1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

____________________________________

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civ. No. 21-346-BAJ-SDJ

)

v. )

) MEMORANDUM IN 

DEFEND LOUISIANA PAC, et al., ) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR 

) DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Default judgment against Defend Louisiana PAC and Taylor Townsend, in his official 

capacity as treasurer, is warranted. The Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) 

commenced this action on June 14, 2021. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Commission’s complaint 

alleged that Defend Louisiana and Townsend violated the Federal Election Campaign Finance 

Act (“FECA”) by failing to report certain independent expenditures and by failing to describe 

adequately the purpose of eight expenditures in Defend Louisiana’s campaign finance disclosure 

filings. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1), (b)(6)(B)(iii). The Commission served the complaint and 

summons on both defendants on July 13, 2021. (Aff. of Process Server, ECF No. 6; Aff. of 

Process Server, ECF No. 7.) Yet neither defendant has entered an appearance nor filed a 

responsive pleading. The clerk entered a default against both defendants on August 13, 2021. 

(Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 9.) Because defendants have been unresponsive, they have 

halted the adversary process; therefore, default judgment is appropriate. 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 1 of 12
2

BACKGROUND

FECA requires that groups registered as political committees file periodic disclosure 

reports identifying, inter alia, each “person who receives any disbursement” aggregating more 

than $200, as well as “the date, amount, and purpose of” the independent expenditure. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii). Defend Louisiana, a registered political committee, made $551,525.44 in 

independent expenditures supporting Foster Lonnie Campbell or opposing John Neely Kennedy 

in the 2016 Louisiana U.S. Senate runoff election. (Compl. ¶ 23.) Those independent 

expenditures triggered the requirement that Defend Louisiana file both a pre-runoff and postrunoff election report. (Id.) On November 28, 2016, Defend Louisiana filed its pre-runoff 

report, which Townsend signed. (Id.) On Schedule E of the pre-runoff report, Defend Louisiana 

disclosed sixteen independent expenditures totaling $209,049.79. (Id.) Eight of those 

independent expenditures had a stated purpose of “Community Outreach,” as shown in Table 

One below. (Id. ¶ 24.)

Table One: Independent Expenditures with Inadequate Purpose Statements

Payee Date Purpose Statement Federal Candidate Supported Amount

APAC 10/27/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $5,500

LIFE 10/27/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $7,500

NOEL 10/27/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $2,500

United Ballot 

PAC 10/27/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $5,000

BOLD 10/31/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $6,000

Jefferson 

United 10/31/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $10,000

Noel 10/31/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $5,000

TIPS 10/31/2016 Community Outreach Foster Lonnie Campbell $4,000

Total $45,500

On December 12, 2016, Defend Louisiana filed a 48-Hour report disclosing three 

independent expenditures disseminated on December 10, 2016, totaling $45,475.65. (Id. ¶ 28.) 

On January 9, 2017, Defend Louisiana filed a post-runoff report covering the period of 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 2 of 12
3

November 21, 2016, through December 30, 2016. (Id. ¶ 29.) However, the Schedule E did not 

disclose the three independent expenditures, as shown in Table Two below, that Defend 

Louisiana previously included in the December 12, 2016 48-Hour report. (Id.)

Table Two: 48-Hour Report Activity Not Disclosed on Schedule E

Payee Date Purpose Statement Federal Candidate 

Supported/Opposed

Amount

EF Business Center 12/10/2016 Mailers John Neely Kennedy $28,875.65

Last World Strategies 12/10/2016 Digital Ad Consulting Foster Lonnie Campbell $8,300

Last World Strategies 12/10/2016 Digital Ad Consulting John Neely Kennedy $8,300

Total $45,475.65

On January 31, 2017, Defend Louisiana filed amended pre-runoff and post-runoff reports, 

but the amended reports did not contain any changes to the Schedule Es. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 30.)

The Commission’s Reports and Analysis Division reached out to Defend Louisiana with 

Requests for Additional Information regarding both the “Community Outreach” purpose 

statements on the pre-runoff report and the missing independent expenditures on the post-runoff 

report. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 33.) Neither Defend Louisiana nor Townsend responded to the requests. (Id.

¶ 32.) The Reports Analysis Division made multiple additional attempts to contact Defend 

Louisiana and Townsend via phone and email to resolve the defects with the pre-runoff report 

and post-runoff report, but defendants failed to correct the reports. (Id. ¶ 35.)

