Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 1 of 20 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CIVIL ACTION 

VERSUS 

DEFEND LOUISIANA PAC, ET AL. NO. 21-00346-BAJ-SDJ 

RULING AND ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Federal Election Commission’s Motion For 

Default Judgment (Doc. 12) against Defendants Defend Louisiana PAC and 

Taylor Townsend, in his official capacity as treasurer of Defend Louisiana PAC. 

(Doc. 12). The Motion is unopposed. 

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 

A. Alleged Facts 

This suit arises out of Defendants’ alleged violation of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). Plaintiff, the 

Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”), filed suit against Defendants 

Defend Louisiana PAC (“Defend Louisiana”) and Taylor Townsend, in his official 

capacity as treasurer of Defend Louisiana.1 (Id. at p. 1). 

1 Black’s Law Dictionary defines a political action committee or “PAC” as “[a]n organization

formed by a special-interest group to raise and contribute money to the campaigns of political

candidates who seem likely to promote its interests; a group formed by a business, union, or 

interest group to help raise money for politicians who support the group's public-policy 

interests. — Abbr. PAC.” Political-Action Committee, BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 

(11th ed. 2019). 

1 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 2 of 20 

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff is an independent agency of the 

U.S. Government with exclusive jurisdiction over the administration, interpretation, 

and civil enforcement of FECA. (Id. at ¶ 5). Plaintiff is authorized to initiate 

civil actions in U.S. district courts to obtain judicial enforcement of FECA. (Id. (citing 

52 U.S.C. §§ 30107(e), 30109(a)(6)). 

Defend Louisiana is an independent expenditure-only political committee 

located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.2 (Doc. 1, ¶ 6). Defend Louisiana registered with 

the Commission on April 29, 2016. (Id.). Defend Louisiana also maintains a bank 

account at Whitney Bank in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Id.). During the 2016 election 

cycle, Defend Louisiana made independent expenditures totaling over $600,000. (Id.). 

Defendants failed to disclose or provided inadequate disclosures for more than 

$90,000 in independent expenditures. (Id. at ¶ 1). 

i. First Cause of Action: Inadequate Purpose for Independent 

Expenditures 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) by failing to provide adequate purpose statements for 

eight independent expenditures totaling over $45,500 on Schedule E of 

Defend Louisiana’s pre-runoff report. (Id. at p. 12). In support, Plaintiff alleges the 

following. 

On November 8, 2016, no candidate won 50% of the vote in the 

Louisiana U.S. Senate open primary/general election. (Id. at ¶ 21). U.S. Senate 

2 Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “expenditure” as “[t]he act or process of spending or using 

money, time, energy, etc.; esp., the disbursement of funds” or “[a] sum paid out.” Expenditure, 

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). 

2 
 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 3 of 20 

candidates Foster Lonnie Campbell and John Neely Kennedy competed in a runoff 

election held on December 10, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 22). Defend Louisiana made $551,525.44 

in independent expenditures that supported Campbell or opposed Kennedy during 

the 2016 Louisiana runoff election. Those independent expenditures triggered the 

requirement that Defend Louisiana file both a pre-runoff and post-runoff election 

report. (Id. at ¶ 23). 

On November 28, 2016, Defend Louisiana filed its pre-runoff report. (Id.). On 

Schedule E of the pre-runoff report, Defend Louisiana disclosed sixteen independent 

expenditures totaling $209,049.79 that supported U.S. Senate Candidate 

Foster Lonnie Campbell, Jr. in the 2016 Louisiana U.S. Senate runoff election. (Id.). 

Eight of those independent expenditures, totaling $45,000, had a stated purpose of 

“Community Outreach,” as shown in Table One below (Id. at ¶ 24). 

“Community Outreach” is a purpose statement often understood to mean “getout-the-vote” or “voter registration” that is insufficiently specific to provide public 

disclosure regarding how Defend Louisiana used its funds (Id. at ¶ 25 (citing 11 

C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B)). 

