1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________________________________

§

BARBARA W. PALMER, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ Civ. No. 22-2876 (CRC)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, §

1050 First Street, NE §

Washington, DC 20463 §

Defendant. §

§

_____________________________________

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

UNDER FRCP 12(b)(1)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Plaintiff, Barbara W. Palmer, asks the Court to deny the Federal Election Commission’s 

(“FEC”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and for support of her 

claim that she has proper standing to bring this suit, would show as follows: 

The FEC has failed to properly examine, investigate, and analyze Plaintiff’s original 

complaint causing Plaintiff an informational injury sufficient to support standing in this case. 

Campaign Legal Center v. FEC, No. 21-5081 (D.D.C. 2022), citing FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11

(1998). In the alternative, should the FEC be claiming that it has addressed the issues and applied 

the law, Plaintiff would show that the FEC has acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious 

manner, failed to properly apply both statutory law and applicable United States Constitutional 

protections, and failed in its duties to provide agency services as assigned to it by the United States 

Executive Branch and the United States Congress.

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 20
2

By combining Plaintiff’s original FEC complaint with a second unrelated FEC complaint

under the same opinion letter and issuing its opinion on these combined complaints, the FEC

shuffled the facts of those two complaints, causing confusion as to the issues and law to be applied 

to Plaintiff’s complaint. The FEC failed to address the main issues of Plaintiff’s original 

complaint. Further, the FEC failed to properly assess the novelty of the issue presented or the 

nature of the threat posed to the electoral system.

INTRODUCTION & AGENCY PROCEEDINGS

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”) permits any person to file an 

administrative complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of the Act. 52 U.S.C. Sec. 

30109(a)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. Sec. 111.4. 

On November 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the Commission, 

which was designated Matter Under Review (MUR”) 7946. 

The primary compliant centered around the lack of disclosure or audit of transactions

involving a novel public-private partnership formed between the United States Elections 

Assistance Commission (“EAC”) and a not-for-profit entity known as the Center for Tech and 

Civic Life (“CTCL”). This appears to be the first time that the EAC has used this type of 

contractual arrangement. The funding was disclosed on the EAC’s website and annual reports as 

provided through federal taxpayer funding under the CARES Act. The amount was significant, 

about $400 million.

The original complaint provided information, publicly available, showing that the EAC 

had contracted out its agency functions to seek and review applications for grants of federally 

provided funds to state governmental entities. The EAC annual report indicated that the EAC

had hired one new EAC employee to handle the COVID-19 grant workload. The EAC was 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 20
3

originally formed as a non-rule making, executive branch agency under the Help America Vote 

Act (“HAVA”) in 2002, and it was funded an original amount to distribute to state election 

offices to improve voting processes in federal elections. In March 2020, Congress passed the 

CARES act, which provided new funding to the EAC, to be disbursed as assistance to state 

election offices because of added costs of federal elections due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As of the original complaint filing in November 2021, it appeared that approximately 

$400 million dollars in taxpayer funded aid, approved by Congress through the CARES Act of 

March 2020, had passed through the CTCL, and that the CTCL has been paid some undisclosed 

amount for its services to process both state and local grant requests. The Plaintiff’s FEC 

complaint also provided information to show that the EAC had also contracted, outside of its 

enabling statute, with CTCL to provide cybersecurity training to state and local election officials. 

Plaintiff supplemented her complaint on January 3, 2022. At that time, Plaintiff provided 

a copy of the Form 990, filed by the CTCL, which had been made publicly available. The CTCL 

income tax return failed to show any government payment for services rendered by the CTCL to 

the EAC, such a payment would trigger a taxable event as business income to any §501(1)(c)(3)

organization. 

Also, on the CTCL 990 return, page 8, the CTCL indicates that it paid a $250,00 fee to a 

second for-profit company for COVID-19 election consulting. This disclosure makes it highly 

probably that the CTCL sub-contracted its contractual obligations to EAC to a third-party 

vendor. 