Defend Louisiana and Townsend also failed to respond to the following:

(1) A June 28, 2018 letter notifying defendants that Defend Louisiana and Townsend 

may have violated FECA and that the matter was referred to the FEC’s Office of 

General Counsel for possible enforcement action, id. ¶¶ 36-37;

(2) A May 23, 2019 letter informing defendants that the Commission decided by a 

vote of 4-0 to find reason to believe that Defend Louisiana and Townsend violated 

52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii), (Compl. ¶¶ 38-39);

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 3 of 12
4

(3) A July 23, 2020 letter that informed defendants that the Commission decided by a 

vote of 4-0 to find probable cause to believe that Defend Louisiana and Townsend 

violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and contained a

proposed conciliation agreement, (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43). 

The Commission attempted to conciliate for 90 days, but defendants never responded. 

(Compl. ¶¶ 43-44.) On March 8, 2021, the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 to authorize a 

civil action against defendants for failing to provide adequate purpose statements for eight 

independent expenditures in Defend Louisiana’s pre-runoff report and for failing to disclose 

three independent expenditures in its post-runoff report. (Id. ¶ 45.) On June 14, 2021, the 

Commission filed a complaint against Defend Louisiana and Townsend for violating 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30104(a)(1) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court issued summonses, 

and Defend Louisiana and Townsend were properly served with the summonses and complaint 

on July 13, 2021. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Neither Defend Louisiana nor Townsend filed responsive 

pleadings within 21 days of service, and so the Clerk of Court entered Default as to both 

defendants on August 13, 2021. (ECF No. 9.)

ARGUMENT

Default judgment against Defend Louisiana and Townsend is appropriate because their 

unresponsiveness to the Commission’s complaint means that “‘the adversary process has been 

halted.’” United States v. Charter Home Health, LLC, No. 19-CV-881-BAJ-RLB, 2020 WL 

7311347, at *2 (M.D. La. Dec. 11, 2020) (quoting Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & 

Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989)). The Court applies “a two-part process to 

determine whether a default judgment should be entered.” Charter Home Health, LLC, 2020 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 4 of 12
5

WL 7311347, at *2. First, the Court considers the six Lindsey factors to determine whether 

“default judgment is procedurally justified”: 

(1) whether there are material issues of fact; (2) whether there has been 

substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default have been clearly 

established; (4) whether the default was caused by excusable neglect or good faith 

mistake; (5) the harshness of the default judgment; and (6) whether the Court 

would think itself obliged to set aside the default on a motion by Defendant.

Id. (citing Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998)). Second, the Court 

“determine[s] whether the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently sets forth facts establishing that it is 

entitled to relief.” Id. (citing Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 

1206 (5th Cir. 1975)). 

Upon completing the two-step process, “the Court must determine what form of relief the 

[p]laintiff should receive.” Id. at *3. The Court generally does not award damages “without a 

hearing or a demonstration by detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “However, no hearing is required when ‘the amount claimed is a 

liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation.’” Id. (quoting James v. Frame, 6 

F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993)). 

I. Entry of Default Judgment is Procedurally Justified. 

First, there are no issues of material fact. By failing to respond to the Commission’s 

complaint, the defendants have “admit[ted] the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact.”

Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). The facts 

alleged in the Commission’s complaint establish that Defend Louisiana is a political committee 

that registered with the FEC in April 2016. FECA requires Defend Louisiana, as a political 

committee, to file disclosure reports either: (1) monthly; or (2) quarterly during election years 

with an additional “pre-election report” due 12 days before an election and a “post-election 

report” due 30 days after the election. 52 U.S.C. § 30104. These reports must include any 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 5 of 12
6

independent expenditure that the committee makes, 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii), as well as

purpose statements describing why each expenditure was made, 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). 

These descriptions must “provide sufficient public disclosure of how a committee used its 

funds.” Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; Regulations Transmitted to 

Congress, 45 Fed. Reg. 15,080, 15,086 (Mar. 7, 1980); see also Statement of Policy: “Purpose of 

Disbursement” Entries for Filings with the Commission, 72 Fed. Reg. 887 (Jan. 9, 2007) 

(explaining that the “entry, when considered along with the identity of the disbursement 

recipient, must be sufficiently specific to make the purpose of the disbursement clear”). 

“[S]tatements or descriptions such as advance, election day expenses, other expenses, expenses, 

expense reimbursement, miscellaneous, outside services, get-out-the-vote and voter registration,” 

do not provide sufficient public disclosure of how a committee used funds. 11 C.F.R. 

§ 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B). “Constituent outreach” and “outreach” are also examples of purpose 

statements that the FEC has specifically identified as inadequate. FEC, Purposes of 

Disbursement, https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/purposes-disbursements/

(last visited Aug. 31, 2021).

