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, DC 20024,

MEDIA MATTERS FOR AMERICA

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20024,

AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY

FOUNDATION

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20024,

AMERICAN BRIDGE 21ST CENTURY PAC

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20024,

DAVID BROCK

800 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20024,

Defendant-Intervenors.

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02229

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 28
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

I. Plaintiff lacks Article III standing........................................................................................... 3

A. Plaintiff seeks a legal declaration regarding information that is already available 

to it. ......................................................................................................................... 4

B. Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete interest in voting. ............................................ 8

II. Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to allege that the FEC’s delay is arbitrary and 

capricious. ......................................................................................................................... 11

A. Plaintiff’s allegations are speculative and unsupported, and Plaintiff’s opposition 

to Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for judgment on the pleadings does nothing to 

cure their deficiencies. .......................................................................................... 14

B. Plaintiff alleges no ongoing or significant threat posed by Defendant-Intervenors, 

which are mostly defunct organizations, and the FEC’s failure to take public 

action on Plaintiff’s administrative complaint has no effect on the FEC’s ability to 

enforce the law...................................................................................................... 16

C. All publicly available evidence demonstrates that the FEC’s lack of resources is 

the cause of the FEC’s inaction in this case.......................................................... 17

D. Plaintiff’s attempt to generalize its allegations cannot mask the complexity of its 

administrative complaint....................................................................................... 19

E. Plaintiff provides no basis to find the FEC’s failure to take public action violates 

the rule of reason................................................................................................... 20

F. Plaintiff’s allegations utterly fail to allege that it has been prejudiced by the FEC’s 

failure to take public action on its administrative complaint, and Plaintiff’s own—

far greater—delay in filing its administrative complaint belies its attempt to do so 

now........................................................................................................................ 20

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 21

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 28
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Arpaio v. Obama,

797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................13

Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662 (2009).................................................................................................................13

Bagherian v. Pompeo,

442 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.D.C. 2020)...........................................................................................12

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC,

2021 WL 663204 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2021)* .....................................................................7, 9, 10

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC,

245 F. Supp. 3d 119 (D.D.C. 2017)...........................................................................................9

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC,

507 F. Supp. 3d 79 (D.D.C. 2020)*.............................................................................7, 8, 9, 10

Citizens for Percy ’84 v. FEC,

1984 WL 6601 (D.D.C. 1984) ...........................................................................................15, 18

Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Am. Action Network,

410 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019)...........................................................................................8, 9

Common Cause v. FEC,

108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997)*...............................................................................5, 7, 8, 9, 20

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. FEC,

1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22849 (D.D.C. 1996) .........................................................................18

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. FEC,

No. CIV.A. 95-0349 (JHG), 1996 WL 34301203 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 1996).............................13

Didban v. Pompeo,

435 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D.D.C. 2020).........................................................................................12

FEC v. Akins,

524 U.S. 11 (1998)...................................................................................................................10

FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm.,

454 U.S. 27 (1981).....................................................................................................................1

FEC v. Rose,

806 F.2d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 1986)*...................................................................................1, 13, 20

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 3 of 28
iii

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs.,

528 U.S. 167 (2000)...................................................................................................................3

Ghadami v. DHS,

No. 19-cv-00397, 2020 WL 1308376 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2020) .........................................12, 13

In re Nat. Cong. Club,

No. 84-5701, 1984 WL 148396 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 24, 1984)......................................................11

Mirbaha v. Pompeo,

No. 20-cv-299, 2021 WL 184393 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2021).......................................................12

Nader v. FEC,

725 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2013).................................................................................................10

Palakuru v. Renaud,

No. 20-cv-02065, 2021 WL 674162 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2021)..................................................11

Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. Comm’r, Food & Drug Admin.,

740 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984)...................................................................................................20

Qi v. F.D.I.C.,

755 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2010)...........................................................................................2

Sarlak v. Pompeo,

No. 20-cv-35, 2020 WL 3082018 (D.D.C. June 10, 2020)......................................................11

Shays v. FEC,

528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008)...........................................................................................16, 17

Smallwood v. United States Dep’t of Just.,

266 F. Supp. 3d 217 (D.D.C. 2017)...........................................................................................2

Stockman v. FEC,

944 F. Supp. 518 (E.D. Tex. 1996), aff’d as modified, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 

1998)* ....................................................................................................................12, 19, 20, 21

Telecommunications Research & Action Center (“TRAC”) v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 

(D.C. Cir. 1984)* ...............................................................................................................11, 18

Thakker v. Renaud,

No. CV 20-1133, 2021 WL 1092269 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2021)................................................12

MATTERS UNDER REVIEW

MUR 4960 .....................................................................................................................................14

MUR 6940 .....................................................................................................................................14

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 4 of 28
iv

MUR 7097 .....................................................................................................................................19

MUR 7146 .....................................................................................................................................19

MUR 7160 .....................................................................................................................................19

MUR 7193 .....................................................................................................................................19

MUR 7767 .....................................................................................................................................16