This additional information opened a second source for the $400 million funding that was

provided to state and local governments. That source, as shown on the CTCL Form 990, was 

private donations by a hand-full of private donor(s) and treated as nontaxable income to the 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 20
4

CTCL. Another layer between the federal agency distributing the funds and the state or local 

election office receiving the funds that adds to the risk of corruption in the process.

Plaintiff’s original FEC complaint did not include a complainant against any of the

individual donors to the CTCL. One individual donor purportedly provided most of the CTCL 

donations that were purportedly passed through to both state and local election offices. In its 

opinion letter, FEC addressed two combined MUR complaints. That additional complaint, not 

from Plaintiff, included that individual donor as a respondent. Plaintiff does not question that 

donor’s motivations or intent in giving such a significant, overly generous gift to the CTCL, 

except to point out that such a donation could be tax deductible to the individual if, in fact, 

CTCL has a determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service that grants it §501(c)(3)

status. Clearly this issue is outside of the FEC’s domain. 

In addition to seeking information about the actual source of the funds, private or public, 

there is a question as to the actual use of the funds, particularly if those funds were provided by 

the United States government. The FEC never investigated or addressed this issue in its opinion

letter.

According to the EAC, the $400 million was to be used by the individual state 

governments to purchase personal protective equipment (“PPE”), or protective equipment for 

poll/election workers to guard them against infection by the COVID-19 virus as a result of the 

wide spread of the virus across the United States during the 2020 federal election cycle. 

Considering the amount of the funds involved, this begs the question as to whether or not the 

funds were used only for PPE or for other items, such as ballot drop boxes, election’s supplies to 

meet higher than normal mail in ballots supply needs, or other non-PPE items. Any state 

receiving EAC grant funds executes a contractual agreement between the State and the EAC, 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 4 of 20
5

including limitations on the use of the funds and statements as to legal obligations of the state 

employee to refrain from improper federal campaign activities. State and local employees must 

also follow federal law and the provisions of the contract with the federal agency. Plaintiff has 

no way of discovering if taxpayer funds were used by state or local election offices to assist 

those offices in violation of either federal or state election laws, under the guise of the COVID19 “emergency”.

There is no indication that any agency of the US government has audited the use of the 

funds at the State or local level to ensure compliance with EAC contracts and federal election 

laws. There is no publicly available information as to the actual contractual arrangements 

between the EAC and CTCL. At least one state, Texas, shows that all of the 2020 CARES Act 

funding came as a result of the EAC contractual arrangement, and there is no official indication 

that the State of Texas dealt with CTCL. See, 

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/funds/index.shtml. (Last checked January 31, 2023). There 

is no indication that Texas state election employees knew that they were dealing directly or 

indirectly with a federal contractor or that the federal contractor followed the provisions of the 

EAC/state contract.

The gravamen of the original FEC complaint was that the EAC formed a public

partnership that violated provisions the FECA, BCRA, and Federal Election Commission 

regulations as codified under the United States Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) by making 

illegal and prohibited contributions to political candidates and campaigns. 52 U.S.C. § 30119; 52 

U.S.C. § 30122. The FEC only mentioned the EAC in a footnote to its cover letter, which stated 

that it had determined that the EAC was not a proper respondent to the complaint. There was no 

analysis of the contractual arrangements between EAC and CTCL.

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 5 of 20
6

Federal law prohibits any federal contractor, who is entered into any contract with the United 

States or any department or agency thereof, for the rendition of services, to make, either directly or 

indirectly, any contribution or expenditure of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly 

or impliedly to make any such contribution or expenditure to any political party, committee, or 

candidate for Federal office or to any person for any political purpose or use. 52 U.S.C. § 30119, 11 

