IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER and 

DEMOCRACY 21, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION, 

 Defendant, 

RIGHT TO RISE SUPER PAC, INC. 

 Proposed Intervenor-Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 1:20-cv-00730 

Hon. Christopher R. Cooper 

 / 

DEFENDANT INTERVENOR RIGHT TO RISE SUPER PAC, INC.’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CERTIFICATION FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

 i 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... ii

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1

II. FECA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 4

A. FECA Reporting Requirements ........................................................... 5

B. FECA Disclosures are Verified ............................................................ 7

III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SUFFERED INFORMATIONAL INJURY 

BECAUSE ALL FECA-REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS 

ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED ................................................................... 9

A. January 20, 2015: DC Bundler Event ................................................ 12

B. February 27, 2015: CPAC Speech ..................................................... 13

C. March 7, 2015 – Iowa Agriculture Summit ....................................... 14

D. May 16, 2015 – Iowa GOP Lincoln Day Dinner ............................... 15

E. March 17, 2015 – South Carolina Chamber of Commerce Event ..... 16

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS WERE 

PREMATURE And Rely on UNSWORN News Reports ............................ 17

V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 20

 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 26
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

ASPCA v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .............................. 18 

Atkins v. Fisher, 232 F.R.D. 116, 132 (D.D.C. 2005) ............................................ 18 

Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.D.C. 1997) ........................................... 19 

CREW v. FEC, 21 F. Supp. 3d at 32 (D.D.C. 2014); .............................................. 18 

Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F.Supp.2d 115, 123 (D.D.C.2002) .......... 18 

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................... 4 

Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 at 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ................................ 19 

Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................... 18 

Statutes

52 U.S.C. § 30101(2) .............................................................................................. 11 

52 U.S.C. 30104(a)(11)(c), ....................................................................................... 8 

52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(2) ............................................................................................... 1 

52 U.S.C. § 30102(a), ............................................................................................... 8 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(11)(c), .................................................................................... 8 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b), ............................................................................................... 5 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b). ....................................................................................... 5, 6, 7 

52 U.S.C. § 30109 ..................................................................................................... 8 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) ...................................................................................... 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) .................................................................................... 11 

52 U.S.C. § 30145 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 26
iii 

52 U.S.C. § 30102(c-d), ............................................................................................ 8 

52 U.S.C. § 30106(c), ............................................................................................... 1 

52 U.S.C. 30104(b), ................................................................................................ 10 

18 U.S.C. § 1001 ....................................................................................................... 8 

Other Authorities 

70 Fed. Reg. 1, 3 (Jan. 3, 2005) Notice 2004-20 ..................................................... 8 

72 Fed. Reg. 5, 887 (Jan. 9, 2007), Notice 2006-23, ................................................ 5 

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ............................................................................................. 4, 8 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) ............................................................................................. 3 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) ............................................................................................. 3 

Rule 12(b)(6). ........................................................................................................ 2, 3 

Regulations

11 C.F.R. § 104.18(g). .............................................................................................. 8 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). ........................................................................ 5, 6, 19 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)(i) ......................................................................................... 5 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)(vi), ...................................................................................... 5 

11 C.F.R. § 104.9(a), ................................................................................................. 5 

11 C.F.R. §104.9(b), ................................................................................................. 5 

11 C.F.R. § 300.61 ................................................................................................. 11 

11 C.F.R. § 100.3(e)(6). .......................................................................................... 11 

11 C.F.R. § 102.7 ...................................................................................................... 8 

11 C.F.R. § 104.18(g) ............................................................................................... 8 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 26
iv 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), .................................................................... 5, 6, 7, 10 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i). ........................................................................................ 6 

11 C.F.R. §§ 102.9 .................................................................................................... 8 

11 C.F.R. §§ 104.3(b)(3)(i) ....................................................................................... 5 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 26
Pursuant to the Court’s April 27, 2021 Minute Order, Intervenor-Defendant 

Right to Rise Super PAC submits this Brief in support of its Motion for 

Reconsideration and/or Certification for Interlocutory Appeal (ECF No. 19). 