STATUTES

52 U.S.C.. § 30106(c) ....................................................................................................................14

52 U.S.C. § 30101(17)...................................................................................................................16

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2).................................................................................................................14

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A).....................................................................................................12, 13

52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) .....................................................................................................................16

52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).....................................................................................................................16

52 U.S.C. § 30116(f)......................................................................................................................16

OTHER AUTHORITIES

11 C.F.R. 110.1..............................................................................................................................16

11 C.F.R. § 102.9...........................................................................................................................16

FEC, “Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub On the Senate’s Votes to 

Restore the Federal Election Commission to Full Strength,” available at 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020-12-QuorumRestoration-Statement.pdf (Dec. 9, 2020) .................................................................................2

Work With Media Matters, Leaks Reveal, DAILY CALLER (Nov. 4, 2016), 

https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/clinton-campaign-worked-with-mediamatters-leaks-reveal/..................................................................................................................6

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 5 of 28
v

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

American Bridge 21st Century Foundation AB Foundation

American Bridge 21st Century PAC AB PAC

Correct the Record CTR (or CTR PAC)

Federal Election Commission FEC (or the Commission)

Hillary for America HFA

Matter Under Review MUR

Media Matters for America MMFA

Political Action Committee PAC

Telecommunications Research & Action Center TRAC

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended FECA (or the Act)

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 6 of 28
1

INTRODUCTION

The Patriots Foundation cannot deny that it waited until April 2020—when the FEC lacked 

a quorum and could not act as a matter of law—to file an administrative complaint challenging 

allegedly unlawful conduct by Defendant-Intervenors that had taken place four years earlier during 

the 2016 presidential election. Plaintiff has provided no explanation for its delay nor has Plaintiff 

explained how the FEC’s failure to take public action on its complaint thus far has caused Plaintiff 

any injury. This is fatal to Plaintiff’s standing. Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition to DefendantIntervenors’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings finally lays bare Plaintiff’s real goal, which is 

for this Court to strip the FEC of its jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s administrative complaint, 

and allow Plaintiff to bring private litigation directly against Defendant-Intervenors: “[t]he only 

way to ensure the allegations found in TPF’s Administrative Complaint will be investigated and 

adjudicated in a reasonable time frame is to allow Plaintiff to avail itself of FECA’s private right 

of action.” ECF No. 22 at 17 (citation omitted). But Plaintiff does not have the authority to tell the 

FEC how to manage its docket. FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 

(1981) (cleaned up) (because the FEC is “primarily and substantially responsible for administering 

and enforcing FECA,” it is “precisely the type of agency to which deference should presumptively 

be afforded”).

On its path to trying to bring suit directly against Defendant-Intervenors, Plaintiff asks this 

Court to ignore the law—for example, by imposing a false requirement for the FEC to act on 

Plaintiff’s complaint within 120 days, when in reality the 120-day timeline merely creates a cause 

of action; it does not provide a required timeline by which the FEC must act. FEC v. Rose, 806 

F.2d 1081, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Even if that were not the case, as a practical matter, the FEC 

could not have resolved Plaintiff’s administrative complaint within 120 days because it lacked 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 7 of 28
2

quorum for 92 of the first 120 days that the administrative complaint was pending. 1 When Plaintiff 

is not asking the Court to ignore the law, it merely rehashes arguments made in prior filings without 

meaningfully grappling with Defendant-Intervenors’ arguments in favor of judgment on the 

pleadings.

As Defendant-Intervenors explained in their motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient “to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Qi v. F.D.I.C., 755 F. Supp. 2d 195, 199 (D.D.C. 2010); see also Smallwood v. United States Dep’t 

of Just., 266 F. Supp. 3d 217, 219 (D.D.C. 2017) (“The appropriate standard for reviewing a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings is that of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b).”). Plaintiff has failed 

to show that it possesses Article III standing and that the FEC’s delay in acting on its administrative 

complaint is contrary to law. Plaintiff misunderstands the pleading requirements for asserting an 

“informational injury” and has not alleged facts to satisfy any of the elements sufficient to show 

the FEC’s failure to act was “arbitrary and capricious.” For these reasons, explained in more detail 

below and in Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant-Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter 

judgment on the pleadings in their favor. 

 1 The FEC first lost quorum in late August 2019. FEC, “Matthew Petersen to depart Federal 

Election Commission,” (Aug. 26, 2019). Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in April 2020, when the 

FEC lacked quorum. Two months after TPF filed its administrative complaint, quorum was 

restored for a brief period when Trey Trainor III was sworn in as a Commissioner effective June 

5, 2020. FEC, “James E. Trainor III sworn in as Commissioner,” (June 5, 2020). But that quorum 

was short lived, as Commissioner Caroline Hunter resigned a month later, effective July 3, 2020. 