3 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 4 of 20 

On January 31, 2017, Defend Louisiana filed an amended pre-runoff report, 

but did not change its purpose statements in Schedule E. (Id. at ¶ 26). Townsend 

signed Defend Louisiana’s original and amended pre-runoff reports in his capacity as 

treasurer. (Id. at ¶ 27). 

ii. Second Cause of Action—Undisclosed Independent 

Expenditures 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(1) by failing to 

disclose three independent expenditures totaling $45,475.65 on Schedule E of 

Defend Louisiana’s post-runoff report. (Id. at p. 12). In support, Plaintiff alleges the 

following facts. 

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. at ¶ 28). On January 9, 2017, Defend Louisiana filed a post-runoff 

report covering the period of November 21, 2016, through December 30, 2016. The 

report included a Schedule E disclosing nine independent expenditures totaling 

$297,000. 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. at ¶ 29). 

4 
 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 5 of 20 

On January 31, 2017, Defend Louisiana filed an amended post-runoff report. 

(Id. at ¶ 30). The amended post-runoff report did not contain any changes to Schedule 

E. (Id.). 

iii. Administrative Proceedings 

On May 2, 2017, the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division sent 

Defend Louisiana a Request for Additional Information that: (1) notified it that 

“Community Outreach” is an inadequate purpose statement; and (2) sought 

clarification of the purpose of the eight independent expenditures that were 

designated “Community Outreach” in its pre-runoff report. (Id. at ¶ 31). 

Defend Louisiana did not respond to the Request for Additional Information. 

(Id at ¶ 32). 

On May 7, 2017, the Commission's Reports Analysis Division sent a second 

Request for Additional Information to Defend Louisiana requesting information 

pertaining to the three independent expenditures that were disclosed in the 48-hour 

report but not reported on Schedule E of the post-runoff report. (Id. at ¶ 33). Defend 

Louisiana did not respond to the second Request for Additional Information. 

(Id. at ¶ 34). 

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. at ¶ 35). 

5 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 6 of 20 

On June 28, 2018, the Commission notified Defendants that they may have 

violated FECA. (Id. at ¶ 36). The Commission also notified Defendants that it referred 

the matter to the Commission’s Office of General Counsel for a possible enforcement 

action under 52 U.S.C. § 30109. (Id. at ¶ 36). 

The letter explained to Defendants that the violations included failing to 

provide adequate purposes 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. at ¶ 37). The letter also gave Defendants the opportunity to 

respond, but neither provided a written response. (Id.). 

On May 15, 2019, 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)(l) and 

30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) by failing to provide adequate purposes for eight independent 

expenditures in Defend Louisiana’s pre-runoff report and by failing to disclose three 

independent expenditures in its post-runoff report. (Id. at ¶ 38). 

On May 23, 2019, the Commission notified Defendants of its “reason-to-believe 

findings” in a letter, which attached the factual and legal analysis supporting the 

Commission’s determination. (Id. at ¶ 39 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2)). During the 

ensuing investigation, Defendants failed to respond to the Commission's 

reason-to-believe letter. (Id. at ¶ 40 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2)). 

On July 2, 2020, 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)(l) and 

30104(b)(6)(B)(iii). (Id. at ¶ 41 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3)). 

6 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 7 of 20 

On July 23, 2020, the Commission notified Defendants of its “probable cause 

findings” in a letter, which also contained a proposed conciliation agreement. 

(Id. at ¶ 42). The Commission's mandated conciliation period began on July 23, 2020, 

when the Commission notified Defendants of its probable cause finding and certified 

its probable cause vote. (Id. at ¶ 43). The Commission was required to conciliate for 

at least 30 days—until at least August 23, 2020. (Id.). The Commission attempted to 

conciliate for a period of 90 days. (Id. at ¶ 44). Defendants did not respond to the 

Commission’s attempts to negotiate a conciliation agreement. (Id.). 

