IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANNA PAULINA LUNA FOR 

CONGRESS,

1201 Gandy Blvd N

Saint Petersburg, FL 33742

 Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION 

COMMISSION,

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20463

 Defendant,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.__

/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

1. This is an action under the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or 

“Act”) 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) for illegal agency delay.

2. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to compel defendant 

Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) to take action on Plaintiff’s 

administrative complaint alleging violations of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a), a FECA 

provision that makes it unlawful for “any corporation...to make a contribution or 

expenditures in connection with any election to any political office.”

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 18
2

3. Section 30118(a) strictly prohibits corporations—such as Twitter, 

Inc.—from making contributions or expenditures to federal candidates.

4. Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on October 22, 

2020 alleging that Twitter, Inc. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by refusing to verify

Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna’s Twitter account while promptly 

verifying the accounts of other candidates in her race, thereby providing valuable 

corporate resources to certain candidates, while denying the same to Plaintiff. A true 

and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1.

5. The October 22 administrative complaint asked the Commission to find 

reason to believe that Twitter, Inc. violated section 30118(a) by providing a benefit 

of concrete value to Plaintiff’s political opponents while denying her the same 

benefit, and also requested an investigation to determine whether a violation had 

occurred or was continuing to occur. Ex. 1, Admin. Compl. ¶¶ 1-8.

6. FECA provides administrative complainants with a right of action 

against the FEC if the Commission fails to act on a complaint within 120 days. 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). 

7. Six months after plaintiff filed the administrative complaint, there is no 

indication that the FEC has taken any action on it.

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 18
3

8. The Commission’s prolonged inaction has fostered a “cancel-culture” 

atmosphere where corporationssuch as Twitter can influence elections by selectively 

providing valuable benefits to certain candidates while denying the same valuable 

benefits to other candidates, which is squarely what FECA is meant to prevent. This 

could take the form of so-called “blue-check verification,” as was the case here. But 

it could also take the form of denying Twitter access entirely, allowing one candidate 

to use Twitter as a media megaphone while refusing a competing candidate the same 

platform access.

9. Plaintiff has suffered a direct and concrete financial injury that is 

traceable to the FEC’s inaction. While a Twitter account is generally provided at no 

up-front cost—nearly anyone with access to the internet may create a Twitter 

account—verification of that account can be difficult and expensive to procure. 

10. A blue checkmark next to the account name conveys credibility and 

signifies it has been verified and is an account of public interest. Twitter verifies 

accounts maintained by users in music, acting, government, politics, media and other 

prominent fields.

11. Twitter places a valuation on access to its platform by allowing users to 

promote their tweets or accounts for a fee. Twitter, Create a Tweet Engagements 

Campaign, https://business.twitter.com/en/help/campaign-setup/create-a-tweetengagement-campaign.html. 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 18
4

12. Content posted from a verified Twitter account has a demonstrably 

higher monetary value than content posted from un-verified accounts. Verified 

accounts automatically jump to the top of search results. Nancy Scola, Twitter to 

Verify All Congressional and Gubernatorial Primary Hopefuls, POLITICO (Dec. 

12, 2019), https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/twitter-vertify-primarycandidates-accounts-083647. Verified accounts received significant boosts in 

engagement, including a 38% increased engagement on tweets with photos, a 16% 

boost on tweets with hashtags, and a 28% boost on tweets with videos. Simon 

Rogers, What Fuels a Tweet’s Engagement?, Twitter (Mar. 10, 2014), 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2014/what-fuels-a-tweets-engagement.html. This 

increased engagement is significant for candidates approaching election day. 

13. In 2018, Twitter introduced an “Election Labels” feature. Election 

Labels contain relevant information about a political candidate, including the office 

the candidate is running for, the state in which the office is located, and district 

number (where applicable), and is clearly identifiable with a small icon of a 

government building. Bridget Coyne, Introducing US Election Labels for Midterm 

Candidates, Twitter (May 23, 2018), 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/introducing-us-electionlabels-for-midterm-candidates.html. Election Labels only appear on verified 

candidate accounts. The week before the 2018 general election, users on Twitter 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 of 18
5

viewed tweets from Election Labeled accounts approximately 100 million times 

each day, and 13% of election conversation on Twitter in the United States included 

a tweet from an Election Labeled account. Bridget Coyne, Helping Identify 2020 US 

Election Candidates on Twitter, Twitter (Dec. 12, 2019), 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/helping-identify-2020-uselection-candidates-on-twitter.html. Twitter itself promotes that verified accounts 

are more valuable than non-verified accounts. Verified Election Labeled accounts 

jump to the top of search results, result in higher engagement with other users, and 

account for a large portion of election related social media activity on Twitter. By 

selectively providing verification benefits to certain candidate accounts, Twitter has 

provided a valuable corporate funded benefit to those candidates, which is prohibited 

under FECA.

