Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 276 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

CINCINNATI DIVISION 

) 

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL ) 

COMMITTEE, et al., ) 

) Civ. No. 22-639 (DRC) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

 v. ) 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., ) ANSWER 

)

 Defendant. ) 

) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

Defendants Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”), and Allen J. 

Dickerson, Dara Lindenbaum, Shana M. Broussard, Sean J. Cooksey, James E. Trainor III, and 

Ellen L. Weintraub, each in their official capacity as a Commissioner of the Federal Election 

Commission, submit this Answer to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by 

plaintiffs National Republican Senatorial Committee (“NRSC”), National Republican 

Congressional Committee (“NRCC”), James David Vance, and Steven Joseph Chabot on 

November 4, 2022.1

 Any allegation not specifically responded to below is DENIED. 

1. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited judicial opinions speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of their 

content, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that 

plaintiffs are the national senatorial and congressional committees of the Republican Party and 

The Commission notes that the Complaint caption names Commissioner Dickerson as 

Chair and Commissioner Lindenbaum as Vice Chair. Those titles were correct at the time the 

Complaint was filed. Currently, Commissioner Lindenbaum serves as Chair and Commissioner 

Cooksey as Vice Chairman. 

1 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 277 

two of their 2022 general election nominees, but DENY that federal campaign finance laws 

severely restrict political party committees from associating with and advocating for their own 

candidates for federal office. 

2. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. This paragraph characterizes the U.S. Constitution, statutes, regulations, and judicial 

precedent, which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, DENY that federal campaign finance 

laws abridge the speech of political party committees or severely limit their spending. 

3. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. This paragraph characterizes statutes and regulations, which speak for themselves and 

are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

4. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. This paragraph characterizes a statute, which speaks for itself and is the best evidence 

of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

5. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. This paragraph characterizes statutes and regulations, which speak for themselves and 

are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, DENY that the cited laws and regulations constitute “selective speech 

rationing.” 

6. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal opinions and conclusions, to which no 

response is required. The cited online report speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its 

contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DENY that 

2 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 278 

FECA’s limits on coordinated party expenditures cause “substantial” “harm” to core First 

Amendment-protected activities of political parties and their candidates. 

7. DENY. 

8. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and opinions, to which no 

response is required. The cited judicial opinion speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its 

contents, therefore no response is required. 

9. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions and opinions, to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, DENY that Federal Election 

Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001), was 

wrongly decided or has been undercut by later events, and DENY that the limits on coordinated 

party expenditures are unconstitutional. 

10. Plaintiffs’ description of its allegations in this proceeding requires no response. 

DENY that FECA’s limits on political party coordinated expenditures should be held 

unconstitutional or that plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. 

11. ADMIT that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction, that 

plaintiffs Vance and Chabot are entitled to invoke 52 U.S.C. § 30110 to any extent they possess 

Article III standing for claims that are not moot, and that the Court has personal jurisdiction over 

the Commission. DENY that any “question of the constitutionality of FECA’s coordinated party 

expenditure limits” should be certified to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 

prior to this Court first developing a record for appellate review by making findings of fact and 

determining whether plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges are frivolous or involve settled legal 

questions. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are DENIED. 

3 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 279 

12. Without waiving any potential rights on appeal, ADMIT that this Court has ruled 

that venue is proper in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. 

13. ADMIT that the NRSC is the Republican Party’s senatorial campaign committee 

and that it makes contributions and expenditures to support the Party’s nominees for the U.S. 

Senate. ADMIT that the FEC has determined that a congressional campaign committee like the 

NRSC is a type of national committee under 52 U.S.C. § 30101(14). The Commission is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

14. ADMIT that the NRCC is the Republican Party’s congressional campaign 

committee and that it makes contributions and expenditures to support the Party’s nominees for 

the U.S. House of Representatives. ADMIT that the Commission has determined that a 

congressional campaign committee like the NRCC is a type of national committee under 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(14). The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit 

or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

15. ADMIT that James David (“J.D.”) Vance was the 2022 Republican nominee for 

the U.S. Senate in Ohio, and that coordinated party expenditures were reportedly made on his 

behalf. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

16. ADMIT that when the complaint was filed Steven (“Steve”) Joseph Chabot was 

the sitting U.S. Congressman and the 2022 Republican nominee for the U.S. House of 

Representatives from Ohio’s First Congressional District, and that coordinated party 

expenditures were reportedly made on his behalf. DENY that plaintiff Chabot is currently a 

Member of Congress. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit 

or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

4 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 280 

17. ADMIT. 

18. ADMIT, except that Commissioner Dickerson no longer serves as Chair of the 

Commission. 