I. BACKGROUND 

More than six years ago, in March 2015, Plaintiffs filed an administrative 

complaint with the FEC alleging that Governor John Ellis “Jeb” Bush and “Right to 

Rise PAC” violated FECA by failing to comply with FECA’s “testing-the-waters” 

disclosure requirements. Compl. Ex. B. Mar. Admin. Compl., ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiffs filed a second administrative complaint two months later, raising similar 

allegations. Those FEC complaints were collectively designated by the FEC as 

Matter Under Review (“MUR”) 6927. 

The FEC has six commissioners. To investigate a complaint, FECA requires 

four to vote that there is “reason to believe” a violation of FECA has or is about to 

occur. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(c), 30109(a)(2). Absent such a vote within five years of 

the date of the alleged violation, the Commission may not proceed with investigation 

of, or enforcement against, that respondent. 52 U.S.C. § 30145. As a result, such an 

impasse serves as the functional equivalent of dismissal of an administrative 

complaint five years from the date of the alleged violation. 52 U.S.C. § 30145. Here, 

the commission has failed to garner the four votes required to take public action on 

Plaintiffs’ complaint, and the five-year statute of limitations has run. 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 26
2 

Last year, Plaintiffs filed this action to compel the FEC to take up their 

complaints. Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiffs allege that the FEC’s inaction deprived them of 

information regarding alleged coordination between Right to Rise and the Bush 

campaign, id. ¶ 9, and the extent of Governor Bush’s campaign spending, id. ¶ 10. 

While the FEC has not appeared in this action, Right to Rise sought and 

obtained the Court’s permission to intervene as a Defendant in June 2020. ECF No. 

9. Right to Rise then promptly moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of 

standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and, with respect to Plaintiffs’ Administrative 

Procedure Act (“APA”) claim, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 11. 

On February 19, 2021, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order 

granting most of Right to Rise’s Motion to dismiss. ECF No. 17 (“February 19th 

Order”). Specifically, this Court held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their 

FECA claim as it relates to any alleged coordinated spending. Id. 12-15; 18-19. 

But the Court also concluded that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an 

informational injury relating to the five-month period from January 2015 to June 

2015, when Governor Bush was testing-the-waters whether to campaign the 

presidency. Id. at 10-12. As a result, the Court said that Plaintiffs had Article III 

standing to pursue a limited portion of their FECA claim. Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 26
3 

Right to Rise filed a motion for reconsideration and/or certification for interlocutory appeal regarding the portion of the February 19th Order holding that 

Plaintiffs have standing to pursue a limited aspect of their FECA claim. ECF No. 19. 

Right to Rise seeks reconsideration of the portion of the Court’s February 19th 

Order’s holding that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an informational injury. 

Reconsideration is appropriate under Rule 60(b)(1) because the February 19th

Order relied on the wrong legal standard in holding that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged 

informational injury. To show standing, Plaintiffs must demonstrate by a 

preponderance of the evidence that they sustained an informational injury. But 

instead of applying that standard and burden of proof, the February 19th Order 

applied the more liberal legal standard for motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Simply put, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 

they sustained an informational injury because, as explained below, the allegations 

in their Complaint are inconsistent with the public record, which shows that 

Governor Bush’s testing-the-waters expenses were disclosed as FECA requires. 

Reconsideration is likewise appropriate under Rule 60(b)(6) because the 

February 19th Order’s holding that Plaintiffs alleged a limited informational injury 

is based on the inaccurate premise that Plaintiffs would obtain disclosure of 

additional information if they prevail on their FECA claim. But the testing-thewaters activities at issue were publicly disclosed on the first campaign finance report 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 8 of 26
4 

filed by Governor Bush’s presidential campaign, and the other activities that 

Governor Bush undertook for Right to Rise and Right to Rise PAC, respectively, 

were likewise publicly disclosed by the entity benefiting from the activity, all as 

FECA requires. Plaintiffs will not obtain more information even if they succeed on 

their FECA claim; accordingly, they have not suffered an informational injury 

necessary for standing. 