14. By failing to act on Plaintiff’s complaint within 120 days as prescribed

by FECA for such action, the Commission has encouraged other social media 

platforms to follow suit by providing benefits and value to certain candidates while 

denying the same to others based purely on party affiliation. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and 

personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). This 

Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 of 18
6

16. Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A).

THE PARTIES

17. Plaintiff Anna Paulina Luna for Congress is the authorized candidate 

committee of Anna Paulina Luna, a Hispanic military veteran who was the 

Republican nominee for Florida’s 13th Congressional District in the 2020 General 

Election. Anna Paulina Luna for Congress filed the October 22, 2020 FEC complaint 

and is the Plaintiff in this action.

18. Anna Paulina Luna has filed paperwork with the FEC to run for 

Congress again in 2022. Anna Paulina Luna for Congress will continue to serve as 

Anna Paulina Luna’s authorized candidate committee.

19. Defendant FEC is an independent federal agency charged with the 

administration and civil enforcement of FECA. 52 U.S.C. § 30106(b). 

BACKGROUND

Governing Law

20. 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) prohibits corporations from providing “anything 

of value” to federal candidates, which the FEC has consistently interpreted to mean 

that if corporate resources are provided to one candidate, the same resources must 

be made available to all candidates in order to avoid such corporate resources being 

treated as a contribution. 11 C.F.R. §§ 114.2(f)(1), 100.52(d)(2), 100.111(e)(1), 

114.13.

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 18
7

21. 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(a) prohibits corporations from making a contribution 

in connection with any federal election. 

22. 11 C.F.R. § 114.1(a)(1) defines “contribution” as “any direct or indirect 

payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or 

anything of value... to any candidate, political party or committee, organization, or 

any other person in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in 

11 CFR 114.2 (a) or (b) as applicable.” [Emphasis added].

Facts

23. Twitter, Inc., is a for-profit corporation engaged in the business of 

online social media networking. Twitter’s site allows users to send and receive short 

posts known as “tweets.” Twitter is one of the largest social media networking sites 

in the world with over 330 million active users. See Twitter, Q1 2019 Earnings 

Report, at 5, https://s22.q4cdn.com/826641620/files/doc_financials/2019/q1/Q1-

2019-Slide-Presentation.pdf. 

24. One of the features of Twitter’s site is account verification. Verification

is signified by a blue checkmark next to the account name and indicates the account 

is one of public interest. 

25. Twitter has partnered with Ballotpedia, a civic non-profit organization 

that publishes nonpartisan information on candidates to streamline candidate access 

to verification and Election Labels. Twitter rules state that for a candidate to be 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 18
8

verified with an Election Label on Twitter, candidates who qualify for the primary 

ballot for the United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, and 

Gubernatorial races must meet the following guidelines: (1) register with the 

relevant federal or state agency before the candidate filing deadline and appear on 

official candidate lists released by the relevant government election agency after the 

filing deadline; (2) meet certain Twitter account requirements, including having a 

profile photo, header photo, bio and website that clearly identifies the candidate; and 

(3) comply with Twitter’s Rules and Terms of Service. Twitter Help Center, About 

election labels on Twitter, Twitter, https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/electionlabels. 

26. Anna Paulina Luna was the Republican nominee for Florida’s 13th

Congressional District in 2020. Luna filed her statement of candidacy with the FEC 

on September 9, 2019. 

27. On December 12, 2019, Twitter announced it would start verifying the 

accounts of all candidates for Congress in the 2020 election cycle. Nancy Scola, 

Twitter to Verify All Congressional and Gubernatorial Primary Hopefuls, 

POLITICO (Dec. 12, 2019), https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/twittervertify-primary-candidates-accounts-083647. 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 18
9

28. On February 7, 2020, Anna Paulina Luna reached out Katie 

Rosborough of Twitter via email because her campaign account was not yet verified 

despite meeting all of the requirements in Twitter’s rules. Ex. 1-A. 

29. Ms. Luna received what appears to be an automated response from 

“Twitter Government & Elections” regarding her inquiry and directing her to 

complete the Ballotpedia candidate survey. Ex. 1-A.

30. Ms. Luna responded to the email stating that her Ballotpedia profile had 

been up to date for a while. She also stated all other candidates in her race had 

previously been verified. Ex. 1-A.

31. Twitter Government & Elections responded on February 7 stating that 

her account should be processed on a rolling basis. Ex. 1-A.