C.F.R. §115.2. Plaintiff’s complaint requested review of the transactions involved between the EAC 

and the CTCL for their participation in a likely quid pro quo scheme. It was requested that an audit 

look at the actual cash flows and determine if the EAC had properly reviewed information and 

followed appropriate contracting rules, keeping federal elections secure from ghost voters and ballot

box stuffing by any means. The complaint requested FEC to determine if financially powerful 

individuals caused there to be contributed excessive amounts of political contributions in the name of 

a controlled entity in violation of federal election laws. 52 U.S.C. §30122. Such actions interfere 

with the federal government’s ability and authority to combat corruption and compromise the 

democratic process by allowing a federal agency to favor some participants in that process over 

others. Since the time the original FEC complaint was filed, the major donor has publicly 

acknowledged that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation and, possibly other federal 

personnel or agencies, were in contact with this donor and employees at his company. The contacts 

by these federal law enforcement agencies related to, among other things, censoring of election 

related speech on a prominent social media platform, before, during and after the federal election in 

November 2020. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint requested information be disclosed as to the sources and 

uses of funds connected to the funding of multiple state and local election offices during the 

2020 general federal election cycle. Plaintiff filed the instant case in a timely manner and seeks

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 6 of 20
7

additional information and judicial review of the opinion and any determinations by the FEC

regarding her original complaint. 

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff Has Standing and this Court has Jurisdiction to Hear Her Suit.

A. Plaintiff has standing to seek additional information that is required to be 

disclosed to the public.

Plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this Court 

has subject-matter jurisdiction over her request for judicial review. Campaign Legal Center v 

FEC, Case No. 20-cv-00730, (D.D.C., 12/30/2021), citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 

U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To overcome the FEC’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff can 

establish standing by demonstrating a denial of access to information. Id., citing Campaign 

Legal Ctr., 952 F.3d at 3561.

Administrative complaints filed with the FEC are credible where they present “specific 

evidence” of the violations alleged. Citizens for Percy, ’84 v. FEC, No. 84-cv-2653m 1984 WL 

6601, at *3 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 1984). Plaintiff’s FEC complaint more than adequately 

demonstrated that there was a strong appearance of fraud through the first-time use of a 

purported not-for-profit §501(c)(3) organization, as a federal contractor, to handle large sums of 

federal (or private) grant funds being used to fund federal election related activities at the state 

(and local) level. A significant portion of those funds being disbursed directly to the election 

offices and potentially by-passing any fail-safe check points in, and compliance with, the 

detailed and rigorous rule-oriented processes as set out in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (“FECA”), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) and 

supplemented by Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). It now also appears that there may have 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 7 of 20
8

been adjustments, made by someone after the transactions occurred, to publicly disclosed 

information by a federal agency, the EAC, to change the source of the funds from federal 

taxpayers’ funds, handled by CTCL, to private charitable organization funds, donated to CTCL 

and handled by a third-party vendor to CTCL. This is significant, and needs further, 

investigation.

Plaintiff’s administrative complaint provided specific evidence indicating a conflict in the 

source of a significant amount of cash funds that were distributed to various state and local

election offices during the 2020 federal election cycle. Plaintiff has no access to the information 

of a private corporation. Further, Plaintiff is restricted from access to the civil courts for actions 

against the named respondents by the Congressional grant of jurisdiction to the FEC for all 

matters related to violations of federal election law. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30107. It is unclear if 

the FEC sought any information past one letter to CTCL, and it appears that the FEC never 

researched or questioned the EAC regarding its use of an outside contractor, or the potential 

third-party contractor, hired by CTCL, that is a for-profit corporation. 

The FEC opinion, as issued, has:

1) Determined any § 501(c)(3) can contract with any state or local government election 

office to provide any funds or services to that state or local election office, including 

funding any supplies, personnel training, or cybersecurity needs. Even if those 

activities violate federal election law or cause infringement of the constitutional 

guaranteed rights of United States citizens to vote in federal elections. FEC will not 

hold those organizations auditable or accountable by identifying them as a federal 

vendor, subject to federal election laws. 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 8 of 20
9

2) Determined that any federal agency may use federal funds to engage in federal 

election related activities, as long as those activities are labeled “Get Out the Vote”

and characterized as helpful, even if such activities have an extraordinarily high 

potential to introduce fraudulent schemes and corruption into the federal election 

system. 

The FEC appears to reason that it does not have the talent, the time or the resources to 

deal with its assigned agency duties.

