UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Federal Election Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

-againstLatPAC et al., 

Defendants. 

1:21-cv-06095 (ALC) (SDA) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

STEWART D. AARON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

TO THE HONORABLE ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Pending before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff Federal Election Commission (the 

“Commission”) for a default judgment. (Comm. Not. of Mot., ECF No. 26.) For the reasons set 

forth below, I respectfully recommend that the motion be GRANTED.

RELEVANT FACTS1

This is an action by the Commission against Defendants LatPAC and Chalin A. Askew

(“Askew”), in his official capacity as treasurer of LatPAC, alleging violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (“FECA”). (See Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 1.) On June 29, 2016, LatPAC registered with 

the Commission under the FECA as an unauthorized political action committee that 

supports/opposes more than one federal candidate,

2 and designated Askew as its treasurer. (Id. 

¶¶ 6-7, 23.) On July 20, 2016, Askew filed LatPAC’s 2016 July Quarterly Report with the

1 The relevant facts are drawn from the well-pled allegations in the Complaint. A default constitutes an 

admission of all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and the allegations as they pertain to 

liability are deemed true. See Gurung v. Malhotra, 279 F.R.D. 215, 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

2 An “unauthorized” committee is one that has not been authorized by a candidate to solicit or receive

contributions or make expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. (See Compl. ¶ 11.)

3/31/2022

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 11
2

Commission. (Id. ¶ 24.) The Report disclosed no receipts, no disbursements, no cash on hand and 

no debts. (Id.)

On October 31, 2016, December 28, 2016, and February 16, 2017, the Commission’s 

Reports Analysis Division notified LatPAC and Askew of their failure to file LatPAC’s statutorilyrequired 2016 October Quarterly Report, 2016 Post-General Election Report, and 2016 Year-End 

Report, respectively. (Compl. ¶ 25.) On March 16, 2017, LatPAC filed an amended statement of 

organization, reaffirming that LatPAC was an unauthorized political action committee that

supports/opposes more than one federal candidate, with Askew serving as treasurer. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Since March 2017, LatPAC and Askew have not filed any of the statutorily-required

reports for LatPAC with the Commission. (Compl. ¶ 27.) The Commission’s Reports Analysis

Division notified LatPAC and Askew of their failure to file each of the required reports. (Id.) In 

particular, LatPAC and Askew were required to, but failed to file, a 2016 October Quarterly 

Report, 2016 Post-General Election Report, 2016 Year-End Report, 2017 Mid-Year Report, 2017 

Year-End Report, 2018 April Quarterly Report, 2018 July Quarterly Report, 2018 October 

Quarterly Report, 2018 Post-General Election Report, 2018 Year-End Report, 2019 Mid-Year 

Report, 2019 Year-End Report, 2020 April Quarterly Report, 2020 July Quarterly Report, 2020 

October Quarterly Report, and 2020 Post-General Election Report. (Id. ¶ 28.) The 2021 Mid-Year 

Report was due on July 31, 2021. (Id.) Between October 31, 2016 and December 18, 2020, the 

Commission’s Reports Analysis Division sent LatPAC and Askew sixteen letters regarding LatPAC 

and Askew’s failure to file LatPAC’s statutorily-required disclosure reports. (Id. ¶ 29.)

On February 8, 2018, the Commission received an administrative complaint alleging,

among other things, that a total of $28,400 in contributions that the complainant gave to and 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 11
3

raised for LatPAC from March to June 2017 was unaccounted for. (Compl. ¶ 31.) On February 14, 

2018, the Commission notified LatPAC and Askew that it had received information indicating that 

LatPAC and Askew may have violated provisions of the FECA. (Id. ¶ 32.) The Commission’s letter 

provided LatPAC and Askew with a copy of the administrative complaint and gave them the 

opportunity to respond. (Id.) LatPAC and Askew did not submit a timely written response. (Id.)

The Commission’s disclosure database shows that LatPAC and Askew, in his official capacity as 

treasurer, failed to report any receipts or disbursements by LatPAC or Askew, in his official 

capacity as treasurer, at any time whatsoever, including a failure to report any contributions 

made or raised by the complainant. (Id. ¶ 33.)

After reviewing the available information, on October 24, 2018, the Commission decided 

by a 4-0 vote to find reason to believe that LatPAC and Askew, in his official capacity as treasurer, 

had violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) and (b) by failing to file reports disclosing, among other things, 

receipts, disbursements, cash on hand and debts, and the Commission authorized an 

investigation. (Compl. ¶ 34.) On October 31, 2018, the Commission notified LatPAC and Askew of 

its reason-to-believe determination, including the factual and legal analysis supporting this

determination. (Id. ¶ 35.)