On April 20, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Right to Rise’s reconsideration 

motion and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing to assist the Court in 

determining whether Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they have suffered an informational injury. (Tr. 24:1 – 

26:2). See also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (it is the 

plaintiff who “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that 

the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims”). Because Plaintiffs cannot 

satisfy that burden, Right to Rise’s motion should be granted, and this case should 

be dismissed. 

II. FECA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

The issue before the court—whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an 

informational injury—is a question of whether Governor Bush, Right to Rise, and 

Right to Rise PAC, Inc.’s (“Right to Rise Leadership PAC”) campaign finance 

activities were disclosed in accordance with FECA. If the information that Plaintiffs 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 9 of 26
5 

claim they seek has been disclosed as FECA requires or is not required to be 

disclosed at all, then it is impossible for Plaintiffs to rely on such an informational 

deprivation to show standing. So the starting point is FECA’s disclosure and 

verification requirements. 

A. FECA Reporting Requirements 

 Federal candidates and political committees must register with the FEC when 

they trigger candidacy and/or reach fundraising and spending thresholds. Once 

registered, they must file regular reports with the Federal Election Commission on 

which they publicly disclose their financial activity. Here, Plaintiffs claim they 

should be able to correlate Governor Bush’s pre-candidate activities with specific 

disbursements on FEC reports. Tr. at 15:1-14. But their contention is inconsistent 

with federal law, which does not require a level of specificity for disclosures that 

would allow for such a correlation in all instances. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b), 11 C.F.R. 

§§ 104.3(b)(3)(i), 104.3(b)(4)(i), 104.3(b)(4)(vi), 104.9(a), 104.9(b), 

104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). 

FECA requires that committees report on Schedule B the purpose of each 

disbursement along with the date, amount disbursed and the full name and address 

of the recipient. Id. “[P]urpose means a brief statement or description of why the 

disbursement was made.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b). The 

FEC has provided guidance on what this statement should contain. Purposes of 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 10 of 26
6 

disbursement, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/purposesdisbursements/, Statement of Policy: “Purpose of Disbursement” Entries for Filings 

with the Commission, 72 Fed. Reg. 5, 887 (Jan. 9, 2007), Notice 2006-23, 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/fedreg_notice_2006-

23_EO13892.pdf. Specifically, the Commission has directed that the “purpose of 

disbursement” entry, when considered along with the disbursement recipient’s 

identity, must be specific enough to make the disbursement’s purpose clear. Id. 

Examples of acceptable descriptions include “airfare,” “catering,” “dinner 

expenses,” “lodging,” “salary,” and “travel;” unacceptable examples include 

“admin,” “advance,” “consulting,” “GOTV,” “miscellaneous,” “technology,” and 

“voter registration.”1 Id. In other words, FECA does not require the “purpose” be so 

descriptive that the public can correlate specific disbursements with the date of travel 

or a specific traveler or attendee at events. 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104(b). 

FECA requires reporting the date of the expenditure, not the date of travel or 

the date of the event. 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i). Travel and event expenses such as 

flights, lodging and catering are usually booked and paid in advance, which means 

the disbursement date precedes the travel or event. Simply put, the information 

 

1 A fulsome list of acceptable and unacceptable purpose of disbursement descriptions 

can be found at https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/purposesdisbursements/.

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 11 of 26
7 

desired by Plaintiffss such as specific travel dates or destinations is not required by 

law. FECA requires only a “brief statement or description of why the disbursement 

was made.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). Thus, FECA’s reporting requirements do 

not create the informational right Plaintiffs assert and Plaintiffs’ desire for this 

information is insufficient to establish informational injury because Plaintiffs have 

no right to that information under FECA. And while Plaintiffs say they are unable 

to “retroactively deduce” the ultimate amount of spending based on the disclosures 

(Tr. at 15:19-22), FECA does not require disclosures be specific enough for 

Plaintiffs to make this determination. FECA requires only “a brief statement or 

description of why the disbursement was made.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(b). 