The combined FECA, BCRA, and HAVA provisions at issue in this case prevent 

circumvention of the FECA’s core mandates, including its contribution limits and comprehensive

disclosure regime. Candidate contribution limits effectuate the “Act’s primary purpose to limit 

the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial 

contributions.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26 (1976). Our system of representative

democracy is undermined when large contributions, soft or dark money funded, in support of 

candidates or campaigns, are introduced into the cash flows of the election system via 

“independent” entities operating outside of the Act’s limits, prohibitions, and disclosure 

requirements. Id 15 26-27. The issues and evidence presented in Plaintiff’s original FEC 

complaint require the agency to thoroughly investigate and disclose all information to the public 

regarding the sources and uses of funds related to transactions between CTCL, the EAC, and the 

significant grants that went to state and local governments during the 2020 federal election cycle.

Plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of all the information that relates to the CTCL/EAC 

transactions with all State and local election offices as the funds were issued to support a federal 

election.

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 9 of 20
10

B. Plaintiff has standing to seek judicial review of a final agency ruling under 

general federal question jurisdiction.

After combining another MUR number, convoluting the facts and respondents of the two

complaints, and refusing to address the issues of this Plaintiff’s complaint, the FEC now wants 

sympathy because this congressionally empowered and funded federal agency, that has put four 

government paid attorneys on this case, doesn’t have time or money to deal with this problem

that is affecting elections for federal officers. Plaintiff asserts that FEC has offered a plethora of 

excuses so that FEC can delay this matter. 

Delay in addressing the issues presented herein will continue to affect federal elections in 

significant ways. There is a high probability that a delay will cause conflict with federal 

statutory time constraints on the next federal election cycle, as well as causing multiple problems 

for candidates and campaigns for federal office regarding campaign financing issues. 

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a federal agency’s final determination. Denial of review 

in this Court will foreclose all judicial review of the FEC’s determination on Plaintiff’s original 

complaint. Therefore, this Court’s review may be predicated on the general federal question 

jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. FCC, 

750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff is entitled to relief where the undisputed facts show that the FEC has acted 

“contrary to law”. 52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(8)(c). While the FECA “does not require that an 

[enforcement action] be completed within a specific time period,” Democratic Senatorial 

Campaign Comm. v. FEC, No. 95-cv-0349, 1996 WL 34301203, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 

1996)(“DSCC”), it does impose “an obligation to investigate complaints expeditiously, “ Id. at 

*4, See also, Common Case v. FEC, 489 F. Supp. 738, 744 (D.D.C. 1980)(“Where the issue 

before the Court is whether the agency’s failure to act is contrary to law, the Court must 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 10 of 20
11

determine whether the commission has acted “expeditiously.”). In determining whether the FEC 

is acting “expeditiously,” this Court may look to the credibility of the allegation, the nature of the

threat posed, the resources available to the agency, and the information available to it, as well as 

the novelty of the issues involved.” Common Cause 489 F. Supp. at 744. In addition, the Court 

may consider the factors outlined in Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70 

(D.C. Cir. 1984)

(1) The time agencies take to make decisions must be governed by a rule of reason;

(2) Where Congress has provided a timetable or other indication of the speed with which it 

expects the agency to proceed in the enabling statute, that statutory scheme may supply 

content for the rule of reason;

(3) Delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable 

when human health and welfare are at stake;

(4) The court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a

higher or competing priority

(5) The court should also take into account the nature and extent of the interest prejudiced by 

delay; and

(6) The court need not find an impropriety lurking behind agency lassitude to hold that 

agency action is unreasonably delayed. Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 

F.2d at 80. Although the FEC’s decision whether or not to investigate “is entitled to 

considerable deference, the failure to act in making such a determination is not.” DSCC, 

1996 WL34301203, at *4.

If this Court is satisfied that no further inquiry into the facts is required by the FEC, then 

the Court can conduct a judicial review of the FEC’s opinion letter and its determinations

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 11 of 20
12

under §1331 jurisdictions, make findings, or issue such orders as the Court deems necessary 

to mandate that FEC perform its function.