As alleged in the complaint, Defend Louisiana’s description of the purpose of eight 

independent expenditures in its pre-runoff report as “Community Outreach” is akin to “get-outthe-vote” or “constituent outreach” and are thus legally inadequate. (Compl. ¶ 25.) The 

Commission further alleged that Defend Louisiana failed to report three independent 

expenditures entirely in its post-election report, and that Townsend was the treasurer responsible 

for Defend Louisiana’s filings. (Id. at ¶ 27, 29.) These facts are undisputed as Defend Louisiana 

and Townsend have failed to file an answer in response to the FEC’s complaint. 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 6 of 12
7

Second, the FEC and the public have endured substantial prejudice as a result of Defend 

Louisiana’s and Townsend’s FECA violations. The public has an interest in knowing how a 

committee uses its funds, including “who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that 

speech.” SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also 

Amendments to Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; Regulations Transmitted to Congress, 

45 Fed. Reg. at 15,086; see also Statement of Policy: “Purpose of Disbursement” Entries for 

Filings with the Commission, 72 Fed. Reg. at 887 (explaining that the “entry, when considered 

along with the identity of the disbursement recipient, must be sufficiently specific to make the 

purpose of the disbursement clear”). Defend Louisiana and Townsend harmed the public interest 

when they: (1) provided inadequate purpose statements for eight independent expenditures on the 

pre-election report, depriving the public of the knowledge of how the committee was using its 

funds; and (2) failed to report three independent expenditures on the post-election report, 

depriving the public of one of the ways that it should have been able to determine who was 

speaking about the candidate and who was funding that speech. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, 29.) By 

failing to enter an appearance or file responsive pleadings, defendants have halted the adversary 

process and are preventing the FEC from litigating to vindicate the public’s interest in 

transparent campaign finance. Therefore, default judgment is necessary to remedy the 

substantial prejudice that the public has suffered. 

Third, the FEC has established grounds for default judgment. Defend Louisiana and 

Townsend were properly served summonses and the FEC’s complaint. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.)

Because they failed to enter an appearance or file any responsive pleadings within 21 days after 

being served the summonses and complaint, the Clerk of the Court entered default. (ECF No. 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 7 of 12
8

13.) More than 14 days have passed since the Clerk’s entry of default, therefore the grounds for 

default judgment have been met. M.D.La. R. 55.

Fourth, there is no reason to believe that Defend Louisiana’s and Townsend’s defaults are 

the result of excusable neglect or good-faith mistake. Townsend was personally served the 

summonses and complaint for both defendants, yet neither Defend Louisiana nor Townsend filed 

responsive pleadings. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Townsend is an attorney and should understand Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12’s responsive pleading requirements. Furthermore, Townsend has a 

history of failing to respond to the FEC’s attempts to contact him to resolve Defend Louisiana’s 

reporting violations. (Compl. ¶¶ 31-44.)

Fifth, entry of default judgment against Defend Louisiana and Townsend is not overly 

harsh. Defendants have had multiple opportunities to resolve this case. Prior to any 

administrative enforcement proceedings, the FEC informed defendants of their reporting 

violations and gave defendants the opportunity to amend Defend Louisiana’s reports to cure the 

deficiencies. (Id.) Defendants failed to amend the reports and stopped responding to the FEC’s 

attempts to contact them regarding the violations. (Id.) The Commission attempted to engage 

defendants in a statutorily mandated conciliation period, but defendants made no response to 

those efforts. (Id. ¶¶ 42-44.) Defend Louisiana and Townsend then failed to enter an appearance 

or file any pleadings responsive to the FEC’s civil complaint. (ECF No. 9.) This persistent 

failure to respond or appear “mitigates the harshness of a default judgment.” Charter Home 

Health, LLC, 2020 WL 7311347, at *3. 

Sixth, the FEC is not aware of any facts that would lead the Court to set aside the default 

judgment if challenged by Defend Louisiana and Townsend. Therefore, because all six Lindsey

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 8 of 12
9

factors weigh in favor of the FEC, the Court should find that default judgment is procedurally 

justified. 

II. The FEC’s Complaint Establishes a Viable Claim for Relief.

“A default judgment ‘must be supported by well-pleaded allegations and must have a 

sufficient basis in the pleadings.’” Charter Home Health, LLC, 2020 WL 7311347, at *3 

(quoting Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 788 F.3d 490, 498 (5th Cir. 2015)). In order 

to obtain a default judgment, the pleadings must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and must “give the defendant fair notice of what 

the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

The FEC filed a civil enforcement suit against Defend Louisiana and Townsend for 

violating FECA. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) FECA requires that political committees report 

independent expenditures and provide adequate descriptions of the purpose of those 

expenditures. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A). The FEC argued in 

its complaint that: (1) Defend Louisiana is a political committee, (Compl. ¶ 6); (2) Defend 

Louisiana and Townsend violated FECA when they failed to provide adequate purpose 

statements for eight independent expenditures in Defend Louisiana’s pre-runoff report, (id. ¶ 48); 

and (3) Defend Louisiana and Townsend violated FECA when they failed to report three 

independent expenditures in Defend Louisiana’s post-runoff report (id. ¶ 50). Defend Louisiana 

and Townsend did not file any pleadings responsive to these allegations. (ECF No. 9.)