B. FECA Disclosures are Verified 

 FECA requires committees to designate a treasurer before conducting financial transactions, as a committee may not accept contributions or make expenditures 

without a treasurer. 52 U.S.C. § 30102(a), 11 C.F.R. § 102.7. Committee treasurers 

are responsible for the committee’s record-keeping of financial transactions and are 

required to sign each campaign finance report submitted by the committee. 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30102(c-d), 30104(a)(11)(c),11 C.F.R. §§ 102.9, 104.18(g). Treasurers are 

responsible for the committee’s legal compliance and can be officially and 

personally liable for the accuracy of filings. 70 Fed. Reg. 1, 3 (Jan. 3, 2005) Notice 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 12 of 26
8 

2004-20, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/notice2004-

20.pdf. To submit an FEC report, the Treasurer of a committee must sign the report. 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(11)(c), 11 C.F.R. § 104.18(g). The signature verification 

certifies that the treasurer or other signatory examined the report and, to the best of 

the signatory’s knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete, under penalty 

of perjury. Id. 

A filed FEC report is a sworn document with the same probative value as a 

declaration. Like declarants, committee treasurers sign reports under penalty of 

perjury. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109, citing 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (which makes it a felony to, 

in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch 

of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsify, conceal, 

or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) make any materially 

false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) make or use any 

false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry). 

Here, each committee relevant to Plaintiffs’ alleged informational injury—

Right to Rise, Right to Rise PAC, Inc. (“Right to Rise Leadership PAC”), and Jeb 

2016, Inc.—timely filed FEC reports disclosing their respective contributions and 

expenses. The treasurers of each committee verified that they examined the 

committees’ reports and found them to be true, correct, and complete. At the time 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 13 of 26
9 

Right to Rise Leadership PAC, filed its 2015 Mid-Year Report, James P. Robinson 

served as the committee’s Treasurer. Mr. Robinson signed and submitted that report 

on July 31, 2015.2

 Likewise, Mr. Charles Spies served as Treasurer for IntervenorDefendant, Right to Rise when it filed its 2015 Mid-Year Report. Mr. Spies signed 

and submitted Intervenor-Defendant’s report on July 31, 2015.3

 Mr. William Simon 

served as Treasurer of Jeb 2016, Inc. when it filed its 2015 July Quarterly Report. 

Mr. Simon signed and submitted the committee’s 2015 July Quarterly Report on 

July 15, 2015.4

III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SUFFERED INFORMATIONAL INJURY 

BECAUSE ALL FECA-REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS ALREADY 

BEEN DISCLOSED 

Plaintiffs complain that there was not a single disbursement from either Right 

to Rise or Right to Rise Leadership PAC that was “discernably designated” for 

Bush’s travel. Tr. 15:1-14. But FECA does not require that disbursements be 

“discernably designated” that way. FECA requires only “a brief statement or 

description of why the disbursement was made,” 52 U.S.C. § 52 U.S.C. 30104(b), 

 

2 Right to Rise Leadership PAC 2015 Mid-Year Report, Pg. 1, line 5, 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/182/201507319000507182/201507319000507182.pdf

3 Right to Rise USA 2015 Mid-Year Report, Pg. 1, line 5, 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/819/201507319000471819/201507319000471819.pdf 4 Jeb 2016, Inc. 2015 July Quarterly Report, Pg. 1, line 5, 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/887/201507159000159887/201507159000159887.pdf

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 14 of 26
10 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A), and as explained above, such descriptions need be no 

more specific than “airfare,” etc. 

 During the motion hearing, Plaintiff identified five events that Bush attended 

where they could not “discernably designate” any payments related to the activities. 

Plaintiffs overstate the disclosure requirements under FECA and are otherwise 

mistaken. But as explained below, each of Plaintiffs’ five examples correlates 

directly with disbursements properly reported under FECA by either Right to Rise 

or Right to Rise Leadership PAC. 