32. On March 3, 2020, Ms. Luna again reached out to Twitter via email 

requesting they investigate her un-verified account. Ms. Luna again explained she 

was the only candidate in her primary whose account remained un-verified. Ex. 1-

B.

33. On March 6, 2020, Twitter Government & Elections responded to Ms. 

Luna’s email reciting Twitter’s requirements to receive a verified account badge. Ex. 

1-B. 

34. On June 11, 2020 Ms. Luna again reached out to Twitter Government 

& Elections. She stated multiple persons had attempted to solicit contributions 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 18
10

falsely purporting to be for her via Twitter. These impersonations and the resulting 

diversion of funds from her real campaign were made possible by Twitter’s failure 

to verify her campaign’s Twitter account. She stated that she remained the only 

candidate in her primary whose Twitter account remained un-verified. She again 

asked Twitter to verify her account. Ex. 1-C.

35. On June 12, 2020, Twitter Government & Elections responded with the 

identical email sent on March 6, 2020 adding that they would flag her request for 

their support team to review.

36. On August 18, 2020, Derek Utley, a campaign consultant for Plaintiff

Anna Paulina Luna for Congress, reached out to Twitter Government & Politics via 

email. He stated that Ms. Luna had won the Republican primary election and asked 

that they proceed with the verification of her account. Ex. 1-D.

37. On August 19, 2020, Mr. Utley followed up on his request asking 

Twitter Government & Elections to confirm receipt of his email. Ex. 1-D.

38. On August 19, 2020, Twitter Government & Elections responded with 

the same email sent on March 6 and June 12 adding “Thanks for reaching out here.” 

Ex. 1-D.

39. Mr. Utley responded on August 19 stating that Ms. Luna had won the 

primary election and met the requirements for account verification and once again 

asked that Twitter proceed with the verification. Ex. 1-D.

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 18
11

40. Twitter claims its rules apply equally to all: “[w]e treat everyone 

equally: the same Twitter Rules apply to all.” Twitter, Safety on Twitter, 

https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety.html. 

41. Content posted from verified Twitter accounts have a demonstrably 

higher monetary value than content posted from un-verified accounts. 

42. Verified accounts automatically jump to the top of search results. Nancy 

Scola, Twitter to Verify All Congressional and Gubernatorial Primary Hopefuls, 

POLITICO (Dec. 12, 2019), https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/12/twittervertify-primary-candidates-accounts-083647. 

43. Verified accounts receive a significant boost in engagement, including 

a 38% increased engagement on tweets with photos, a 16% boost on tweets with 

hashtags, and a 28% boost on tweets with videos. Simon Rogers, What Fuel’s a 

Tweet’s Engagement?, Twitter (Mar. 10, 2014), 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2014/what-fuels-a-tweets-engagement.html.

44. This increased engagement is significant for candidates approaching 

election day. 

45. In 2018, Twitter introduced an “Election Labels” feature. Election 

Labels contain relevant information about a political candidate, including the office 

the candidate is running for, the state the office is located in, and district number 

(where applicable), and is clearly identifiable with a small icon of a government 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 18
12

building. Bridget Coyne, Introducing US Election Labels for Midterm Candidates, 

Twitter (May 23, 2018), 

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/introducing-us-electionlabels-for-midterm-candidates.html. 

46. Election Labels only appear on verified candidate accounts. 

47. In the week before the 2018 general election, users on Twitter viewed 

tweets from Election Labeled accounts approximately 100 million times each day,

and 13% of election conversation on Twitter in the United States included a tweet 

from an Election Labeled account. Bridget Coyne, Helping Identify 2020 US 

Election Candidates on Twitter, Twitter (Dec. 12, 2019)

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/helping-identify-2020-uselection-candidates-on-twitter.html.

48. An article from 2012 estimated it then cost approximately $15,000 to 

get a Twitter account verified. Alexander Abad-Santos, Twitter Verification Has a 

Pricetag: $15,000, The Atlantic (Jan. 10, 2012), 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/twitter-verification-haspricetag-15000/333313/. 

49. Twitter has never provided an explanation to Plaintiff for its refusal to 

provide verification, but this disparate treatment is consistent with Twitter’s pattern 

of content based discrimination against conservatives and specifically Anna Paulina 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of 18
13

Luna. For example, Twitter temporarily locked Ms. Luna, a veteran of the United 

States Air Force, out of her account for “sensitive content” when she criticized 

socialism while dressed in an American military styled uniform. Allum Bokhari, 

Twitter Temporarily Restricts Account of GOP Congressional Candidate Anna 

Paulina Luna, Breitbart (Mar. 14, 2020), 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/03/14/twitter-temporarily-restricts-accountof-gop-congressional-candidate-anna-paulina-luna/

50. Ms. Luna was also temporarily suspended from Twitter when she 

tweeted the following opposition to socialism and support for Second Amendment 

rights on August 7, 2019: “I am HISPANIC. I am a NRA MEMBER. I am a veteran.