19. ADMIT, except that Commissioner Lindenbaum now serves as Chair of the 

Commission. 

20. ADMIT. 

21. ADMIT. The Commission notes that Commissioner Cooksey now serves as Vice 

Chairman of the Commission.

 22. ADMIT. 

23. ADMIT. 

24. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, DENY that plaintiff Chabot is presently suffering 

any injuries in fact and presents any live claims. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the factual allegations in this paragraph. 

25. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited judicial opinion speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

therefore no response is required. 

26. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory provision speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DENY that the 

coordinated party expenditure limits injure plaintiffs. 

27. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory provision speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

5 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 281 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

28. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory provision speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that NRSC 

reported making the maximum permitted direct contribution to candidate Vance in the 2022 

election cycle. 

29. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory and regulatory provisions speak for themselves, and are the best 

evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that NRSC reported making coordinated expenditures in support of candidate 

Vance’s campaign in the 2022 election cycle. According to FEC reports, NRSC received 

spending authorization from the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party, 

and it made a total of $1,991,800 in coordinated party expenditures on behalf of Vance’s general 

election campaign during the 2022 election cycle. With full spending authorization from those 

two entities, NRSC would have been permitted to make coordinated party expenditures up to a 

$2,016,800 maximum combined limit. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

30. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

31. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

6 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 282 

32. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

33. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

34. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory provision speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that NRCC 

reported making the maximum permitted direct contribution to candidate Chabot in the 2022 

election cycle. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

35. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. The cited statutory and regulatory provisions speak for themselves, and are the best 

evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that NRCC reported making coordinated expenditures in support of candidate 

Chabot’s campaign in the 2022 election cycle. According to FEC reports, NRCC received 

spending authorization from the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party, 

and it made a total of $103,000 in coordinated party expenditures on behalf of Chabot’s general 

election campaign during the 2022 election cycle. With full spending authorization from those 

two entities, NRCC would have been permitted to make coordinated party expenditures up to a 

$110,000 maximum combined limit. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

36. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

7 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 283 

37. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

38. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

39. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

40. DENY that plaintiffs are chilled from exercising their First Amendment rights by 

the statute challenged in this case. The Commission is otherwise without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

41. DENY that plaintiffs are experiencing a “chilling effect” because of the statute 

challenged in this case. The Commission is otherwise without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

42. DENY that plaintiff Vance is chilled from exercising his First Amendment rights 

by the statute challenged in this case. The Commission is otherwise without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

43. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

44. DENY that plaintiff Chabot is chilled from exercising his First Amendment rights 

by the statute challenged in this case. The Commission is otherwise without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

45. DENY. 

46. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. 

8 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 284 

47. ADMIT. 

48. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of a statute and a regulation, 

which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. 

49. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of a statute and a regulation, 

which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. 

50. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of a statute and a regulation, 

which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. 

51. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited legal precedent speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

52. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited legal precedent speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

53. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited legal precedent speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

54. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited statute and legal precedent speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of their 

contents, therefore no response is required. 

9 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 285 

55. The cited statute and internet website speak for themselves, and are the best 

evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the base limit on individual contributions to a federal candidate stood at 

$2,900 per election for the 2021–2022 election cycle. The Commission notes that this limit is 

indexed for inflation and the limit for the 2023-2024 election cycle is $3,300. 

56. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and regulation, which speak 

for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

57. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a regulation and judicial opinion, 

which speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, the Commission notes that the referenced 

contribution limit is indexed for inflation and the limit for the 2023-2024 election cycle is 

$3,300. 

58. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and internet website, which 

speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no further response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that during the 2021–2022 election cycle, 

the limit on individual contributions to the general operating accounts of the national party 

committees was $36,500 per year, and that the limit on individual contributions to the general 

operating accounts of any state, district, and local party committee was $10,000 per year. The 

Commission notes that the former contribution limit is indexed for inflation and the limit for the 

2023-2024 election cycle is $41,300. 

59. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. 