Before diving into each event, it is important to distinguish between the 

Defendant-Intervenor, Right to Rise, and Right to Rise Leadership PAC. Right to 

Rise is the federal super PAC which independently supported Governor Bush. In 

contrast, leadership PACs are established to federal office holders and other political 

leaders to support candidates for various federal and non-federal offices.5

 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30101(2), 11 C.F.R. § 100.3(e)(6). Leadership PACs may contribute directly to 

multiple candidates and are subject to contribution source and amount restrictions. 

52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A), 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 

 

5 Federal Election Commission, Types of non-connected PACs, 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-pac/typesnonconnected-pacs/

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 15 of 26
11 

Right to Rise Leadership PAC was established by Governor Bush in January 

2015 to support conservative candidates consistent with his policy agenda.6

 Its 

mission statement is to “support candidates who want to restore the promise of 

America with a positive, conservative vision of reform and renewal. We believe the 

income gap is real, but that only conservative principles can solve it by removing 

the barriers to upward mobility. We will celebrate success and risk-taking, protect 

liberty, cherish free enterprise, strengthen our national defense, embrace the energy 

revolution, fix our broken and obsolete immigration system, and give all children a 

better future by transforming our education system through choice, high standards 

and accountability. We will strive to put our fiscal house back in order, re-limit 

government and ensure that America is a welcoming society.”7

 

When Governor Bush traveled to promote conservative candidates and/or a 

conservative policy agenda, or to attend a Right to Rise Leadership PAC fundraiser, 

Right to Rise Leadership PAC was legally required to sponsor that travel because 

 

6 Marc Caputo, Jeb Bush to form leadership PAC for fundraising, The Miami Herald 

(Jan. 6, 2015), 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article5491587.html 7 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 16 of 26
12 

Right to Rise Leadership PAC was the beneficiary of the activity.8 All these 

disbursements were reported on Right to Rise Leadership PAC’s FEC reports.9

Likewise, when Bush traveled to participate at a Right to Rise fundraiser as a 

special guest, it was both appropriate and legally required for Right to Rise to 

sponsor that travel. While Governor Bush was not yet a candidate for office at the 

time of these events described below, even if he had been, Federal candidates may 

participate in Super PAC events or fundraisers as a special guest if they do not solicit 

contributions above the limits permitted under federal law. 

A. January 20, 2015: DC Bundler Event 

The first example Plaintiffs offered was a January 20, 2015 meeting in 

Washington, D.C. with Republican lobbyists. Tr. at 14:18-19. Plaintiffs initially 

referenced this meeting in their first FEC administrative complaint. ECF No. 1-2 at 

3-4. On its 2015 Mid-Year Report, Right to Rise reported a January 20, 2015 

disbursement in the amount of $12,159.56 to MALEK, FREDERIC V.; the 

disbursement description reads “IN-KIND CATERING”.10 This disbursement is 

 

8 Federal Election Commission, Travel on behalf of non-connected PAC, 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursementspac/travel-nonconnected-pac/. (For non-commercial travel on behalf of leadership 

PACs...the reimbursement for that travel is the responsibility of the committee on 

whose behalf the travel occurs.) 

9 Right to Rise Leadership PAC 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/182/201507319000507182/201507319000507182.pdf

10 Right to Rise 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 1444, 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201605209015993057

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 17 of 26
13 

payment for catering at the Super PAC fundraising event which Bush attended as a 

special guest. The disbursement covered catering expenses for the event. Id. Because 

Governor Bush’s presence at this fundraising event benefitted Right to Rise, their 

payment for food at the event was appropriate and was fully disclosed. 