C. The FEC’s Failure to Properly Act on Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint

Poses a Substantial and Ongoing Threat to the Electoral System.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of 

government. U.S. Const. art. IV, Section 4. Any States’ control in the election process is subject 

to the protections of the fundamental rights of individuals and cannot conflict with specific and 

applicable provisions of the United States Constitution. Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U.S. 

78 (1908)(discussing application of the Fourteenth Amendment to citizens’ rights under Amend. 

V, U.S. Const.). “When the State violates a fundamental right of a citizen of the United States, 

the court(s) will interfere,... and the laws and actions of the State come under the prohibition of

the Fourteenth Amendment when (it) infringe(s) a fundamental rights . Id. at 85, citing, Ballard 

v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 262. The right to vote for national officers is just such a fundamental right 

guaranteed by the privileges and immunity clause to individuals holding national citizenship. 

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 149 (1970), citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651; In re 

Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 534; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97; Burroughs v. United States,

290 U.S. 534; United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315. “No State shall make or enforce any 

law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Amend. 

XIV, Section 1 U.S. Const. The Privileges and Immunities Clause is considered a primary source 

of substantive protection for United States citizens voting rights. 

The United States President and Vice President are selected through the framework of the 

Electoral College. U.S. Const. amend XII. States have the primary authority over election 

administration of this process to selection of Electors from the States; commonly referred to as

“times, places, and manner of holding elections”. U.S. Const. §4, Art. I. 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 12 of 20
13

A United States citizens’ right to vote is based upon the Constitution and not upon state 

law. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884). A government, “whose essential character is 

republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective, whose most numerous 

and powerful branch of the legislature is elected by the people directly” must have the power by 

appropriate laws to secure that election from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of 

fraud.” Id. at 657. To be more than “a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other States and 

governments, each of which is superior to the general government”, the federal government must 

have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends. Id. at 658. 

The FEC’s failure to investigate and seek enforcement of federal laws has allowed 

federal elections to be corrupted during the 2020 election cycle. The control for selecting the 

chief executives of the United States now rests with small un-elected groups, ostensibly 

operating as §501(c)(3) charity groups, controlled by an even smaller groups of individuals, nongovernment employees, and for-profit vendors, who may or may not be United States citizens or 

residing in the United States. Control of United States federal elections has been vested in unelected individuals, that are far removed from government oversight or audit, to control, not just 

the day-to-day training of local level election staff, but the control, by non-governmental 

employees, of necessary cybersecurity for machines connected to the world-wide internet web, 

from attack by foreign actors.

The FEC, through its decision, is suggesting that it either does not care, or believes that

somehow a series of events that spawned hundreds of federal election related lawsuits across the 

U.S. to be filed after November 3, 2020 was a one-time fluke and has no chance of happening 

again. The FEC is wrong. 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 13 of 20
14

The FEC has the jurisdiction, the authority, and the duty to investigation, report, and 

move forward any investigation and litigation necessary to keep the problems of the 2020 

election cycle from repeating again.

1. Congress has delegated the authority and responsibility to investigate and 

litigate issues related to federal elections to the Federal Election 

Commission, and thereby protect the national election processes.

The United States is governed under enumerated powers as stated in the U.S Constitution 

and its amendments. The balance of governmental functions are carried out locally and at the 

state level. A major change came with World War II, when the federal government took on 

extraordinary powers to coordinate the nation’s fighting of the war. These powers were exercised 

by executive branch agencies, created by Congress, and overseen by the U.S. President. The 

federal government never really demobilized after World War II, creating the large and powerful 

central government that has characterized modern U.S. politics. Outside of the military, almost 

all the growth in government has been the growth of administrative agencies, like the FEC. 

In its Motion to Dismiss, the FEC admits that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” to 

administer, interpret, and civilly enforce the FECA. See generally 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30107. 