The Commission’s ensuing investigation revealed, among other things, that LatPAC and

Askew had accepted, but failed to disclose, more than $92,000 in receipts by LatPAC, including 

more than 225 separate contributions; that LatPAC and Askew had made, but failed to disclose, 

more than $92,000 in disbursements by LatPAC; and that LatPAC and Askew had failed to disclose 

any of LatPAC’s debts or obligations at any time, including a debt of $4,000 incurred in late 2017 

which was still outstanding as of September 2020. (Compl. ¶ 36.) After numerous attempts by 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 11
4

the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel to contact Askew, he contacted the Commission

in November 2019 and stated that he was going to take corrective action, including filing the 

missing reports by January 1, 2020. (Id. ¶ 37.) However, Askew failed to take these steps. (Id.)

Following the Commission’s investigation, on September 30, 2020, the Commission’s

Office of the General Counsel notified LatPAC and Askew that the General Counsel was prepared 

to recommend that the Commission find probable cause to believe that they had violated 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(a) and (b). (Compl. ¶ 38.) The notice included a brief stating the General Counsel’s 

position on the legal and factual issues of the matter, and informed LatPAC and Askew of their 

right to file their own brief stating their position on the issues and replying to the General 

Counsel’s brief. (Id.) LatPAC and Askew did not submit a written response. (Id.)

On March 11, 2021, the Commission decided by a 6-0 vote to find probable cause to 

believe that LatPAC and Askew, in his official capacity as treasurer, had violated 52 U.S.C. § 

30104(a) and (b) by failing to file LatPAC’s statutorily-required reports and to disclose LatPAC’s 

receipts, disbursements, cash on hand, and debts. (Compl. ¶ 39.) On April 6, 2021, the 

Commission notified LatPAC and Askew of its probable-cause determination, including the 

factual and legal analysis supporting this determination. (Id. ¶ 40.)

Also starting on April 6, 2021, the Commission endeavored for a period of not less than 

30 days to correct the violations through informal methods of conference, conciliation, and 

persuasion, including by providing a proposed conciliation agreement to LatPAC and Askew. 

(Compl. ¶ 41.) However, despite multiple attempts to reach LatPAC and Askew, they did not 

respond to these contacts, and the Commission was unable to reach a conciliation agreement 

with Defendants. (Id.)

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 11
5

On June 23, 2021, the Commission decided by a 6-0 vote to authorize the filing of this civil 

lawsuit against LatPAC and Askew, in his official capacity as treasurer, for violating 52 U.S.C. § 

30104(a) and (b) by failing to file LatPAC’s statutorily-required reports and to disclose LatPAC’s 

receipts, disbursements, cash on hand and debts. (Compl. ¶ 42.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2021, the Commission filed its Complaint in this action. (See Compl.) After 

LatPAC failed to appear by counsel, and Askew failed to abide by Orders of the Court, in an 

Opinion and Order, dated January 7, 2022, the Court requested that the Clerk of Court enter a 

default against LatPAC and Askew, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). See Fed. 

Election Comm’n v. LatPAC, No. 21-CV-06095 (ALC) (SDA), 2022 WL 72304, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 

2022).3 On January 12, 2022, the Clerk of Court entered a default against LatPAC and Askew. (See

Default, ECF No. 24.)

On January 13, 2022, the Court directed that the Commission file its motion for a default 

judgment against Defendants no later than February 3, 2022 and that Defendants file any 

response no later than February 25, 2022. (See 1/13/22 Order, ECF No. 25.) On February 3, 2022, 

the Commission timely filed it motion for a default judgment, and related papers.4 (See Comm. 

Not. of Mot.; Comm. Mem., ECF No. 27; Dillenseger Decl., ECF No. 28; Roser Decl., ECF No. 29; 

3 Since familiarity with the January 7, 2022 Opinion and Order is presumed, the Court does not recount in 

full the bases for the entry of defaults against LatPAC and Askew.

4 On February 3, 2022, the Commission filed an Affirmation of Service of these papers and, on February 

15, 2022, it filed a Supplemental Affirmation. (See Aff. of Service, ECF No. 33; Supp. Aff. of Service, ECF 

No. 34.)