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 purposes 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. at ¶ 45). The 

Commission alleges that it has satisfied all of the jurisdictional requirements in 

FECA that are prerequisites to filing this action. (Id. at ¶ 46). 

iv. Relevant Statutory and Regulatory Provisions 

The Commission points to the following relevant statutory and regulatory 

provisions. FECA establishes a system to disclose the financing and spending of 

money in federal election campaigns. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-30146; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 8). It 

does so by regulating “contribution[s]” and “expenditure[s].” Id. § 30101(8)(A), (9)(A); 

(See Doc. 1, ¶ 8). Under the Act, a “contribution” includes any “gift, subscription, loan, 

advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose 

of influencing any election for Federal office.” Id. at § 30101(8)(A); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 8). 

7 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 8 of 20 

An “expenditure” includes “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, 

deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of 

influencing any election for Federal office.” Id. at § 30101(9)(A); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 8). 

Under FECA, “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons 

which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year 

or which makes expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year,” 

id. at § 30101(4)(a) and has “the major purpose of . . . the nomination or election of a 

candidate” is a political committee. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976) (per 

curiam); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 9). 

Groups that fall within the definition of a “political committee” are required to 

register with the Commission, appoint a treasurer, and meet other organizational 

requirements. 52 U.S.C. § 30103; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 10). The treasurer is required to sign 

and file regular reports disclosing the committee’s receipts and disbursements. 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(l); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 10). 

Requiring political committees dedicated to making independent expenditures 

to file reports disclosing receipts and disbursements: (1) serves the public “interest in 

knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech,” and 

(2) “deters and helps expose violations of other campaign finance restrictions, such as 

those barring contributions from foreign corporations or individuals." SpeechNow.org 

v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 11). 

Political committees that are not authorized by a federal candidate—so called 

8 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 9 of 20 

“unauthorized committees”—may choose to file their 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; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 12). 

Unauthorized committees must include independent expenditures in these 

reports. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 13). Independent expenditures 

are those that expressly advocate for “the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

federal candidate [] and that [are] not made in concert or cooperation with or at the 

request or suggestion” of the candidate or his or her committee or agents, “or a 

political party committee or its agents.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(17); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 13). 

Included in the information political committees must disclose on their 

regularly scheduled reports is the full name and address of each “person who receives 

any disbursement during the reporting period in an aggregate amount . . . of $200 

within the calendar year . . . in connection with an independent expenditure by the 

reporting committee,” as well as “the date, amount, and purpose of” the independent 

expenditure. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii); see also 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(vii); 

11 C.F.R. § 104.4(a); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 14). This itemized list of a committee’s independent 

expenditures is required to be included on Schedule E of the form on which 

unauthorized committees report. 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(vii); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 14). 

“[P]urpose means a brief statement or description of why the disbursement was 

made.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A); (See id. at ¶ 15). These descriptions must “provide 

sufficient public disclosure of how a committee used its funds.” (See Doc. 1, ¶ 15). 

9 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 10 of 20 

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

Congress, 47 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”); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 15). 

Examples of purpose statements that are sufficiently specific include: “dinner 

expenses, media, salary, polling, travel, party fees, phone banks, travel expenses, 

travel expense reimbursement, and catering costs.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B); (See 

Doc. 1, ¶ 15). “[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,” on the other hand, do not provide sufficient 

public disclosure of how a committee used funds. Id.; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 15). 

If a political committee makes independent expenditures for an election that 

aggregate to $10,000 or more in a calendar year, in addition to reporting those 

expenditures on the committee’s regular periodic reports the committee must also 

report those expenses on a “48-hour report,” i.e., a separate report due within that 

time frame after the communication is publicly disseminated. 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2); 

(See Doc. 1, ¶ 16). This 48-hour reporting obligation arises for each additional 

aggregate $10,000 in independent expenditures the political committee makes in a 

single election. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 15). The information required to be reported about 

10 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 11 of 20 

disbursements for independent expenditures on 48-hour reports is the same 

information required on Schedule E of regular periodic reports. Id.; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 15). 