The FEC’s motion goes on to state: 

“Congress authorized the Commission to “formulate policy” with respect to 

FECA, id. § 30106(b)(1); “to make, amend, and repeal such rules . . . as are necessary

to carry out the provisions of [FECA],” id. §§ 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8); and to investigate

possible violations of the Act, id. § 30109(a)(1)-(2). The Commission has exclusive 

jurisdiction to initiate civil enforcement actions for violations of the Act in the United 

States district courts. Id. §§ 30106(b)(1), 30109(a)(6).”

The EAC, on the other hand, is not a rule making agency. The EAC’s enabling statute

limits its power to act mainly to a clerical capacity for processing grant applications and 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 14 of 20
15

disbursement of funds to state election offices. As explained in Plaintiff’s original complaint to 

the FEC, the EAC went far beyond its powers during the 2020 election cycle.

Federal agencies must be established by Congress. Congress starts agencies and expands 

them to deal with public relations problems. Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign 

Act in 1971 (“FECA”) with the aim of “remedying any actual or perceived (emphasis added)

corruption of the political process.” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 15 (1998). To further this goal, 

the Act uses three (3) primary mechanisms: 1) contribution limits; 2) source restrictions; and 3)

disclosure requirements. 

Federal campaign finance laws prohibit contributions by government contractors. 52 

U.S.C. § 30119, 11 C.F.R. §115.2. This is a source restriction that the EAC and CTCL has 

worked their way around using a multi-step process. The FEC needs to thoroughly investigate

this matter. The structure of the rules, as a whole, is designed to “prevent attempts to circumvent

the Act through prearranged or coordinated, expenditures amounting to camouflaged

contributions. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 47 (1976)

This prohibition restricts federal contractors from making any contribution “to any 

political party, committee, or candidate for public office. The central restriction is thus a 

prohibition on contributions to candidates, but directly related to that ban on candidate 

contributions are the prohibitions on contributing to political parties and to committee related to 

candidates. This prohibition acts as a guard to prevent contributors from dodging the ban on 

candidate contributions by giving to groups that could coordinate with the candidate. Wagner v. 

Federal Election Commission, 901 F. Supp. 2d 101(D.D.C. 2012). 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 15 of 20
16

A ban on political contributions satisfies the First Amendment only if it is “closely drawn to 

match a sufficiently important interest. See, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 210 (2010)(The 

Government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech). 

In Wagner, the Government offered two important interests to justify the constructor restriction.

Although Wagner involved individual employees, the principles are the same here, and the reasoning 

is applicable as well. The first of the two important interests is a Government interest in ensuring 

that federal employment does “not depend on political performance,” that vendors “enforce the law 

and execute the programs of the Government without bias or favoritism for or against any political 

party or group or the members thereof,” and that vendors are “free from pressure and from express or 

tacit invitation to vote in a certain way or perform political chores in order to curry favor with their 

superiors rather than to act out their own beliefs.” Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of 

Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO, 413 U.S. 548, 564 – 66 (1973). 

The second interest is to avoid quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof. 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26 (1976). There is no doubt that, as it pertains to past and the 

present election cycle, there is serious concern over the existence of quid pro quo corruption in 

federal elections.

 Working around the statutory system appears to be as simple as calling a not-for-profit

organization a §501(c)(3) instead of a §501(c)(4), or one of the dozen or so other types of 

§501(c) designations for not-for-profit entities, and then funneling the money through it to state 

or local election staff that execute the federal election procedures. Procedures such as use of 

mail-in ballots or signature verification, and those local government employees who count the 

votes.

Federal campaign finance laws prohibit contributions in the name of another person. 52 

U.S.C. § 30122. The statute reads as follows: 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 16 of 20
17

“No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly 

permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly 

accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.” 

The statute prohibits the use of a straw donor to make contributions. A straw donor 

contribution is an indirect contribution from A, through B, to the campaign. It occurs when A 

solicits B to transmit funds to a campaign in B's name, subject to A's promise to advance or 

reimburse the funds to B. Although employing different methods, false name and straw donor 

schemes both facilitate attempts by an individual (or campaign) to thwart disclosure 

requirements, as well as contribution limits. U.S. v. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied, 563 U.S. 929 (2011). See also, United States v. Boender, 649 F.3d 650 (7th Cir 

2011)(A specific quid pro quo of money is sufficient, but not necessary, to violate 18 U.S.C. 