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 11
6

Ward Decl., ECF No. 30; Proposed Findings, ECF No. 32.) The Commission seeks a $56,400 civil 

penalty, plus declaratory and injunctive relief. (See Comm. Mem. at 8-16.)

On February 25, 2022, Askew filed an unsworn page-and-a-half opposition to the 

Commission’s motion. (See Askew Opp., ECF No. 35.) In his opposition, Askew conceded liability 

for the violations at issue; agreed to the injunctive report-filing relief the Commission sought, 

except as to the deadline for compliance; and agreed that a civil penalty “may be proper to 

impose,” but objected to the requested amount. (See id. at 1-2) Askew argued that LatPAC is

unable to pay the $56,400 civil penalty sought by the Commission. (See id. at 1.) LatPAC did not 

appear through counsel to make any submission in opposition to the Commission’s motion.

On March 30, 2022, the Commission filed its reply. (Comm. Reply, ECF No. 39.)

DISCUSSION

The Commission is the independent agency of the United States government with

exclusive jurisdiction over the administration, interpretation and civil enforcement of FECA. See

52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30107(a), 30109. The Commission is authorized to promulgate 

regulations implementing the Act, id. § 30107(a)(8); to institute investigations of possible 

violations of the FECA, id. § 30109(a)(1)-(2); and to initiate civil actions in the United States district 

courts to obtain judicial enforcement of the Act. Id. §§ 30107(e), 30109(a)(6).

Based upon the well-pled allegations of the Complaint, LatPAC and Askew, in his official 

capacity as LatPAC’s treasurer, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) and (b) by failing to file LatPAC’s

statutorily-required disclosure reports and failing to disclose LatPAC’s receipts, disbursements,

cash on hand and debts. Indeed, Askew himself admits that the violations occurred. (See Askew 

Opp. at 1 (“it is established and undisputed that the defendant violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) and 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 6 of 11
7

(b)”).) Thus, the Court must determine the appropriate remedies. The Commission seeks a civil

penalty, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, which are addressed below.

I. Civil Penalty

The FECA authorizes the Court to order a defendant who has violated FECA to pay a civil

penalty and provides a statutory basis for calculating the amount of such a penalty. See 52 U.S.C.

§ 30109(a)(6)(B). For each of LatPAC and Askew’s FECA violations, the Court may impose a civil 

penalty up to the greater of $20,528 or the amount of any contribution or expenditure involved 

in the violation. See id.; 11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(1) (Jan. 2021); FEC, Civil Monetary Penalties Ann. 

Inflation Adjustments, 86 Fed. Reg. 1737-02 (Jan. 11, 2021). Under the first method, the civil 

penalty for Defendants’ failure to file sixteen statutorily-required disclosure reports in violation 

of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) and (b) may be up to $328,448, i.e., 16 times $20,528. (See Roser Decl. 

¶¶ 5-6.) Under the latter method, the civil penalty may be up to $188,000, since Defendants 

failed to disclose more than $92,000 in receipts, more than $92,000 in disbursements and $4,000 

in debt, for a total amount in violation of at least $188,000. (See Dillenseger Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

The Commission, however, seeks a more modest civil penalty based upon Defendants’ 

default in this case. The Commission requests that the Court impose a civil penalty of $56,400

(i.e., 30% of $188,000). (See Comm. Mem. at 10.) Askew states that LatPAC would be unable to 

pay a civil penalty in this amount and argues that the penalty “should be within the defendant’s 

means.”5 (See Askew Opp. at 2.)

5 Askew states that “LATPAC’s current account has an available balance of $6,162 and a monthly average 

balance of $5,052.” (Askew Opp. at 1.) Askew provides no information regarding prior account balances.

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 7 of 11
8

In reply, the Commission asserts that Askew’s claims regarding LatPAC’s finances are 

unsubstantiated by evidence. (See Comm. Reply at 5.) The Court agrees. As the sanctioned 

parties, Askew and LatPAC have the “the burden to produce evidence of inability to pay.” Fed. 

Election Comm’n. v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh’g

(Jan. 30, 2003) (citation omitted). Askew and LatPAC have not met this burden. Askew’s unsworn 

statement of the current balance in LatPAC’s account does not suffice, especially in 

circumstances where he and LatPAC have been aware of their FECA reporting failures since 2016

and no accounting has been provided of expenditures made from its accounts since then. See

Fed. Election Comm’n v. O’Donnell, No. 15-CV-00017 (LPS), 2017 WL 1404387, at *3 (D. Del. Apr. 