FEC, “Caroline C. Hunter to depart Federal Election Commission,” (June 26, 2020). It was not 

until December 10, 2020, that the FEC again regained quorum and restored its activities to full 

strength. FEC, “Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub On the Senate’s Votes to Restore 

the Federal Election Commission to Full Strength,” available at 

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2020-12-Quorum-RestorationStatement.pdf (Dec. 9, 2020).

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 8 of 28
3

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff lacks Article III standing.

It is telling that Plaintiff’s brief in opposition completely fails to respond to several crucial 

arguments made in Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion. Thus, before rebutting Plaintiff’s points on 

standing—which essentially boil down to two meritless arguments—it is worth noting that through 

its silence, Plaintiff’s opposition essentially concedes that (1) the causation prong of the three-part 

standing inquiry has not been met, and (2) it has not pleaded facts sufficient to support a theory of 

organizational standing. On the first point, Plaintiff has never responded to Defendant-Intervenors’ 

argument that Plaintiff has failed to show that its alleged injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged 

action of the defendant...” Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81

(2000). Plaintiff inexplicably waited nearly four years (and until the FEC lacked a quorum) to file 

an administrative complaint with the FEC. Any injury Plaintiff claims to have suffered from 

lacking information was caused by its own delay, not the FEC’s, which can be reasonably 

explained by the fact that the FEC lacked a quorum of four Commissioners for seven of the fifteen 

months Plaintiff’s complaint has been pending with the agency. Plaintiff has never rebutted that 

argument. 

On the second point, Plaintiff argues that it need not show that its programmatic activity 

will be adversely affected by the FEC’s delay to allege informational injury; that level of 

specificity is only required for organizational injury. ECF No. 22 at 8. Accepting arguendo, that 

Plaintiff is correct—and it is not—Plaintiff’s argument does nothing to save its claim to

organizational standing. It is now clear, if it was not before, that Plaintiff proceeds only on a theory 

of informational standing, not organizational standing. Id. at 9 (“Nevertheless, it is not required 

that an organization demonstrate both informational and organizational injury in order to 

successfully plead one of the two.”). Plaintiff does not even attempt to argue that it has alleged 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 9 of 28
4

harm to its specific programmatic activities, which even Plaintiff appears to agree would be 

required to show organizational standing. And for good reason. The subject of Plaintiff’s 

complaint—the 2016 election—is long behind us; the candidate Plaintiff seeks information is 

about (Secretary Clinton) is not running for public office now or in the future; and at least two of 

the organizations about which Plaintiff complains (HFA and CTR PAC) are now dormant or 

defunct. It is thus hard to imagine how the information Plaintiff seeks could be useful in any of 

Plaintiff’s alleged public education activities.

Plaintiff’s claim to informational injury fails too. Plaintiff’s opposition takes issue with 

only two of Defendant-Intervenors’ challenges to Plaintiff’s standing. See ECF No. 22 at 7-8.

Plaintiff first incorrectly argues that it seeks access to information that has never been publicly

disclosed. In so doing, Plaintiff ignores the record, including the exhibits submitted with its own 

administrative complaint, completely fails to respond to arguments made in DefendantIntervenors’ motion. Second, Plaintiff wrongly contends that it has adequately alleged 

informational injury because it has “identified the undisclosed additional information it seeks and 

the statute that mandates the disclosure of that information,” and Defendant-Intervenors have 

mistakenly conflated the organizational and informational standing analyses in an effort to raise 

Plaintiff’s burden. Id. This is also incorrect, as Plaintiff has still not met its burden of showing how 

the information it claims to seek would be useful. For the reasons discussed below, neither of these 

arguments have merit.

A. Plaintiff seeks a legal declaration regarding information that is already 

available to it.

Plaintiff seeks a legal declaration that publicly available information is misreported in 

violation of FECA. But that interest is not cognizable as an “informational injury” as a matter of 

law. A plaintiff fails to allege an informational injury by seeking the reporting of information 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 10 of 28
5

already publicly available because in doing so it “merely . . . alleg[es] that it has been deprived of 

the knowledge as to whether a violation of the law has occurred,” rather than an interest in 

information to which it is entitled under FECA. Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413, 418 (D.C. 

Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff contends in its opposition that its standing is based upon “two categories of 

unreported in-kind contributions”: “(1) the uncompensated services provided by Media Matters 

for America to American Bridge 21st Century PAC and Correct the Record PAC, which Plaintiff 

alleges constitute unreported in-kind contributions; and (2) the unreported in-kind contributions 

made by American Bridge 21st Century Foundation to American Bridge 21st Century PAC.” Id. 

at 8 (citation omitted).2 Plaintiff contends that this information has “never [been] disclosed to the 

FEC, or to any other agency or person, despite [Defendant-Intervenors’] legal obligation under 

FECA to do so.” Id. (emphasis in original). But Plaintiff’s own allegations and information 

available on the public record belie that argument. 