B. February 27, 2015: CPAC Speech 

 Plaintiffs say they cannot correlate an expenditure from any reports with 

Governor Bush’s participation at the Conservative Political Action Convention 

(“CPAC”) in 2015. Tr. at 14:20. Plaintiffs also referenced this speech in their first 

administrative complaint. ECF No. 1-2 at 7. This convention is held annually at the 

National Harbor, just across the river from Washington D.C. Governor Bush 

participated in 2015 CPAC as a guest of the organizers, where he was interviewed 

by Sean Hannity.11 The CPAC event is produced by the American Conservative 

Union, including through sponsorships in 2015 paid for by the National Rifle 

Association, The Motion Picture Association and Trump International.12

Along with giving a major speech at CPAC, Governor Bush attended a 

College Republicans event while at National Harbor for CPAC on February 27, 

 

11 Jeb Bush Remarks at CPAC, CSPAN (Feb. 27, 2015), https://www.cspan.org/video/?324558-16/governor-jeb-bush-r-fl-remarks-cpac2015&event=324558&playEvent

12 Julie Bycowicz, Who Pays for America’s Biggest Conservative Gathering?, 

Bloomberg News (Feb. 26, 2015), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-

02-26/the-money-behind-cpac-america-s-biggest-conservative-gathering. 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 18 of 26
14 

2015. Exhibit 1. That event was produced by and properly paid for by College 

Republicans, who presumably also had other Republican leaders stop by their 

events. In sum, because Governor Bush’s attendance at CPAC was not a testing-thewaters event and did not benefit either Right to Rise, or Right to Rise Leadership 

PAC, there were no expenditures to disclose. 

C. March 7, 2015 – Iowa Agriculture Summit 

 Plaintiffs say they cannot correlate an expenditure from any reports with 

Governor Bush’s participation at the Iowa Agriculture Summit on March 7, 2015, 

an event referenced in their administrative complaint. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. Despite FEC 

guidance which states “airfare” is an appropriate disbursement description, Right to 

Rise Leadership PAC went above and beyond the statutory requirements and 

included travel dates on their disbursement description for this trip. On its 2015 MidYear Report, Right to Rise Leadership reported three disbursements for airfare 

correlated with this travel. The first was for $1,056.30 to MILE HIGH, LLC, the 

disbursement description reads: “AIRFARE 3/6/15”.13 The second was for 

$2,273.20 to CHARTRAND, GARY, the disbursement description reads: 

“AIRFARE 3/6/15”.14 The third was for $2,660.20 to MACLEAN, BARRY, the 

 

13 Right to Rise PAC, 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000514818 14 Right to Rise PAC, 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 742, 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000514278

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 19 of 26
15 

disbursement description reads: “AIRFARE 3/7/15”.15 These disbursements show 

payments for airfare to and from the event. Governor Bush participated in the forum 

focused on agriculture policy. At the forum, Governor Bush advocated for a path to 

legalized status for immigrants, a policy objective of Right to Rise Leadership 

PAC.16 In addition to attending this event, Governor Bush appeared at a Young for 

Iowa, Inc. fundraiser on March 6, 2017. Exhibit 1. Right to Rise Leadership PAC 

also contributed $5,200 to Young for Iowa, Inc., David Young’s authorized 

campaign committee.17 David Young was a Republican elected to represent Iowa’s 

3rd District in Congress.18 It was appropriate for Right to Rise Leadership PAC to 

sponsor the Governor’s travel and to disclose that expenditure.

D. May 16, 2015 – Iowa GOP Lincoln Day Dinner 

Plaintiffs say they cannot correlate an expenditure from any reports with 

Governor Bush’s participation at the May 16, 2015 Iowa GOP Lincoln Day Dinner 

referenced in their administrative complaint. ECF No. 1-2 at 8. But Right to Rise 

 

15 Right to Rise PAC, 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 935, 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000514471

16Associated Press, Republicans show rift on immigration at Iowa agriculture forum, 

The Denver Post (Mar. 7, 2015), 

https://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/07/republicans-show-rift-on-immigration-atiowa-agriculture-forum/ 

17 Young for Iowa, Inc., 2015 April Quarterly Report, Schedule A pgs. 56, 60, 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/716/201510089002821716/201510089002821716.pdf

.

