UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 18-cv-1861 (CRC)

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ANSWER

)

Defendant. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) submits this answer 

to the Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed by plaintiffs Citizens for 

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) and Noah Bookbinder (“Bookbinder”). 

(Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, No. 18-cv-1861 (CRC) (D.D.C. filed Aug. 8, 

2018) (Docket No. 1).) Any allegation not specifically responded to below is DENIED.

1. This paragraph summarizes plaintiffs’ complaint, the allegations of which 

speak for themselves, and therefore no response is necessary. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that CREW and its past and current executive directors, Melanie Sloan and 

Noah Bookbinder, filed initial and amended administrative complaints in which Americans for 

Job Security (“AJS”) and Stephen DeMaura, individually and in his capacity as Treasurer of 

AJS, were named as respondents, but DENY that Bookbinder was a complainant on the initial 

administrative complaint. DENY that the Commission has failed to act on either the initial or 

amended administrative complaints.

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 13
2

2. ADMIT that FECA’s judicial review provision, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), 

provides statutory jurisdiction; that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction in the 

district court; and that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Commission. ADMIT that 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) provides for venue in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. DENY that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, provides jurisdiction 

in this case and DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

3-5. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in these paragraphs.

6. To the extent this paragraph contains allegations about unspecified information 

on CREW’s website and in unspecified reports and press releases, such sources speak for 

themselves and require no response. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny CREW’s descriptions of its work in this paragraph.

7. The Commission ADMITS that CREW has filed administrative complaints 

with the FEC, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny CREW’s 

allegations in this paragraph concerning the circumstances surrounding its decision to file such 

complaints. 

8. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The remainder of the paragraph is 

DENIED. 

9. The Commission ADMITS that information about contributions to campaigns 

of Congressional candidates aids in detecting quid pro quos. The Commission is otherwise 

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

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 2 of 13
3

10. This paragraph describes a report issued by CREW, which speaks for itself, 

and requires no response. To the extent this paragraph sets forth allegations about how CREW 

obtained information discussed in a report that it issued, the Commission is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to admit or deny such allegations. 

11. This paragraph describes a blog post made by CREW, which speaks for itself, 

and requires no response. To the extent this paragraph sets forth allegations about how CREW 

obtained information discussed in a blog post, the Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny such allegations. 

12. ADMIT that Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW. The 

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

concerning Mr. Bookbinder in the second sentence of this paragraph. ADMIT that registered 

voters (and others), including Mr. Bookbinder, may legally review information that is publicly 

reported pursuant to FECA’s disclosure requirements. DENY that the Commission has failed to 

properly administer FECA. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph, which are vague and refer, inter alia,

to unspecified provisions of FECA and the unspecified “political activities” of an unidentified 

political committee. 

13. ADMIT that CREW and Melanie Sloan filed the initial administrative 

complainant against AJS and Stephen DeMaura, that CREW and Noah Bookbinder filed an 

amended administrative complaint, and that CREW and these individuals have filed other 

administrative complaints with the Commission. The Commission is without knowledge or 

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

14. ADMIT. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 3 of 13
4

15. ADMIT that FECA and FEC regulations contain provisions requiring groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to comply with certain organizational, 

registration, and disclosure requirements. 

16. This paragraph quotes a provision of FECA and Commission regulations, 

which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that the quoted language in this paragraph appears in the statutory and regulatory 

definitions of the term “political committee,” but DENY that this paragraph sets forth all the 

requirements for constituting such a committee. 

17. This paragraph quotes portions of the statutory provision defining 

“expenditure,” and a Supreme Court decision construing that definition, which speak for 

themselves and require no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the 

quoted language in the first sentence of this paragraph appears in the statutory definition of the 

term “expenditure,” but DENY that the first sentence of this paragraph sets forth the complete or 

accurate statutory definition of that term, and ADMIT that the Supreme Court in Buckley v. 

Valeo construed “expenditure” in certain contexts to reach only “funds used for communications 

that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” 424 U.S. 1, 80 

(1976) (per curiam). 