Therefore, these facts are undisputed and the FEC’s complaint establishes a valid claim for relief. 

See Charter Home Health, LLC, 2020 WL 7311347, at *3. 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 9 of 12
10

III. A Hearing to Assess Appropriate Relief is Unnecessary.

FECA authorizes a United States district 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. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B). FECA also authorizes the Court to grant permanent 

injunctions or issue other orders “upon a proper showing that the person involved has committed

. . . a violation.” Id.; see also Stockman v. FEC, 138 F.3d 144, 153 n.16 (5th Cir. 1998) (“If the 

district court ultimately concludes that the respondent violated or is about to violate the Act, it 

may grant a permanent injunction or a fine of $5,000.”); SEC v. Kahlon, 873 F.3d 500, 508 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (holding that a permanent injunction barring defendants from violating Section 5 of 

the Securities Act was appropriate); SEC v. Gann, 565 F.3d 932, 940 (5th Cir. 2009) (affirming 

district court’s grant of permanent injunction barring defendant from violating specific 

provisions of the Securities Act).

A hearing to assess damages is not necessary because the FEC’s requested civil penalty is 

a liquidated amount capable of mathematical calculation. See Charter Home Health, LLC, at *3 

(citing Frame, 6. F.3d at 310). For each violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(a)(1) that are not knowing and willful, “the civil penalty shall not exceed the 

greater of $20,528 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure involved in the 

violation.” 11 C.F.R. § 111.24 (a)(1). The FEC is requesting that the Court assess the statutory 

amount of $20,528 as the civil penalty for each of the two series of violations, for a total amount 

of $41,056 against defendants Defend Louisiana and Townsend, in his official capacity as 

treasurer. 

Furthermore, the Court need not hold a hearing to determine whether equitable relief is 

appropriate. The defendants have declined to appear and dispute the FEC’s claims that Defend 

Louisiana’s pre-runoff and post-runoff reports are deficient. Moreover, Defend Louisiana and 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 10 of 12
11

Townsend have refused to take any step to correct these violations despite the FEC’s repeated 

attempts to contact defendants to resolve these issues informally and through conciliation. Thus, 

the FEC’s only recourse to obtain corrected filings and protect the public interest in campaign 

finance transparency is a Court order directing Defend Louisiana and Townsend to file corrected 

reports. 

Additionally, a permanent injunction barring Defend Louisiana and Townsend from 

future violations of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) is appropriate. The Court 

has authority to grant a permanent injunction when a violation of FECA has occurred. 

Stockman, 138 F.3d at 153 n.16. Again, defendants’ violations of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1) and 

30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) deprived the public of some of the required accountings of Defend 

Louisiana’s independent expenditures in a contested federal election. Given defendants’ history 

of FECA violations and their refusal to correct deficient filings, a permanent injunction barring 

future FECA violations is appropriate equitable relief.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the FEC requests that the Court enter default judgment against Defend 

Louisiana PAC and Taylor Townsend for violating 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(a)(1). The Commission further requests that the Court: order Defend Louisiana 

and Townsend to correct the pre-runoff and post-runoff reports; permanently enjoin defendants 

from failing to disclose independent expenditures and from providing inadequate purpose 

statements for independent expenditures; and assess a civil penalty of $41,056.00 against 

defendants.

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 11 of 12
12

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Washington, D.C. Bar 457628

Acting General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

P: (202) 694-1650

F: (202) 219-1043

lstevenson@fec.gov

Kevin Deeley 

Massachusetts Bar 644486

Associate General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

P: (202) 694-1650

F: (202) 219-1043

kdeeley@fec.gov

September 10, 2021

Jacob S. Siler

Washington, D.C. Bar 1003383

Acting Assistant General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

P: (202) 694-1650

F: (202) 219-1043

jsiler@fec.gov

_______________ 

M. Elise Holman

Arkansas Bar 2017215

Washington, D.C. Bar 1643692

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

P: (202) 694-1650

F: (202) 219-1043

eholman@fec.gov

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 12-1 09/10/21 Page 12 of 12