4 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 20-cv-0809-ABJ 

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In light of Defendant Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC” or “Commission”) continued 

failure to appear in this case, Plaintiff Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) respectfully renews its 

motion for default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

this Court’s Order. See ECF No. 17. CLC hereby incorporates by reference its prior motion, 

together with the supporting evidence relied upon therein, see ECF 11, and provides the following 

additional uncontroverted facts in support of default judgment. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On August 23, 2018, CLC filed an administrative complaint with the FEC showing that, 

during the 2016 Presidential election cycle, 45Committee, Inc. violated the Federal Election 

Campaign Act by failing to register as a political committee and failing to file reports disclosing 

its contributors, expenditures, and debts. See Mot. for Default Judgment, ECF 11 at 2. The FEC 

failed to take any public action on CLC’s administrative complaint. Id. at 4. On March 24, 2020, 

more than 575 days later, CLC brought this action, challenging Defendant’s unlawful failure to act 

on Plaintiff’s administrative complaint. See ECF No. 1. Service was effected on the United States 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 18 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 4
 

4 

Attorney for the District of Columbia on March 25, 2020, such that the FEC’s deadline to file a 

responsive pleading was May 25, 2020. See ECF 6. The FEC failed to appear, answer, plead, or 

otherwise defend this action as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and CLC filed a 

motion for default judgment on June 1, 2020. See ECF 11. After service was perfected on 

September 28, 2020, the Clerk of Court entered a default against the FEC on September 30, 2020, 

and the Court took CLC’s motion for default under advisement that same day. See Minute Order, 

Sept. 30 2020. On March 11, 2021, this Court denied CLC’s motion for default without prejudice 

to a renewed motion if the FEC failed to appear in this case by May 1, 2021. See ECF. No. 17. The 

FEC has failed to appear. Thus, CLC hereby renews its motion for default judgment. 

ARGUMENT 

This Court denied CLC’s original motion as premature because CLC’s “complaint and the 

instant motion were both filed at a time when the agency did not have a quorum.” ECF 17. In light 

of the FEC regaining its quorum on December 9, 2020, the Court gave the agency until May 1, 

2021 to appear in or otherwise defend this case. See id. The FEC has still not appeared, answered, 

pleaded, or otherwise defended this action as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The chronology of this case suggests that the FEC’s inaction is not simply a matter of its 

previous lack of quorum, a need for more time to resolve the underlying enforcement matter, nor 

the agency’s prioritization of other activities. Cf. Common Cause v. FEC, 489 F. Supp. 738, 744 

(D.D.C. 1980) (analyzing failure to act in light of “the resources available to the agency”); 

Telecomm. Rsch. & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984) [hereinafter TRAC]

(looking to “the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing 

priority”). Rather, the Commission can only appear in federal court to defend against a lawsuit if 

four Commissioners affirmatively vote to do so. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106(c); 30107(a)(6). The 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 18 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 4
 

4 

Commission’s failure to appear in this case most likely reflects an affirmative determination of a 

controlling bloc of Commissioners that the Commission’s failure to act on this matter—a delay of 

now over 600 days—is indefensible, and thus a defense has not been authorized by the necessary 

four Commissioners. 

Fortunately, Congress anticipated precisely this outcome and took steps to provide a 

remedy for FEC inaction. See 52 U.S.C 30109(a)(8)(C) (granting administrative complainants a 

private right of action to enforce FECA when the FEC (1) unlawfully fails to act and (2) fails to 

comply with a court order directing the agency to conform its actions with the law). By creating a 

private right of action, Congress ensured that agency deadlock would not preclude enforcement of 

campaign finance law. Indeed, it now appears that the only way the serious allegations set forth in 

CLC’s administrative complaint will be investigated and adjudicated is if this Court grants CLC 

default judgment and orders the FEC to conform (by taking action on Plaintiff’s administrative 

complaint) pursuant to § 30109(a)(8). Should the FEC fail to do so, CLC would be entitled to 

pursue enforcement against 45Committee directly.1 See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); see also, e.g., 

CLC v. FEC, No. 1:20-cv-01778-RCL (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2020) (finding that the FEC had failed to 

comply with an order to conform its actions to the law by acting on plaintiff’s underlying 

administrative complaint and acknowledging plaintiff’s right to sue administrative respondent to 

remedy alleged violations of federal campaign finance law); CLC v. Iowa Values, No. 1:21-cv00389-RCL (resulting private action under § 30109(a)(8)(C)). 

 

1

 As previously noted, this would relieve the FEC of the burden of pursuing enforcement against 

45Committee and allow it to focus on other matters on its docket. See Mot. for Default Judgment, 

ECF 11 at 10. It would therefore “avoid any concern about ‘the effect of expediting delayed action 

on agency activities of a higher or competing priority.’” Id. (quoting TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80). 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 18 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 4
 

4 

In sum, for the reasons described in CLC’s original motion, see ECF No. 11, and above, 

entry of default judgment against the FEC is appropriate. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court 

enter an order declaring that the FEC’s failure to act is contrary to law in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(C), and directing the FEC to conform within 30 days. Plaintiff further requests that 

the Court assess $400 in court costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 

Dated: May 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Mark P. Gaber 

 Adav Noti (DC Bar No. 490714) 

Mark P. Gaber (DC Bar No. 988077) 

Molly E. Danahy (DC Bar No. 1643411) 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

1101 14th Street NW, Ste. 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 736-2200 

anoti@campaignlegal.org 

mgaber@campaignlegal.org 

mdanahy@campaignlegal.org 

Case 1:20-cv-00809-ABJ Document 18 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 4