I will not bend the knee to the socialist agenda to ban firearms. I took an oath to 

defend the people of this nation as well as the constitution. Stop making El Paso 

political.”

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

51. On October 22, 2020, Anna Paulina Luna for Congress filed a 

complaint with the FEC against respondent Twitter, Inc. urging that the Commission 

find reason to believe a violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) had occurred, and that it 

commence an investigation. 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 18
14

52. Plaintiff’s October 22 administrative complaint alleged that Twitter, 

Inc. violated FECA’s prohibition on corporate contributions by providing something 

of value to certain candidates while denying the same to Anna Paulina Luna.

53. Citing Twitter, Inc.’s published articles in its administrative complaint,

Plaintiff explained the intrinsic value of a verified account and Twitter’s election 

labeling feature.

54. The FEC responded to the complaint with a letter of acknowledgement 

dated October 28, 2020 informing Plaintiff that the proceeding would be designated 

Matter Under Review (“MUR”) 7832. Ex. 2. 

55. Upon information and belief, the Commission has failed to act on 

Plaintiff’s October 22, 2020 administrative complaint since it was filed well over 

120 days ago. The Commission’s inaction has thus persisted well beyond the 

statutorily allotted 120-day response period. 

ONGOING HARM

56. Twitter, Inc. verified the accounts of Plaintiff’s opponents while 

refusing to verify Plaintiff’s account, providing something of value to her opponents.

57. While there is mixed guidance on the precise value of a verified Twitter 

account, it cannot be disputed that a verified account has some intrinsic monetary 

value. How much is my Twitter worth?, TweetBinder blog, 

https://www.tweetbinder.com/blog/how-much-my-twitter-worth/. 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 of 18
15

58. Anna Paulina Luna’s Twitter account remains unverified to date.

59. Anna Paulina Luna has filed a statement of candidacy with the FEC to 

run for Congress again in 2022. Anna Paulina Luna Statement of Candidacy, May 1, 

2021, https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/H0FL13158/1514902/. 

60. Plaintiff has suffered – and continues to suffer – an injury-in-fact that 

is causally related to Defendant’s inaction. Twitter, Inc. continues to selectively 

verify accounts, providing something of value to certain candidates while denying 

the same to Plaintiff—likely based on Twitter’s political views (though the reason 

for Twitter’s discrimination is irrelevant to this proceeding). An order requiring the 

FEC to act on this matter would redress Plaintiff’s injury.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Count I: FECA 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A)

61. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-60.

62. As a complainant, Plaintiff is legally entitled to have the FEC “act on 

[its] complaint during the 120-day period beginning on the date the complaint is 

filed.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). If the FEC fails to so act, the statute authorizes 

a complainant to “file a petition with the United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia.” Id.

63. Plaintiff having filed a petition, this Court “may declare that the . . . 

failure to act is contrary to law, and may direct the Commission to conform with 

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 16 of 18
16

such declaration within 30 days.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). If the Commission 

fails to act, Plaintiff may bring “a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the 

original complaint.” Id.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:

1) Declare that the FEC’s failure to act on Plaintiff’s administrative 

complaint within 120 days was “contrary to law” under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A)

& (C); 

2) Order the FEC to conform with this declaration within 30 days pursuant 

to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C);

3) Declare that if the FEC does not comply within 30 days of this Court’s 

order, Plaintiff may bring a civil action to remedy the violation;

4) Award Plaintiff their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in 

this action; and

5) Grant such other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: May 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Charles R. Spies

Charles R. Spies, Bar ID: 989020

Jessica G. Brouckaert Bar ID: 1671225

1825 Eye Street, NW, Ste 900

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 466-5964

Facsimile: (844) 670-6009

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 17 of 18
17

cspies@dickinsonwright.com

jbrouckaert@dickinsonwright.com

Robert L. Avers, Bar ID: MI0083

350 S. Main St, Ste 300

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Telephone: (734) 623-1672

ravers@dickinsonwright.com

John J. Bursch*

Bursch Law PLLC

9339 Cherry Valley Ave. SE, #78

Caledonia, MI 49316

Telephone: (616) 450-4235

Jbursch@burschlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

*Admission Forthcoming

Case 1:21-cv-01213-CJN Document 4-1 Filed 05/05/21 Page 18 of 18