With respect to the first set of alleged in-kind contributions—uncompensated services 

provided by Media Matters for America to American Bridge 21st Century PAC and Correct the 

Record PAC—Plaintiff’s Complaint does not provide a single fact to support the assertion that 

MMFA provided services to the other Defendant-Intervenor organizations that would have 

actually been treated as in-kind contributions under FECA. See ECF No. 10-2. For example, there 

are no facts presented to rebut Defendant-Intervenors’ assertion that any services provided by 

MMFA were for exempt online communications, and thus are not in-kind contributions under 

 2 In limiting the scope of its informational injury to these two pieces of information, Plaintiff 

appears to concede that it has not suffered any informational injury related to alleged in-kind 

contributions made by CTR PAC to HFA, which are already publicly reported, or any of the other 

insufficient claims to informational injury asserted by Plaintiff in its Complaint. See ECF No. 22 

at 8.

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 11 of 28
6

FECA as a matter of law. See generally ECF No. 1. Indeed, as “proof” that MMFA coordinated 

its activities with HFA, Plaintiff’s administrative complaint cites to a blog post published on 

MMFA’s own website the day after the email was sent. ECF No. 1-1 at 4; see also Alex Pfeiffer, 

Clinton Campaign Planned to Work With Media Matters, Leaks Reveal, DAILY CALLER (Nov. 4, 

2016), https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/clinton-campaign-worked-with-media-matters-leaksreveal/. Of course, unpaid online communications like that blog post are exempt from the 

definition of “public communication” and thus do not meet the three-part coordination test to be 

treated as a coordinated expenditure or in-kind contribution. See ECF No. 21 at 4-5. Plaintiff’s 

opposition does not meaningfully rebut, or at the very least respond to, any of these arguments. 

The second set of alleged in-kind contributions relate to payments made by American 

Bridge 21st Century Foundation to American Bridge 21st Century PAC. As background, American 

Bridge 21st Century Foundation and American Bridge 21st Century PAC are affiliated

organizations that engage in a common arrangement among non-profit organizations called “costsharing,” whereby one organization pays for costs that are borne by the two affiliated 

organizations, and the second organization reimburses the paying organization for its share of the 

costs incurred. See ECF No. 21 at 19-20. In this case, American Bridge 21st Century PAC paid 

the shared costs up front, and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation reimbursed the PAC for 

its share of the costs. This is undisputed. It is also undisputed that the amounts paid by American 

Bridge 21st Century Foundation to the PAC have been publicly reported. As Plaintiff itself 

acknowledges, at the end of each fiscal year, AB Foundation reported the payments it made to AB 

PAC as well as the outstanding funds that were owed to AB PAC. That information is listed on

AB Foundation’s Form 990 tax returns, which are publicly available on the IRS website. Plaintiff 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 12 of 28
7

has access to this information. Indeed, on page 9 of exhibits 8 through 11 of Plaintiff’s 

Administrative Complaint, AB Foundation identifies the amounts it paid to AB PAC. 

At bottom, none of Plaintiff’s alleged requests “would . . . actually entail the disclosure of 

. . . information”—as Plaintiff’s detailed descriptions of the very information it seeks makes 

clear—“other than legal determinations of coordination as to some subset of already-disclosed” 

information. Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 507 F. Supp. 3d 79, 87-88 (D.D.C. 2020). Plaintiff

reveals this intention throughout its complaint. It explains that it seeks information to confirm that 

“expenditures in support of Hillary Clinton’s election were misreported,” (though reported 

nonetheless), “as independent expenditures and should have been reported by Hillary for America 

as in-kind contributions.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 26. And “the relief requested by [Plaintiff] consist[s] 

entirely of the investigation and imposition of monetary penalties against” Defendants. Common 

Cause, 108 F.3d at 418; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 16. 3

 

Plaintiff’s theory of standing has already been tried and rejected: “[T]he D.C. Circuit [has] 

squarely held that there is no statutory right to determining whether an expenditure,” or any other 

political activity, was coordinated under FECA. Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 2021 WL 663204, 

at *7 (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2021) (rejecting an informational injury premised on the idea that an 

expenditure “should be deemed a ‘coordinated’ (and thus an in-kind) contribution under FECA”). 

And in a near mirror of this action, this Court rejected a plaintiff’s theory that informational 

standing could be satisfied by a desire to learn “which disbursements made by [Correct the Record] 

. . . were made in coordination with [Hillary for America] and are thus by definition in-kind 

 3 “Complainant requests that the Commission make appropriate findings in connection with these 

violations, elicit admissions of the violations from each of the respondents, conduct a robust 

investigation to determine the scope of the alleged violations, bar respondents from continuing the 

violative activities, and collect civil penalties in amounts commensurate with the gravity of these 

serious ongoing violations.” ECF No. 1-1 at 16.

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 13 of 28
8

contributions.” Campaign Legal Ctr., 507 F. Supp. 3d at 84 (cleaned up). The Court explained that 

this theory fails because it does “not actually entail the disclosure of any information other than 

legal determinations of coordination as to some subset of already-disclosed expenditures.” Id. at 

88.