Political committees making expenditures related to Louisiana U.S. Senate 

elections must adhere to reporting requirements and deadlines for both the Louisiana 

open primary/general election and any subsequent runoff election. FEC Advisory Op. 

2000-29, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2000-29/2000-29.pdf; (See Doc. 1, ¶ 18). 

When a runoff election is necessary, political committees must file pre-runoff and 

post-runoff election reports disclosing campaign financing and spending. Id.; see also 

FEC, Primary and General Election Report Notice, https://www.fec.gov/helpcandidates-and-committees/dates-and-deadlines/2020-reportingdates/prior-notices2020/election-report-notice-louisiana/. (See Doc. 1, ¶ 18). 

FECA authorizes a U.S. district court to order a defendant who has violated 

FECA to pay a civil penalty. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B). For violations 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)(l); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 19). In addition to imposing civil penalties, 

FECA authorizes U.S. district courts to “grant a permanent or temporary injunction, 

restraining order, or other order” against any defendant who has violated the Act. 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B); (See Doc. 1, ¶ 20). 

B. Procedural History 

Plaintiff filed suit on June 14, 2021. (Doc. 1). Despite being personally served 

on June 29, 2021, Defendants have not appeared in this case. (Doc. 6; Doc. 7). On 

11 
 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 12 of 20 

August 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default. (Doc. 8). The Clerk of 

Court entered Clerk’s Entries of Default on the same day. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff now 

moves for a Default Judgment against Defendants. (Doc. 12). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has adopted a 

three-step process to obtain a default judgment. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 

84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 1996). First, a default occurs when a party “has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend” against an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Next, an entry of 

default must be entered by the clerk when the default is shown “by affidavit or 

otherwise.” See id.; New York Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 141. Third, a party may apply 

to the court for a default judgment after an entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); 

New York Life Ins. Co., 84 F.3d at 141. 

After a party files for a default judgment, courts must apply a two-part process 

to determine whether a default judgment should be entered. First, a court must 

consider whether the entry of default judgment is appropriate under the 

circumstances. Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Several 

factors are relevant to this inquiry, including the following: (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. Default judgments are disfavored due to a strong policy 

12 
 

 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 13 of 20 

in favor of decisions on the merits and against resolution of cases through default 

judgments. Id. Default judgments are “available only when the adversary process has 

been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party.” 

Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 

(5th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). 

Second, the Court must assess the merits of Plaintiff's claims and determine 

whether Plaintiff has a claim for relief. Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. 

Houston Nat'l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975); Hamdan v. 

Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc., No. CV 15-00412, 2016 WL 1192679, at *2 

(M.D. La. Mar. 22, 2016). 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Whether Default Judgment Is Appropriate 

The Court must determine whether default judgment is appropriate under the 

circumstances by considering the Lindsey factors. Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 

161 F.3d 886, 893 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, Defendants failed to file an Answer or 

Rule 12 Motion in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 1). Consequently, there are 

no material issues of fact. See id.; Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat'l Bank, 

515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975). The grounds for default have been clearly 

established in the record. (Doc. 6–Doc. 9); See Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893. No evidence 

before the Court indicates either substantial prejudice or that Defendants’ failure to 

respond or appear was the result of “good faith mistake or excusable neglect.” See id. 

Further, Defendants’ failure to file a responsive pleading or otherwise defend the 

13 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 14 of 20 

instant lawsuit mitigates the harshness of a default judgment. See id.; see also 

Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge, 39 F. Supp. 3d 807, 814 (M.D. La. 2014). Finally, the 

record contains no facts giving rise to good cause to set aside the default judgment if 

challenged by Defendants. See Lindsey, 161 F.3d at 893. The Court finds that the 

Lindsey factors weigh in favor of entry of default judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 

B. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint Establishes a Viable Claim for 

Relief 

The Court must also assess the merits of Plaintiff’s claims to determine 

whether Plaintiff’s Complaint establishes a viable claim for relief. 