§666(a)(1)(B), the parallel provision criminalizing the solicitation and acceptance of bribes and 

rewards). 

The FEC has wholly failed to address in its ruling violations of federal election statutes, 

cited above, as those code sections relate to the CTCL and its association as a federal contractor, 

dealing directly with state and local election officials and staff.

2. Significant flaws in multiple states election procedure are causing 

violations of federal election laws during federal elections, and these 

violations are going to continue until addressed by the FEC or the federal 

court system.

Plaintiff acknowledges that there is an argument that the 2020 election cycle was an 

anomaly, that the “stuff the ballot box” with mail-in ballots and use of public drop boxes was a 

result of a one-time nation-wide pandemic, and that measures had to be taken and federal money 

had to be allocated, to ensure public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 general elections. In 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 17 of 20
18

other words, the original intentions of actions taken around the spring of 2020 may have been 

taken to solve the problems occurring at that moment. Plaintiff is not attempting to “Monday 

morning quarterback” the 2020 election.

Plaintiff asserts that there were federal election law violations during the 2020 general

elections, particularly in selected states, and those problems will reoccur in the 2024 federal 

election cycle. 

Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, state and local government officials, 

particularly in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, usurped their legislatures’

authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these 

statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. 

See, State of Texas v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, 

State of Wisconsin, “Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint,” December 7, 2020.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/162953/20201207234611533_TX-vState-Motion-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf pg. 1.

According to the Texas complaint, which the Supreme Court declined to hear, the goal of

this strategy was to flood “battleground” states “with millions of ballots to be sent through the

mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody.” At the same time, state and 

local government officials also sought to “weaken the strongest security measures protecting the

integrity of the vote signature verification and witness requirements.” Id.

The volume of materials available that address the various state actions taken to alter 

their respective federal elections during the 2020 federal election cycle is too voluminous to 

include here. This Response addresses a motion to dismiss filed by the FEC. What can be 

summarized here is that state and local election employees, along with “helpful” groups of 

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 18 of 20
19

contractors, are working to normalize that the States and counties can have dirty voter rolls, 

filled with people that are illegal voters, and then employees, operating under the color of state 

law, can mail ballots to these ineligible voters, maybe more than once, and then those same 

state/local government employees can arbitrarily reduce the scrutiny on election ballot signatures

(which is what they did in Nevada in 2020 and they did it again in 2022), so that as long as a

piece of paper that the local government election office deems to be a “ballot”, not a vote, not a 

person, but just a piece of paper, hits a box, that piece of paper is going to be counted toward 

electing a federal officer. The FEC already has authority and ability to correct these problems 

and right the ship of State.. 

In order to vote in state conducted elections for U.S. President an individual must meet 

the following qualifications: 1) Be at least 18 years old; 2) Be a United States citizen; 2) Be 

registered to vote. It is incumbent upon the FEC to work diligently to prevent any action, by 

state election officers, federal agencies, or not-for-profit organizations from introducing fraud 

and corruption into federal elections. The FEC has a duty to enforce the federal election laws 

and the uphold the integrity of the United States and its Constitution. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has standing to bring this complaint under either of two theories, stated above 

and supported by law. Plaintiff, therefore, respectfully requests this Court to deny the Federal 

Election Commission’s Motion to Dismiss, and order the agency to answer. Further, Plaintiff 

requests this Court to set the matter down for a pre-trial scheduling conference, prior to trial on 

the merits.

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 19 of 20
20

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/

Barbara W. Palmer

Attorney at Law

TX Bar No. 15424395

P.O. Box 1386

Princeton, TX 75407

Tel. No. (214) 734-1861

Email: bpalmer.txag@gmail.com

ATTORNEY PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of February 2023, a copy of the foregoingNotice of 

Appearance, was delivered to case registered parties by the CM/ECF court system.

/s/ 

Barbara W. Palmer

Case 1:22-cv-02876-CRC Document 9 Filed 02/02/23 Page 20 of 20