19, 2017) (refusing to reduce civil penalty despite political committee’s current low funds where 

it transferred funds “after Defendants were on notice of their potential liability”).

Based upon the Court’s consideration of the relevant factors,6 the Court finds that a civil 

penalty in the amount of $56,400 achieves the purposes of punishment and deterrence. See New 

York v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 942 F.3d 554, 599 (2d Cir. 2019) (“In general, civil penalties are 

designed to punish culpable individuals, deter future violations, and prevent the conduct’s 

recurrence.”).

6 The relevant factors are “(1) the good or bad faith of the defendants; (2) the injury to the public; (3) the 

defendant’s ability to pay; and (4) the necessity of vindicating the authority of the responsible federal 

agency.” See Fed. Election Comm’n v. Odzer, No. 05-CV-03101 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 898049, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 

Apr. 3, 2006) (citing Fed. Election Comm’n v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989)). As to the first 

factor, Defendants have not acted in good faith given their continued statutory violations and default in 

this case. As to the second factor, the public is harmed if a party fails to publicly disclose election-related 

information. Due to Defendants default, the third factor cannot be fully evaluated. As to the fourth factor, 

the Commission’s statutory authority will be vindicated by awarding the civil penalty the Commission 

seeks.

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 8 of 11
9

II. Declaratory And Injunctive Relief

The FECA authorizes the Court to grant a permanent injunction and “other orders” to 

remedy violations of the Act. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B). The Commission seeks a declaration 

that Defendants LatPAC and Askew violated the FECA’s disclosure requirements; an order 

requiring Defendants to file all statutorily-required disclosure reports that are past due; and a 

permanent injunction precluding Defendants from committing future FECA disclosure violations. 

(See Comm. Mem. at 14-15.) Based upon Defendants’ default, the Court finds that the 

Commission is entitled to all the relief it seeks.

First, since the Court already has determined that Defendants violated the FECA, the 

Commission is entitled to the declaration it seeks. See Fed. Election Comm’n v. Craig for U.S. 

Senate, 70 F. Supp. 3d 82, 101 (D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, 816 F.3d 829 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“As the Court 

has already determined that defendants did, indeed, violate section 30114(b) by converting 

campaign funds to the personal use of Senator Craig, the Court will issue the declaration that the 

[Commission] seeks.”); see also Odzer, 2006 WL 898049, at *1 (granting requested declaratory 

relief to Commission).

Second, due to their violations of law, Defendants should be directed to file all overdue 

reports and disclose all information to the Commission as required by the FECA and Commission 

regulations. See Fed. Election Comm’n v. Comm. of 100 Democrats, 844 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1993)

(ordering defendants to file required disclosure reports within 10 days).

Third, the Court finds that injunctive relief is warranted. “An injunction prohibiting a party 

from violating statutory provisions is appropriate where there is a likelihood that, unless 

enjoined, the violations will continue.” SEC v. Suman, 684 F. Supp. 2d 378, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 9 of 11
10

aff’d, 421 F. App’x 86 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1477 (2d 

Cir. 1996)). LatPAC and Askew declined to participate in the administrative proceedings before 

the Commission and defaulted in this case. Moreover, their statutory violations continue 

unabated. Thus, unless enjoined, the violations will continue.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that the Court award a civil penalty 

against Defendants LatPAC and Askew in the amount of $56,400. In addition, I recommend that 

the Court enter an Order (1) declaring that LatPAC and Askew, in his official capacity as LatPAC’s 

treasurer, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a) and (b) by failing to file LatPAC’s statutorily-required 

disclosure reports and failing to disclose LatPAC’s receipts, disbursements and debts; and (2) 

directing LatPAC and Askew to file all overdue reports and disclose all information to the 

Commission as required by the FECA and Commission regulations. Finally, I recommend that a 

permanent injunction be issued prohibiting LatPAC and Askew from failing to file any of LatPAC’s

statutorily-required disclosure reports in the future.

Dated: March 31, 2022

New York, New York

________________________________

STEWART D. AARON

United States Magistrate Judge

* * *

NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service 

of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections (to those portions other than with 

respect to the motion to strike), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal 

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 10 of 11
11

Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d) (adding three additional days when 

service is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D) or (F)). A party may respond to another party’s 

objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Such 

objections, and any response to objections, shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing 

objections must be addressed to Judge Carter.

FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF 

OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(a), 6(d), 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Case 1:21-cv-06095-ALC-SDA Document 42 Filed 03/31/22 Page 11 of 11