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

Hamdan v. Tiger Bros. Food Mart, Inc., No. CV 15-00412, 2016 WL 1192679, at *2 

(M.D. La. Mar. 22, 2016). The Court will address each of Plaintiff’s two causes of 

action in turn. 

i. First Cause of Action: Inadequate Purpose for Independent 

Expenditures 

First, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare that Defendants violated 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) by failing to provide 

an adequate purpose statement for eight independent expenditures totaling $45,500 

on Schedule E of Defend Louisiana’s 2016 pre-runoff report. Section 

30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) provides: 

(b) Contents of reports 

Each report under this section shall disclose— 

(B) for any other political committee, the name and address of each-- 

14 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 15 of 20 

(iii) person who receives any disbursement during the reporting period

in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $200 within the calendar

year (or election cycle, in the case of an authorized committee of a 

candidate for Federal office), in connection with an independent

expenditure by the reporting committee, together with the date, 

amount, and purpose of any such independent expenditure and a 

statement which indicates whether such independent expenditure is in 

support of, or in opposition to, a candidate, as well as the name and office 

sought by such candidate, and a certification, under penalty of perjury,

whether such independent expenditure is made in cooperation, 

consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, any 

candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such committee[.] 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) provides: 

(b) Reporting of disbursements. Each report filed under § 104.1 shall 

disclose the total amount of all disbursements for the reporting period 

and for the calendar year (or for the election cycle, in the case of an 

authorized committees) and shall disclose the information set forth at

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section. The first report filed by 

a political committee shall also include all amounts disbursed prior to

becoming a political committee under § 100.5 of this chapter, even if

such amounts were not disbursed during the current reporting period. 

(3) Itemization of disbursements by political committees other than 

authorized committees. Each political committee, other than an 

authorized committee, shall report the full name and address of each 

person in each of the following categories, as well as the information 

required by each category; 

(i) Each person to whom an expenditure in an aggregate amount or value 

in excess of $200 within the calendar year is made by the reporting 

committee to meet the committee's operating expenses, together with

the date, amount, and purpose of such operating expenditure; 

(B) Examples of statements or descriptions which meet the 

requirements of 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) include the following: dinner

expenses, media, salary, polling, travel, party fees, phone banks, travel 

expenses, travel expense reimbursement, and catering costs. However, 

statements or descriptions such as advance, election day 

expenses, other expenses, expenses, expense reimbursement, 

miscellaneous, outside services, get-out-the-vote and voter 

registration would not meet the requirements of 

11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) for reporting the purpose of an expenditure. 

15 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 16 of 20 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defend Louisiana provided purpose statements of 

“Community Outreach” for eight expenditures, totaling $45,000. (Doc. 1, ¶ 24). 

Plaintiff further asserts that the purpose of “Community Outreach” is similar to “getout-the-vote” or “voter registration” and is insufficiently specific to provide public 

disclosure of how the committee used its funds (Id. at ¶ 25 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 

104.3(b)(3)(i)(B)). Defendants have failed to challenge the facts alleged or arguments 

presented in any manner. 

In the absence of any indication to the contrary from Defendants, the Court 

finds that Defendants violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 

11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) by failing to provide an adequate purpose statement for 

eight independent expenditures totaling $45,500 on Schedule E of Defend Louisiana’s 

2016 pre-runoff report. 

ii. Second Cause of Action—Undisclosed Independent 

Expenditures 

Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare that Defendants violated 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(1) by failing to disclose three independent expenditures totaling 

$45,475.65 on Schedule E of Defend Louisiana’s post-runoff report. Section 

30104(a)(1), “Reporting Requirements,” provides: 

(a) Receipts and disbursements by treasurers of political committees;

filing requirements 

(1) Each treasurer of a political committee shall file reports of 

receipts and disbursements in accordance with the provisions of this 

subsection. The treasurer shall sign each such report. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defend Louisiana’s post-runoff report failed to disclose 

16 
 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 17 of 20 

three independent expenditures totaling $45,475.65. (Id. at p. 12). Again, Defendants 

failed to dispute these facts. 

