing that CLC 

lacks standing because “[t]he Commission has not denied or dismissed the administrative 

complaint”). But Congress clearly intended otherwise, having explicitly created a cause of action 

not only where the FEC “dismiss[es] a complaint filed by such party,” but also where a party is 

aggrieved by “a failure of the Commission to act on such complaint.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8).1

Here, Plaintiff was aggrieved by the denial of access to information that FECA required to be 

disclosed more than a year ago, and by the FEC’s failure to take any action regarding Plaintiff’s 

administrative complaint challenging that unlawful failure to disclose. 

Finally, DOJ’s continued reliance on inapposite cases that do not involve alleged violations 

of FECA’s disclosure requirements, see Reply at 2-3, are misguided for all the reasons explained 

in Plaintiff’s response to DOJ’s Statement. See CLC Response to DOJ Statement at 7-8. 

DOJ’s standing arguments lack any basis in law or fact and should be rejected. 

 

1

 DOJ’s novel standing theory could also call into question standing under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, to challenge a government entity’s failure to timely respond to a 

FOIA request. The D.C. Circuit has recognized, however, that a FOIA requestor may file suit 

where a federal agency fails to make and communicate a determination regarding the underlying 

FOIA request within the applicable statutory 20- or 30-day time period. Citizens for Responsibility 

and Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 189-90 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL Document 21 Filed 01/12/21 Page 4 of 5
5 

CONCLUSION 

 The Court’s entry of Default Judgment was proper and should stand. 

Dated: January 12, 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 21 Filed 01/12/21 Page 5 of 5