18. This paragraph purports to describe the legal requirements for determining 

whether a group is a political committee based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that the Supreme Court in Buckley adopted a “major purpose” 

requirement for certain organizations but DENY that this paragraph sets forth a complete 

description of that analysis. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 4 of 13
5

19. This paragraph describes the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (“MCFL”), which speaks for itself and 

requires no response. 

20-21. These paragraphs describe FECA’s statutory provisions and an FEC policy 

governing the FEC’s administrative enforcement process, which speak for themselves, and 

require no response. To the extent responses are required, ADMIT that portions of these 

paragraphs generally describe portions of FECA’s administrative enforcement procedures and a 

portion describes the current practice of staff in the Enforcement Division of the Office of 

General Counsel, who review publicly available information and may incorporate facts deriving 

therefrom in recommendations regarding whether there is “reason to believe” violations of 

FECA have occurred. 

22. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain provisions of FECA 

and Commission regulations, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that FECA and Commission regulations require groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to file a statement of organization with the

Commission within 10 days of becoming a political committee. 

23. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain provisions of FECA 

and Commission regulations, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that FECA and Commission regulations require groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to file periodic reports with the FEC that disclose 

the information described in this paragraph. 

24. This paragraph repeats paragraph 20 of the complaint. The Commission 

incorporates its answer to paragraphs 20-21 of the complaint here.

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 5 of 13
6

25. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain provisions of FECA, 

which speak for themselves, and require no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that this paragraph describes the procedures for obtaining judicial review of a 

Commission dismissal decision in the circumstance in which such a dismissal decision is 

judicially reviewable, but DENY that this case involves a “dismissal of a complaint.” 

26-27. ADMIT that these paragraphs generally contain AJS’s self-description as set 

forth in its response submitted in MUR 6538, its website, and its 2009 tax return. 

28. The allegations in this paragraph that AJS spent certain amounts “largely” on 

certain advertisements in 20 unspecified primary and general elections are too vague to admit or 

deny. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are DENIED. 

29. ADMIT that AJS reported spending approximately $4,414,524 on independent 

expenditures between January 15, and October 31, 2010, and approximately $4,908,846 on 

independent expenditures for calendar year 2010. The remaining allegations in the first sentence 

are DENIED. ADMIT the last sentence of this paragraph. 

30. ADMIT that AJS reported spending $479,268 on January 15, 2010, for an 

advertisement that contained the quoted text, and ADMIT that Scott Brown was a Republican 

candidate in the January 19, 2010 Massachusetts special election for United States Senate. To 

the extent this paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of AJS’s spending and the content 

of the quoted advertisement, no response is required. 

31. ADMIT that AJS reported to the IRS spending a total of $12,417,809 from 

November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010, and ADMIT that AJS’s reported spending on 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications for this period comprised 

approximately 72 percent of that amount. The FEC is without knowledge or information 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 6 of 13
7

sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in the second and third sentence of this paragraph

because the terms “political expenditures” and “political expenses” are too vague to permit a 

response. 

32. ADMIT that on March 8, 2012, CREW and Melanie Sloan filed an 

administrative complaint that was designated by the Commission as MUR 6538. The remainder 

of this paragraph describes the administrative complaint, which speaks for itself, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the administrative complaint filed 

by CREW and Melanie Sloan alleged that AJS violated certain provisions of FECA. 

33. This paragraph describe portions of the First General Counsel’s Report in 

MUR 6538, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contains the statements 

in this paragraph, including the calculation that AJS spent a total of $4,598,518 on electioneering 

communications in 2010. The FEC avers that it has since determined that the $4,598,518 

calculation was incorrect, and that the correct total of AJS’s spending on electioneering 

communications in 2010 was $4,556,518.

34. ADMIT that on June 24, 2014, the Commission considered the allegations in 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against AJS and, in a 3-3 vote, did not find reason to believe 

AJS violated FECA, and then voted 6-0 to close the file. This paragraph is otherwise DENIED. 

35. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this 

paragraph describes portions of the Statement of Reasons of then-Chairman Lee E. Goodman 

and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in MUR 6538 (“Goodman, 

Hunter, and Petersen Statement of Reasons”), which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen Statement 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 7 of 13
8

of Reasons in MUR 6538 was the “controlling” explanation for the decision in MUR 6538 and 

that it contains the quoted language. 

36. This paragraph describes portions of the Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen 

Statement of Reasons in MUR 6538, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, DENY plaintiffs’ characterization of the statement.

37. ADMIT. 

38-39. These paragraphs describe portions of the district court’s decision in CREW v. 

FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. September 19, 2016), which speaks for itself, and require no 

responses. To the extent responses are required, ADMIT the court found the FEC’s dismissal of 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against AJS contrary to law, granted plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgement, and remanded the AJS matter to the FEC for further consideration.

40. DENY that the Commission was required to notify the Court, CREW, Sloan or 

Bookbinder (who was not a plaintiff to the litigation) by October 19, 2016 of Commission action 

taken on the administrative complaint following remand. ADMIT that on October 4, 2016, the 

Commission issued a press release announcing that it would not appeal the Court’s remand order

referenced in the previous paragraph, see FEC Press Release, https://www.fec.gov/updates/fecwill-not-appeal-district-court-decision-crew-v-fec/, and ADMIT that the FEC has complied with 

its statutory obligation not to publicly disclose information regarding the remanded AJS matter, 

see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(12). DENY the remainder of this paragraph.

41. ADMIT that CREW and Melanie Sloan filed a separate lawsuit against the 

Commission, CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255 (CRC) (D.D.C. filed Nov. 14, 2016), but DENY that 

Noah Bookbinder was a plaintiff in that lawsuit. This paragraph characterizes the civil 

complaint in that lawsuit, which speaks for itself and therefore no response is necessary. 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 8 of 13
9

42. ADMIT that the Court entered a protective order in the referenced lawsuit, see

Protective Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255 (CRC) (D.D.C. July 4, 2017) (Docket No. 26), 

that CREW and Sloan were parties to that litigation, and that the Commission submitted 

summary judgment briefs and declarations containing information that the Court, CREW, and 

Sloan received in accordance with the terms of that protective order. DENY that Bookbinder

was a party to that litigation, though the FEC notes that he was an identified permitted recipient 

of 30109(a)(12)(A) Material in accordance with paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Protective 

Order. 

43. ADMIT that CREW and Sloan stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of the 

portion of the referenced lawsuit regarding AJS, but DENY that Bookbinder was a party to that

litigation. This paragraph characterizes the joint stipulation, which speaks for itself and therefore 

no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph are DENIED.

44. ADMIT that CREW and Bookbinder submitted an amended administrative 

complaint regarding AJS to the FEC and that Exhibit 1 to plaintiffs’ complaint is a copy of that 

amended administrative complaint. ADMIT that the amended administrative complaint 

attempted to include as a complainant Noah Bookbinder rather than Melanie Sloan and that the 

allegations against the Respondent were identical. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the extent of CREW’s purposes for submitting the 

amended administrative complaint. DENY that the attempted substitution of administrative 

respondents creates rights for the newly added complainant that are identical to the previously 

included complainant. 

45. DENIED.

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 9 of 13
10

46-47. ADMIT that the Commission has confirmed receipt to CREW of the filing of 

its amended complaint, including in the form of an acknowledgement letter and when contacted 

by counsel for CREW. 

48. ADMIT that the Commission has not taken final action with respect to AJS

subsequent to the remand decision identified above in response to paragraphs 38-39 of the 

complaint. ADMIT that the FEC has complied with its statutory obligation not to publicly 

disclose information regarding the remanded AJS matter, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(12) and that 

the FEC has provided CREW, Sloan, and the Court with information regarding that matter as 

necessary to defend against the challenges in CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419 and CREW v. FEC, 

No. 16-2255 pursuant to protective orders that have been entered in those cases. See Protective 

Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419 (CRC) (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2016) (Docket No. 63); Protective 

Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255 (CRC) (D.D.C. July 4, 2017) (Docket No. 26). DENY the 

remaining allegations of this paragraph.