In the absence of any indication to the contrary from Defendants, the Court 

finds that Defendants violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a)(1) by failing to disclose three 

independent expenditures totaling $45,475.65 on Schedule E of Defend Louisiana’s 

post-runoff report. 

C. Relief Sought 

A defaulting defendant “concedes the truth of the allegations of the Complaint 

concerning defendant's liability, but not damages.” 

Ins. Co. of the W. v. H & G Contractors, Inc., 2011 WL 4738197, *4 

(S.D. Tex., Oct. 5, 2011). A court's award of damages in a default judgment must be 

determined after a hearing, unless the amount claimed can be demonstrated “by 

detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.” United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 

605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979). If a court can mathematically calculate the amount 

of damages based on the pleadings and supporting documents, a hearing is 

unnecessary. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Alima, No. 3:13–CV–0889–B, 

2014 WL 1632158, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2014) (citing James v. Frame, 

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

Here, Plaintiff seeks the following relief: (1) a civil penalty against Defendants 

in the amount of $41,056 for violating 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 30104(a)(1); 

(2) a permanent injunction, enjoining Defendants from further violations 

of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 30104(a)(1); (3) a Court Order requiring 

17 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 18 of 20 

Defendants to correct their reports. (Doc. 12-2). The Court will address each in turn. 

i. Civil Penalty 

First, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose a civil penalty on Defendants in 

the amount of $41,056 for violating 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 30104(a)(1). 

Specifically, Plaintiff requests 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.” (Doc. 12-1, p. 10 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 111.24 (a)(1) (“the 

civil penalty shall not exceed the greater of $20,528 or an amount equal to any 

contribution or expenditure involved in the violation.”). Considering the undisputed 

facts before the Court, the Court orders Defendants to pay a civil penalty in the total 

amount of $41,056.00 for violating 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 30104(a)(1). 

ii. Permanent Injunction 

Second, Plaintiff requests that the Court permanently enjoin Defendants from 

future violations of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(a)(1) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii). (Doc. 12-1, p. 11; 

Doc. 1, ¶ 20 (citing 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B)) (“In any civil action instituted by the 

Commission under subparagraph (A), the court may grant a permanent or temporary 

injunction, restraining order, or other order, including a civil penalty”). Because the 

Court has found that Defendants violated the Act, the Court permanently enjoins 

Defendants from further violations of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 

30104(a)(1). 

18 
Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 19 of 20 

iii. Order to Correct Reports 

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to correct the 

reports at issue. (Doc. 12-1, p. 11). Again, Defendants have failed to dispute the facts 

before the Court. Accordingly, Defendants shall correct the following: 

(1) Defend Louisiana PAC’s November 28, 2016 pre-runoff report by providing 

adequate purpose statements for the eight independent expenditures designated as 

“Community Outreach”; and (2) Defend Louisiana PAC’s January 9, 2017 post-runoff 

report to include the three independent expenditures listed in Defend Louisiana 

PAC’s December 12, 2016 48-hour report. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 

(Doc. 12) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defend Louisiana PAC and Taylor 

Townsend, in his official capacity as treasurer, shall pay a civil penalty in the total 

amount of $41,056.00 for violating 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b)(6)(B)(iii) and 30104(a)(1). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defend Louisiana PAC and Taylor 

Townsend, in his official capacity as treasurer, are permanently enjoined from further 

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Defend Louisiana PAC and 

Taylor Townsend, in his official capacity as treasurer, shall correct 

Defend Louisiana PAC’s November 28, 2016 pre-runoff report by providing adequate 

19 
 

Case 3:21-cv-00346-BAJ-SDJ Document 15 07/22/22 Page 20 of 20 

purpose statements for the eight independent expenditures designated as 

“Community Outreach.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Defend Louisiana PAC and 

Taylor Townsend, in his official capacity as treasurer, shall correct Defend Louisiana 

PAC’s January 9, 2017 post-runoff report to include the three independent 

expenditures listed in Defend Louisiana PAC’s December 12, 2016 48-hour report. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 22nd day of July, 2022 

_________________________________________ 

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

20