10 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 286 

60. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and judicial opinion, which 

speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that during the 2021–2022 election cycle, 

the limit on contributions by a party committee to a federal candidate was $5,000, and a national 

party committee and its Senatorial campaign committee could contribute a combined total of 

$51,200 to each U.S. Senate candidate in 2022. The Commission notes that the latter 

contribution limit is indexed for inflation and the limit for the 2024 election year is $57,800. 

61. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited statute and regulation speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of their contents, 

therefore no response is required. 

62. The cited statute, regulation, and internet website speak for themselves, and are 

the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that in the 2022 election cycle, the coordinated party expenditure limits for 

House nominees were $55,000 in states with more than one representative and $109,900 in states 

with only one representative, and that the limits for Senate nominees ranged from a low of 

$109,900 to a high of $3,348,500, depending on the state’s voting-age population. 

63. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited statute and regulation speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of their contents, 

therefore no response is required. 

64. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and regulation, which speak 

for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

11 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 287 

65. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited statute and regulation speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of their contents, 

therefore no response is required. 

66. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited regulation speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

67. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited statute speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response 

is required. 

68. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and regulation, which speak for themselves 

and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

69. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited judicial opinion and FEC advisory opinion speak for themselves, and are the best 

evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, DENY that all party spending has been presumed coordinated since the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election 

Commission, 518 U.S. 604 (1996). 

70. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

71. The cited judicial opinions speak for themselves, and are the best evidence of 

their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the 

12 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 288 

Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

72. The cited judicial opinion speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

73. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and internet website, which 

speak for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the annual limit on individual 

contributions to each of the referenced party segregated accounts was $109,500 for the 2021-

2022 election cycle. The Commission notes that this contribution limit is indexed for inflation 

and the limit for the 2023-2024 election cycle is $123,900. 

74. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute, which speaks for itself and 

is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

75. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a statute and regulation, which speak 

for themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

76. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited legislative statements and judicial opinion speak for themselves, and are the best 

evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

77. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

78. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

13 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 289 

79. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

80. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

81. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

82. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited law review article and judicial opinion speak for themselves, and are the best evidence 

of their contents, therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, DENY 

that the rationales underlying the majority’s reasoning in Federal Election Commission v. 

Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001), have eroded. The 

Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. DENY the heading that appears immediately above the paragraph. 

83. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

84. This paragraph characterizes the contents of judicial opinions, which speak for 

themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

85. This paragraph characterizes the contents of judicial opinions, which speak for 

themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

86. This paragraph characterizes the contents of judicial opinions, which speak for 

themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

87. This paragraph characterizes the contents of a judicial opinion, which speaks for 

itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no response is required. 

14 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 290 

88. This paragraph characterizes the contents of judicial opinions, which speak for 

themselves and are the best evidence of their contents, therefore no response is required. 

89. DENY. 

90. The Commission incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations 

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs of plaintiffs’ complaint. The heading above this 

paragraph is DENIED. 

91. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ description of this lawsuit and legal 

conclusions, which require no response. 

92. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited judicial opinion speaks for itself, and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

93. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ legal conclusions, which require no response. 

The cited judicial opinion speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, therefore no 

response is required. 

94-99. DENY. 

100. The Commission incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations 

contained in each of the preceding paragraphs of plaintiffs’ complaint. The heading above this 

paragraph is DENIED. 

101. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ description of this lawsuit and legal 

conclusions, which require no response. 

102-103. DENY. 

15 
 

 

 

 

Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 291 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief requested in the “Requested Relief” portion of the 

complaint or to any other relief. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claims because that plaintiff 

neither possesses standing nor presents any live claims, as required by U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 

1. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) 

Acting General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Shaina Ward (D.C. Bar No. 1002801) 

Attorney 

sward@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley (Mass. Bar No. 644486) 

Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

Christopher H. Bell (D.C. Bar No. 1643526) 

Attorney 

chbell@fec.gov 

Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) 

Attorney 

gmueller@fec.gov 

/s/ Harry J. Summers 

Harry J. Summers (Cal. Bar No. 147929) 

(Trial Attorney) 

Assistant General Counsel 

hsummers@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

May 23, 2023 

16 
Case: 1:22-cv-00639-DRC Doc #: 24 Filed: 05/23/23 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 292 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 23, 2023, I served the foregoing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(E) on counsel of record, as a registered ECF user, through the Court’s ECF system. 

/s/ Harry J. Summers 

Harry J. Summers (Cal. Bar No. 147929) 

Assistant General Counsel 

 hsummers@fec.gov