UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

THE PATRIOTS FOUNDATION 

4020 121st Street 

Urbandale, Iowa 50323, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First St., NE 

Washington, D.C. 20463, 

Defendant, 

and 

HILLARY FOR AMERICA 

P.O. Box 5256 

New York, NY 10185-5256 

CORRECT THE RECORD 

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA 

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY

FOUNDATION 

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY PAC 

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

DAVID BROCK 

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

Proposed 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02229-EGS 

PROPOSED INTERVENORS’ 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S 

COMPLAINT 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 8
2 

Correct the Record (“CTR”), Media Matters for America (“MMFA”), American Bridge 

21st Century Foundation (“AB Foundation), American Bridge 21st Century PAC (“AB PAC”), 

Hillary for America (“HFA”), and David Brock, (together, “Proposed Intervenors”) submit this 

Answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff The Patriots Foundation, denying each allegation except 

to the extent expressly admitted below: 

1. Proposed Intervenors admit that Plaintiff purports to bring an action pursuant to 52

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) for unlawful agency delay. 

2. Proposed Intervenors admit that Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to

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

Administrative Complaint. 

3. Paragraph 3 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe Plaintiff’s

Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required, Proposed Intervenors deny that they violated the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. Proposed Intervenors lack sufficient information to confirm 

or deny whether the FEC acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint by letter 

dated April 13, 2020. Proposed Intervenors admit that the FEC has numbered this matter MUR 

7726. 

4. Paragraph 4 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe Plaintiff’s

Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is required. 

5. Paragraph 5 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

6. Proposed Intervenors admit that 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed its

administrative complaint and the FEC has taken no public action on that complaint. 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 8
3 

7. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. Paragraph 8 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and 

characterizations to which no response is required. 

9. Paragraph 9 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and 

characterizations to which no response is required. 

10. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 10. 

11. Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11, and therefore, they are denied. 

12. Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12, and therefore, they are denied. 

13. Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13, and therefore, they are denied. 

14. Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14, and therefore, they are denied. 

15. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegation in Paragraph 15. 

16. Proposed Intervenors admit that David Brock is a Democratic political operative 

who founded MMFA, AB PAC, AB Foundation, and CTR, but denies that the organizations share 

the common goal of electing Democratic candidates. 

17. Proposed Intervenors admit that Brock established MMFA as an incorporated, taxexempt Section 501(c)(3) organization. Proposed Intervenors deny the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 17. 

18. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegations in Paragraph 18. 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 3 of 8
4 

19. Proposed Intervenors admit that AB Foundation was established as a Section 

501(c)(4) organization but deny that it serves as an “advocacy arm” of American Bridge 21st 

Century PAC. 

20. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegations in Paragraph 20. 

21. Paragraph 21 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe FEC and 

IRS public filings, which speak for themselves, and therefore no response is required. 

22. Paragraph 22 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe “recent 

audited financial statements,” which speak for themselves, and therefore no response is required. 

23. Paragraph 23 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe 

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is 

required. 

24. Paragraph 24 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe 

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is 

required. 

25. Proposed Intervenors admit that American Bridge 21st Century PAC made 

independent expenditures opposing Donald Trump and that David Brock received a salary from 

both American Bridge 21st Century PAC and Correct the Record. Proposed Intervenors currently 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether AB PAC and 

CTR shared at least seven staff members in 2016. Proposed Intervenors deny the remainder of the 

allegations in Paragraph 25. 

26. Paragraph 26 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe 

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is 

required. To the extent that a response is required, Proposed Intervenors deny that AB PAC’s 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 4 of 8
5 

expenditures in support of Hillary Clinton’s election were misreported as independent 

expenditures and should have been reported by HFA as in-kind contributions. 

27. Paragraph 27 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is 

required. 

28. Paragraph 28 makes no factual allegations, but rather purports to describe

Plaintiff’s Administrative Complaint, which speaks for itself, and therefore no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Proposed Intervenors deny that there were 

unreported in-kind contributions made and received among Brock’s organizations. 

29. Paragraph 29 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

30. Paragraph 30 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

31. Paragraph 31 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

32. Paragraph 32 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

33. Paragraph 33 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

34. Paragraph 34 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

35. Paragraph 35 makes no factual allegations, but rather states legal conclusions and

characterizations to which no response is required. 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 5 of 8
6 

36. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegations in Paragraph 36 but deny that they

violated FECA or corresponding FEC regulations. 

37. Proposed Intervenors lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 37, and therefore, they are denied. Proposed Intervenors 

admit that the matter was designated by the FEC as MUR 7726. 

38. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegation in Paragraph 38.

39. Proposed Intervenors incorporate their responses to the preceding paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein. 

40. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 40.

41. Proposed Intervenors admit the allegation in Paragraph 41.

42. Proposed Intervenors admit that TPF seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to

compel the FEC to take action on TPF’s Administrative Complaint. 

43. Proposed Intervenors deny the allegations in Paragraph 43.

Finally, Proposed Intervenors deny any and all allegations in the Complaint not expressly 

admitted herein to which a response is required. 

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Having set forth their answers to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Proposed Intervenors plead the 

following defenses and affirmative defenses: 

1. Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its claims.

2. The equitable doctrine of laches bars Plaintiff from obtaining any relief.

3. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

4. Proposed Intervenors designate all denials to the Complaint set forth above as

defenses to the extent necessary for its full defense of this matter. 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 6 of 8
7 

5. Proposed Intervenors reserve the right to amend and add affirmative defenses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

The Court should deny Plaintiff’s requests for relief and grant no other relief to Plaintiff. 

Such relief is not warranted in this case because Plaintiff lacks standing; the equitable doctrine of 

laches bars Plaintiff’s claim for relief; and the Commission’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 

Administrative Complaint was not contrary to law. 

DATED: October 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

By: /s/ Aria C. Branch

Marc Erik Elias, Bar No. 442007 

Aria C. Branch, Bar No. 1014541 

MElias@perkinscoie.com 

ABranch@perkinscoie.com 

700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 

Telephone: 202.654.6200 

Facsimile: 202.654.6211 

Counsel for Defendant-Proposed Intervenors 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 7 of 8
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on October 28, 2020, that I caused a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document to be served upon all counsel of record registered with the Court’s ECF 

system, by electronic service via the Court’s ECF transmission facilities. 

By: /s/ Aria C. Branch

Marc Erik Elias 

Aria C. Branch 

PERKINS COIE LLP 

700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 

Telephone: 202.654.6200 

Facsimile: 202.654.6211 

Email: MElias@perkinscoie.com 

Email: ABranch@perkinscoie.com 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 13 Filed 10/28/20 Page 8 of 8