49. DENY that “[m]ulti-year delays in acting on a pending complaint are not 

uncommon at the Commission.” This paragraph quotes and characterizes a Statement of 

Reasons issued by one FEC Commissioner in a different FEC enforcement matter, which speaks 

for itself and therefore no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required, the 

allegations in this paragraph are DENIED.

50-52. Deny the first sentence of paragraph 50. Paragraphs 50 through 52 contain 

plaintiffs’ conclusions and characterizations of certain other FEC enforcement matters and 

litigation CREW has initiated against the FEC. The referenced materials speak for themselves 

and therefore no response is necessary. To the extent that responses are required, ADMIT that 

CREW and one or more individuals filed the referenced administrative complaints with the FEC 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 10 of 13
11

and has since litigated these matters, but DENY that plaintiffs’ characterizations and quotations 

fully and accurately summarize what occurred in those matters. The remaining allegations are 

DENIED.

53. DENY that “[s]uch delays,” and the potential for documents to be destroyed or 

memories to fade, due to the passage of time, “commonly impact the FEC’s ability to carry out 

its enforcement function.” ADMIT that there is a five-year statute of limitations applicable to 

FECA violations, which by definition, effectuates Congress’s intent to constrain enforcement of 

FECA. 

54. DENIED.

55. This paragraph incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. The 

Commission likewise incorporates by reference its preceding responses. 

56. ADMIT that the Commission received the initial administrative complaint

concerning AJS and Stephen DeMaura filed by CREW and Melanie Sloan on March 8, 2012.

57. ADMIT that CREW and Sloan have initiated two lawsuits against the FEC that 

concerned, in part, the administrative complaint they filed concerning AJS. The second sentence 

describes the Court’s merits decision in CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419 (CRC), published at 209 F. 

Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2016), and CREW’s subsequent court complaint in CREW v. FEC, No. 16-

2255 (CRC), both of which speak for themselves and therefore no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is required, the remaining allegations of this paragraph are DENIED.

58. This paragraph states one or more legal conclusions, to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are DENIED.

59. The first sentence is DENIED. ADMIT that the Commission has not taken

final action with respect to the AJS matter and that the FEC has provided CREW, Sloan, and the 

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 11 of 13
12

Court with information regarding that matter as necessary to defend against the challenges in 

CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419, and CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255, pursuant to protective orders that 

have been entered in those cases. See Protective Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419 (CRC) 

(D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2016) (Docket No. 63); Protective Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 16-2255 (CRC) 

(D.D.C. July 4, 2017) (Docket No. 26). DENY the remaining allegations of this paragraph, 

including that the referenced November 2017 sealed filing was an affidavit. 

60. DENIED.

61. This paragraph describes 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), which speaks for itself, and 

therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8) provides a procedure by which certain parties can attempt to challenge an alleged 

delay by the FEC in court. 

62-64. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs’ conclusions of law and characterization of 

the matters complained of, to which no responses are necessary. To the extent responses are 

required, ADMIT that thorough investigations of administrative complaints and timely action by 

the FEC in making final determinations is in the public interest. The allegations are otherwise 

DENIED.

REQUESTED RELIEF

The Court should deny plaintiffs’ requested relief.

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, does not provide 

jurisdiction for plaintiffs’ claims.

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 12 of 13
13

2. One or both plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims, including for the 

reason that Noah Bookbinder was not a party to the administrative complaint CREW and 

Melanie Sloan submitted to the FEC. 

 Respectfully submitted,

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

Acting General Counsel

lstevenson@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley

Associate General Counsel

kdeeley@fec.gov

Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226)

Acting Assistant General Counsel

ckitcher@fec.gov

/s/ Robert W. Bonham III

Robert W. Bonham III (D.C. Bar No. 3978590)

Senior Attorney

rbonham@fec.gov

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650

October 19, 2018

Case 1:18-cv-01861-CRC Document 10 Filed 10/19/18 Page 13 of 13