Plaintiff’s theory is of a piece. Plaintiff seeks a legal determination, to which it has no right, 

finding that already reported information is inaccurate or should have been reported a different 

way. In other words, what Plaintiff “desires is for the Commission to ‘get the bad guys.’” Common 

Cause, 108 F.3d at 418. Plaintiff improperly seeks to “establish [an] injury in fact merely by 

alleging that [it] has been deprived of the knowledge as to whether a violation of the law has 

occurred.” Id. But “[n]othing in FECA requires that information concerning a violation of the Act 

as such be disclosed to the public.” Id. 

B. Plaintiff has not alleged a concrete interest in voting. 

Plaintiff mistakenly claims that because “FECA creates an informational right,” Citizens 

for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Am. Action Network, 410 F. Supp. 3d 1, 12 (D.D.C. 2019), it has 

satisfied its Article III burden by merely “identif[ying] the undisclosed additional information it 

seeks and the statute that mandates the disclosure of that information,” ECF No. 21 at 9. Plaintiff 

further claims that a “showing of informational injury does not also require the Plaintiff to identify 

specific programmatic activities that are adversely affected by” the information it purportedly 

seeks. Id. Rather, Plaintiff explains, “it is sufficient that [it] has identified the undisclosed 

additional information it seeks and the statute that mandates the disclosure of that information.” 

Id. 

Plaintiff misunderstands the law. The very case Plaintiff relies on for the proposition that 

harm to programmatic interests is not required for informational injury sharply belies Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 14 of 28
9

argument. Campaign Legal Ctr., 2021 WL 663204, at *8 (considering alleged “programmatic 

interests” in evaluating informational standing claim). Moreover, invoking the informational 

entitlement created by FECA—which is where Plaintiff’s analysis fatally starts and ends—is only 

the beginning of the informational standing analysis. That is because “the nature of the information 

allegedly withheld is critical.” Common Cause, 108 F.3d at 417. To sufficiently allege a concrete 

and particularized injury from “the denial of . . . information,” a plaintiff must “seek[] information 

to facilitate his informed participation in the political process.” Campaign Legal Ctr., 507 F. Supp. 

3d 79, 83 (D.D.C. 2020) (cleaned up). 

This is no idle requirement. Courts have emphasized that the “information denied” must 

be “useful in voting,” Common Cause, 108 F.3d at 418, and to make that determination courts 

have reviewed organizational plaintiff’s complaints for signs that the organization uses 

information required to be disclosed by FECA for political or campaign-finance related activities. 

See Campaign Legal Ctr., 2021 WL 663204, at *8; see also Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 245 F. 

Supp. 3d 119, 127 (D.D.C. 2017) (concluding plaintiffs pleaded a sufficient interest in the political 

process based on a “number of campaign-finance related activities—including public education, 

litigation, administrative proceedings, and legislative reform efforts—where the sought-after 

information would likely prove useful.”); see also Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Am. 

Action Network, 410 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2019) (concluding that CREW adequately

alleged an informational injury after finding that CREW “pled that it regularly reviews disclosure 

reports required by FECA and uses the information they contain regarding campaign expenditures 

for a host of programmatic activities such as “look[ing] for correlations between . . . spending on 

independent campaign activity that . . . benefits a candidate, and that member's subsequent 

congressional activities”).

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 15 of 28
10

Plaintiff therefore misstates the law. This court requires that a plaintiff do more than simply 

identify information to which it is allegedly entitled to state an informational injury. Rather, a 

plaintiff must tie its interest in the information to its participation in the political process. See FEC 

v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998). And where a plaintiff fails to do so, it fails to adequately allege 

Article III standing. See, e.g., Nader v. FEC, 725 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (concluding that Nader 

failed to state an informational injury because his “complaint merely asked the FEC to compel 

information from participants in the ballot contests in the hope of showing that they violated the 

prohibitions on undisclosed contributions and expenditures,” and failed to allege that he sought 

“information to facilitate his informed participation in the political process”).

The Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. Akins does not save Plaintiff’s Complaint. This 

case is not the same as FEC v. Akins, where the Court found there was no reason to doubt that the 

information sought would be helpful to the plaintiff. By contrast, as Defendant-Intervenors argued 

in their Motion, there is reason to doubt that the information Plaintiff seeks will be useful. ECF 

No. 21 at 20-22. Indeed, unlike CREW, and of a kind with Nader, Plaintiff in this case has failed 

to tie the information it purportedly seeks to an interest in the political process. Given the 

arguments Defendant-Intervenors have raised, Plaintiff must do more than merely assert a 

speculative interest in “information concerning a violation of FECA” and re-state the law. This is 

all Plaintiff has done. But just because Plaintiff says there is no reason to doubt that the information 

it claims to seek will be helpful to it does not make it so. Plaintiff has never once explained how 

information related to a five-year-old campaign, involving a candidate with no intention of running 

for future office, is relevant to its “informed participation in the political process,” Campaign Legal 

Ctr., 507 F. Supp. 3d 79, 83 (D.D.C. 2020). Nor does Plaintiff once tie the information it 

purportedly seeks to its “programmatic interests” in political activity. Campaign Legal Ctr., 2021 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 16 of 28
11

WL 663204, at *8. Instead, and as explained above, Plaintiff merely seeks a determination that 

Defendant-Intervenors violated the law. This is fatal to Plaintiff’s standing. 