18 Ballotpedia, David Young profile, https://ballotpedia.org/David_Young_(Iowa)

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 20 of 26
16 

Leadership PAC disclosed a disbursement in the amount of $12,776.13 to BECKER 

TRADING COMPANY for “AIRFARE 5/14/15 THRU 5/16/15”.19 At the dinner, 

Governor Bush gave a 10-minute speech focused on the policy priorities of Right to 

Rise Leadership PAC, which appropriately paid for—and disclosed—Governor 

Bush’s airfare for the event. Exhibit 1. 

E. March 17, 2015 – South Carolina Chamber of Commerce Event 

Plaintiffs say they cannot correlate an expenditure from any reports with 

Governor Bush’s participation at the March 17, 2015 Greenville Chamber of 

Commerce Event.20 The Chamber of Commerce event was hosted at the Embassy 

Suites Hotel.21 Governor Bush spent the night at the Embassy Suites in Greenville 

on March 16, 2015. Exhibit 1. Right to Rise Leadership PAC disclosed a 

disbursement dated March 25, 2015 to EMBASSY SUITES--GREENVILLE in the 

amount of $204.83 for “LODGING”.22 In addition, Governor Bush attended a 

fundraiser supporting the South Carolina Republican House Caucus in Columbia, 

 

19 Right to Rise PAC, 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 1114, 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000514650

20 Plaintiff incorrectly stated at the April 20 hearing that Bush “met with local 

Chamber of Commerce folks in Greenville” on March 27, 2015. Tr. at 14:22-23. 

Bush was actually in Greenville, SC, on March 17, 2015. 

21Rudolph Bell, Former Florida governor Jeb Bush coming to Greenville, Greenville 

News (Feb. 25, 2015), 

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/25/jeb-bush-southcarolina-presidential-primary-mike-huckabee-marco-rubio/23994805/ 22 Right to Rise Leadership PAC 2015 Mid-Year Report, Schedule B, pg. 707, 

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201507319000514243

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 21 of 26
17 

SC. Exhibit 1. The Governor’s participation in this event furthered the mission of 

Right to Rise Leadership PAC, which correctly disclosed the travel expense. 

F. Plaintiffs Are Confused about Governor Bush’s Travel 

Plaintiffs wrongly refer to all of Governor’s Bush’s travel as his own 

“campaign” or “testing-the-waters” activity. (Tr. at 13:12-13, 13:16-17, 14:7, 

14:10). This is legally conclusory and incorrect. Governor Bush attended Right to 

Rise fundraising events as a special guest. When Governor Bush attended either 

Right to Rise or Right to Rise Leadership PAC events, those committees paid for 

expenses related to his travel because Bush’s travel and attendance benefitted the 

committees and it was thus required by law. See foonote 8. Plaintiffs cannot prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that these were “campaign activities” or “testingthe-waters activities.” And most important, all travel expenses were appropriately 

disclosed by the party that paid for them at the time and in the manner that FECA 

requires. 

IV. PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS WERE 

PREMATURE AND RELY ON UNSWORN NEWS REPORTS 

Plaintiffs filed their administrative complaints with the FEC before Bush 

decided to run for President and before the PACs filed their FEC reports. In July of 

2015, Bush’s presidential campaign committee and the PACs timely disclosed all 

requisite information. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaints were prematurely filed 

at a time when they had no informational right. And while an informational right 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 22 of 26
18 

arose under FECA when Bush became a candidate, Bush’s campaign committee, Jeb 

2016, Inc., Right to Rise, and Right to Rise Leadership PAC each adhered to FECA’s 

disclosure requirements. Plaintiffs have not been denied a scintilla of information 

that FECA requires. While Plaintiffs may wish Bush, Right to Rise, and Right to 

Rise PAC, Inc., had disclosed information differently, there was no statutory 

obligation to do so, and each actually disclosed more than required. 

In contrast to Defendants’ reliance on sworn and verified FEC reports, 

Plaintiffs’ examples are derived from news reports that preceded the committees’ 

disclosures. The FEC has explained that the probative value of press statements and 

news reports in the context of campaign finance complaints is inherently limited.23

The FEC has reasoned that news articles and press reports written by unsworn 

authors recounting statements from unsworn witnesses—like those cited by 

Plaintiffs—have limited probative value and are unsubstantiated and speculative. Id. 