II. Plaintiff has not pleaded facts sufficient to allege that the FEC’s delay is arbitrary 

and capricious.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to satisfy the standard for pleading that the FEC’s delay is 

arbitrary and capricious. In determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently plead that agency 

inaction is arbitrary and capricious, courts consider several factors, including: (1) the resources 

and information available to the agency; (2) the credibility of the allegations made in the 

administrative complaint, (3) the nature of the threat posed, (4) the effect of expediting delayed 

action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority the novelty of the issues involved, (5) 

the novelty and complexity of the issues involved, (6) whether the FEC’s failure to take public 

action violates a “rule of reason,” and (7) the nature and extent of the interests prejudiced by delay. 

See ECF No. 22 at 11; see also In re Nat. Cong. Club, No. 84-5701, 1984 WL 148396, at *1 (D.C. 

Cir. Oct. 24, 1984); Telecommunications Research & Action Center (“TRAC”) v. FCC, 750 F.2d 

70, 80 (D.C. Cir. 1984). 

This Court should not lose sight of the fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege facts 

to support any of these factors. Instead, Plaintiff suggests that the factors do not play a role at the 

pleading stage, see ECF No. 22 at 11, which is plainly incorrect. Courts in this circuit frequently 

apply the TRAC to the factual allegations of a complaint asserting a claim of unreasonable delay. 

See, e.g., Palakuru v. Renaud, No. 20-cv-02065, 2021 WL 674162, at *3-6 (D.D.C. Feb. 22, 2021) 

(noting that it is “appropriate” to consider whether a complaint “meets Rule 12(b)(6) pleading 

standards” by applying TRAC factors); Sarlak v. Pompeo, No. 20-cv-35, 2020 WL 3082018, at *5 

(D.D.C. June 10, 2020) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that applying the TRAC factors at the 

motion-to-dismiss stage was premature because “TRAC factors have been generally employed at 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 17 of 28
12

the motion to dismiss stage to determine whether a plaintiff’s complaint has alleged facts sufficient 

to state a plausible claim for unreasonable administrative delay”); see also Ghadami v. DHS, No. 

19-cv-00397, 2020 WL 1308376, at *7 n.6 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2020) (“[I]t is appropriate for the 

Court to apply the factors at th[e] [motion-to-dismiss] stage”); Didban v. Pompeo, 435 F. Supp. 

3d 168, 175-77 (D.D.C. 2020) (applying TRAC factors to resolve the government's motion to 

dismiss); Bagherian v. Pompeo, 442 F. Supp. 3d 87, 93–96 (D.D.C. 2020) (same); Mirbaha v. 

Pompeo, No. 20-cv-299, 2021 WL 184393, at *4 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2021) (same); Thakker v. 

Renaud, No. CV 20-1133, 2021 WL 1092269, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2021), appeal dismissed, 

No. 21-5079, 2021 WL 3083431 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2021) (same).

Plaintiff claims that this Court’s recently holding denying a motion to dismiss a complaint 

raising a Section 30109(a)(8)(A) claim without mentioning the TRAC factors indicates that the 

Court understood that such an inquiry would be “premature.” ECF No.22 at 11 (citing Campaign 

Legal Ctr. & Democracy 21 v. FEC, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 31169, at *11-28). But in that case, the 

intervening defendant moved to dismiss the FECA claim only on standing grounds. Although the 

Court characterized the intervening defendant’s argument that the plaintiff lacked standing because 

FECA did not require certain disclosures as “premature,” the Court did not suggest that it is 

“premature” to review the TRAC factors when considering whether a plaintiff has stated a claim 

for relief under FECA. The Court simply did not review the TRAC factors because whether the 

plaintiff plead facts sufficient to allege that the FEC’s delay is arbitrary and capricious was not an 

issue before the Court.

Plaintiff’s suggestion that it is “unclear” whether the TRAC factors should even be relevant 

in the context of a FECA claim is similarly baseless. See ECF No. 22 at 11. Courts regularly apply 

the TRAC factors to unreasonable delay claims under FECA. See, e.g. Stockman v. FEC, 944 F. 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 18 of 28
13

Supp. 518, 524 (E.D. Tex. 1996), aff’d as modified, 138 F.3d 144 (5th Cir. 1998); see also 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. CIV.A. 95-0349 (JHG), 

1996 WL 34301203, at *9 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 1996). Plaintiff is wrong to assert that “the question 

posed by FECA is not whether the FEC ‘unreasonably delayed’ but instead whether it acted within 

the statutorily prescribed 120 days.” ECF No. 22 at 11. To reiterate, the 120-day period is not a 

timetable within which the Commission must resolve an administrative complaint; it is merely a 

jurisdictional threshold before which the complainant may not file suit. E.g., FEC v. Rose, 806 

F.2d 1081, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“unequivocally” rejecting the contention “that [FECA] required 

the Commission to act within 120 days or within an election cycle.”). The question the Court must 

resolve is whether the FEC has acted “contrary to law” in delaying public action on Plaintiff’s 

administrative complaint; if merely missing the 120-day deadline were sufficient to end the 

inquiry, then there would be no need for “contrary to law” suits under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) 

in the first place.