This Court has also recognized the limited probative value of newspaper 

articles. In Atkins v. Fisher, 232 F.R.D. 116, 132 (D.D.C. 2005), this Court held that 

“newspaper articles constitute inadmissible hearsay, and cannot be admitted into 

evidence to support the truth of the matter asserted.” “Unsupported newspaper 

articles usually provide no evidence of the reporter’s perception, memory or 

 

23 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioner 

Caroline C. Hunter in Matter Under Review 6928, Federal Election Commission 

(May 20, 2019), pg. 9-10, https://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/6928_2.pdf

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 23 of 26
19 

sincerity and, therefore, lack circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. 

(quoting Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F.Supp.2d 115, 123 (D.D.C.2002)). 

Plaintiffs’ reliance exclusively on press reports and news articles to support their 

claims underscores their complaint’s weakness. 

Informational injury for Article III standing purposes requires Plaintiffs to 

allege they are “directly deprived of information that must be disclosed under a 

statute.” CREW v. FEC, 21 F. Supp. 3d at 32 (D.D.C. 2014); ASPCA v. Feld Entm’t, 

Inc., 659 F.3d 13, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Zivotofsky v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 

614, 618 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). So, “the nature of the information allegedly withheld is 

critical to the [court’s] standing analysis.” Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413, 

417 (D.D.C. 1997). A plaintiff has suffered no injury and thus lacks standing if the 

relevant statute does not require the information’s disclosure, or if the allegedly 

withheld information is already available to plaintiff. Both these points are true here. 

FECA does not require disclosure of any additional information. 11 C.F.R. § 

104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). And all three committees consistently disclosed an adequate 

purpose for all their disbursements, and all disbursements were timely disclosed. 

What Plaintiffs really seek is a legal determination as to when Bush became a 

candidate and/or that certain reported activity should be categorized differently. But 

as this Court has aptly explained, that question is one that only the FEC can answer. 

ECF No. 17 at 14 (“[P]laintiffs’ attempt to construe their request as being one for 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 24 of 26
20 

facts (rather than legal determinations) is precluded by Wertheimer [v. FEC], 268 

F.3d 1070 at 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001).”). “[I]t is well-established that a plaintiff has no 

legally cognizable interest in a legal conclusion that carries certain law enforcement 

consequences, nor in forcing the FEC to get the bad guys.” Id. (cleaned up). Plaintiffs 

have not been deprived of any information that must be disclosed under statute and 

have therefore failed to meet the stringent Article III standing requirements for informational injury under the Rule 12(b)(1) legal standard and burden of proof. Their 

complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Right to Rise respectfully requests that the Court reconsider that portion of its 

February 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order holding that Plaintiffs have 

Article III standing to pursue the remainder of their FECA claim, or, in the 

alternative (or in addition to), certify the Order for interlocutory appeal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

Dated: May 11, 2021 Respectfully Submitted, 

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 

/s/ Charles R. Spies 

Charles R. Spies, Bar ID: 989020 

Jessica G. Brouckaert 

1825 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 25 of 26
21 

Telephone: (202) 466-5964 

Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 

cspies@dickinsonwright.com 

jbrouckaert@dickinsonwright.com 

Robert L. Avers 

350 S. Main Street, Ste 300 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

(734) 623-1672 

ravers@dickinsonwright.com 

John J. Bursch* 

Bursch Law PLLC 

9339 Cherry Valley Ave. SE, #78 

Caledonia, MI 49316 

(616) 450-4235 

jbursch@burschlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 

*Pending Admission

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 11, 2021, I caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document to be served upon all counsel of record registered with the 

Court’s ECF system by electronic service via the Court’s ECF transmission 

facilities. 

 /s/ Charles R. Spies 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00730-CRC Document 28 Filed 05/11/21 Page 26 of 26