To state a claim for unreasonable delay that is contrary to law under FECA, Plaintiff must 

plead facts that, if supported by evidence, would tip the TRAC factors in favor of finding that the 

FEC’s failure to take public action on its administrative complaint is arbitrary and capricious. 

Ghadami, 2020 WL 1308376, at *8. A facially plausible claim pleads facts that are not “merely 

consistent with a defendant’s liability” but that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Although courts must accept all 

well-plead factual allegations as true, courts do not “assume the truth of legal conclusions, nor do 

[they] accept inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint.” Arpaio v. 

Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Islamic Am. Relief Agency v. Gonzales, 477 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 19 of 28
14

F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2007)). The threadbare recitals of the law in Plaintiff’s nine-page 

complaint are not sufficient to meet the pleading standard.

A. Plaintiff’s allegations are speculative and unsupported, and Plaintiff’s 

opposition to Defendant-Intervenors’ motion for judgment on the pleadings 

does nothing to cure their deficiencies.

The allegations underlying Plaintiff’s administrative complaint do not even meet the 

standard required for the FEC to take action, much less for a court to credit them. When analyzing 

an administrative complaint, the FEC considers whether there is “reason to believe” a violation of 

the Act has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). In interpreting this provision, the Commission has 

held that it “may find ‘reason to believe’ only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, 

which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the [Act].”4 Moreover, “unwarranted legal 

conclusions from asserted facts” and mere speculation will not be accepted as true.” Id. If at least 

four of the FEC’s Commissioners vote to find such reason to believe, 5 the FEC may investigate 

the alleged violation or engage in pre-probable cause conciliation; otherwise, the FEC dismisses 

the administrative complaint. Id. §§ 30106(c), 30109(a)(2). 

As stated in Defendant-Intervenors’ response to the administrative complaint, Plaintiff’s 

allegations fall woefully short of the standard necessary to prompt investigation by the FEC. See 

ECF No. 10-2. For example, as discussed above, Plaintiff complains that publicly-reported 

reimbursement payments made by AB Foundation to AB PAC for shared costs may be inaccurate 

without any reason to believe that is the case. ECF No. 1-1 at 5. The fact that the payments were 

 4 MUR 4960 (Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee, et al.), Statement 

of Reasons, Commissioners David M. Mason, Karl J. Sandstrom, Bradley A. Smith, and Scott E. 

Thomas at 1 (Dec. 21, 2000).

5 Prior to the Commission’s vote, the FEC’s Office of General Counsel recommends to the 

Commission in a report whether there is “reason to believe” a violation has occurred. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(2). 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 20 of 28
15

made based on estimates of costs is consistent with industry practice and is not reason to believe 

they were false. Similarly, the administrative complaint alleges that AB PAC made prohibited inkind contributions to unnamed Democratic campaigns. But the complaint never so much as names 

which campaigns were the supposed recipients. Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion does not even attempt to bolster 

its speculative claims with factual evidence. See ECF No. 20. Plaintiff cites Citizens for Percy ’84 

v. FEC, 1984 WL 6601 (D.D.C. 1984), to suggest that its allegations are credible because it has 

provided evidence sufficient to guide the FEC’s investigation and underscore the credibility of its 

allegations. See ECF No. 22 at 12-13. However, in Citizens for Percy, there was no argument that 

the allegations were speculative or unbelievable and, in any event, the evidence presented to the 

FEC was also presented to the court. Citizens for Percy ‘84, 1984 WL 6601, *3. Not only have 

Defendant-Intervenors repeatedly pointed to the speculative and unbelievable nature of Plaintiff’s 

allegations, but Plaintiff has also failed to present to this Court its “over 450 pages of supporting 

exhibits.” ECF No. 22 at 13 n.4. Even if Plaintiff had presented those exhibits to the Court, they 

would not bolster the credibility of Plaintiff’s allegations. The vast majority of those exhibits 

merely detail undisputed financial information that has already been publicly reported, and do not 

provide any factual evidence that would permit the FEC to find a “reason to believe” a violation 

has occurred. For instance, approximately one-third of those 450 pages are pages of FEC reports 

that merely display Defendant-Intervenors’ expenditures and disbursements, many of which are 

unrelated to Plaintiff’s allegations. Thus, Plaintiff’s repeated boasts that they submitted 450 pages 

of “evidence” of their claims is overblown. In reality, Plaintiff’s have not provided any evidence 

to this Court that would permit it to determine whether Plaintiff’s claims are credible. See Citizens

for Percy ‘84, 1984 WL 6601, *3.

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 21 of 28
16

B. Plaintiff alleges no ongoing or significant threat posed by DefendantIntervenors, which are mostly defunct organizations, and the FEC’s failure to 

take public action on Plaintiff’s administrative complaint has no effect on the 

FEC’s ability to enforce the law.

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that Defendant-Intervenors, whose conduct is 

at the center of Plaintiff’s administrative complaint, pose any ongoing or urgent threat to the 

electoral system. See ECF No. 1. Nor could they. Several of the Defendant-Intervenor 

organizations, including HFA, which was supposedly was the impetus for the alleged in-kind 

contributions in the first place, are no longer active. Similarly, CTR PAC is defunct. In fact, TPF 

concedes in its administrative complaint that “[i]t appears that CTR has been essentially dormant 

since the 2016 election, and it filed a report requesting termination on December 4, 2019.” ECF 

No. 1-1 at 2. Thus, there is no threat that they will continue the conduct Plaintiff challenges.

At best, Plaintiff again asserts that the FEC’s failure to take public action on the 

administrative complaint “provides a clear roadmap” for other entities to elude FECA regulations. 

ECF No. 22 at 14. Plaintiff is again wrong. The rules prohibiting coordination and setting 

contribution limits are still on the books and being enforced by the FEC. See, e.g., 52 U.S.C. §§ 

30101(17), 30116(a), (d); 11 C.F.R. 110.1. Indeed, the FEC recently resolved a complaint against

Hall for Congress and treasurer David Gould after finding reason to believe they violated 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30116(f) (prohibiting candidates and political committees from accepting any contributions or 

making any expenditures in violation of the section’s provisions) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.9 (requiring 

accounting for contributions and expenditures). MUR 7767, available at 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7767/.

Plaintiff cites Shays v. FEC, 528 F.3d 914, 925 (D.C. Cir. 2008), to suggest that the FEC’s 

failure to take public action in response to its administrative complaint will “provide a clear 

roadmap” for entities to elude FECA’s requirements. ECF No. 22 at 14. But in Shays, the complaint 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 22 of 28
17

challenged an FEC regulation, not the agency’s failure to take public action in response to an 

administrative complaint. See Shays, 528 F.3d at 925. There was no doubt that striking down the 

regulation would change the regulatory landscape, which the challengers argued would mean 

candidates could evade certain restrictions on the use of soft money. Id. Here, in stark contrast, it 

is not action but inaction that is at issue. Unlike in Shays, the regulatory landscape is not changed 

by the FEC’s inaction. Plaintiff’s argument that this case will open the door for political actors in 

a way that poses an urgent and ongoing threat to the entire electoral system is overblown and 

entirely speculative. 

Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff believes that Defendant-Intervenors’ alleged conduct 

poses an urgent threat, its actions before filing this lawsuit and during the course of this litigation 

indicate otherwise. Plaintiff waited nearly four years after Defendant-Intervenors’ alleged conduct 

took place—from the 2016 election until spring of 2020—to even file an FEC complaint regarding 

the conduct challenged in this case. Then, after Plaintiff ironically sued the FEC for not taking 

public action quickly enough, Plaintiff moved to stay this case for another seven months. ECF 

Nos. 14, 15. If Plaintiff was concerned that Defendant-Intervenors and other political actors would 

engage in repeated and similar prohibited conduct that would threaten the electoral system, then it 

would have filed an administrative complaint earlier, and it would have litigated this case on a 

more swift timeline. Plaintiff’s delay is inexcusable and further demonstrates that the FEC’s delay 

is not contrary to law.

C. All publicly available evidence demonstrates that the FEC’s lack of resources 

is the cause of the FEC’s inaction in this case. 

It is simply absurd that Plaintiff argues that the FEC’s inaction in this case cannot be 

excused by resource constraints. The FEC has lacked a quorum for the majority of the time the 

administrative complaint has been pending, and since regaining quorum, it has been working 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 23 of 28
18

through a significant backlog of cases. See ECF No. 21 at 31 n.6. When determining whether a 

plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded that an agency’s failure to act is arbitrary and capricious, courts 

recognize that agencies are entitled to deference when prioritizing their docket, and thus consider 

whether the factual allegations demonstrate a reason to undermine that deference. TRAC, 750 F.2d 

at 80. Plaintiff attempts to claim that an agency’s failure to take public action on an administrative 

complaint is not entitled to deference. ECF No. 22 at 12. But Plaintiff misses the mark. When an 

agency unreasonably fails to take public action, such a failure is not entitled to deference.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22849, at *13 (D.D.C. 

1996). However, “[i]n making decisions regarding whether it will accept administrative complaints 

for investigation, there is little doubt that the FEC is entitled to considerable judicial deference.” 

Id.at *4. That is because “[r]esource allocation in general and prosecutorial decisions in particular 

are areas in which courts are reluctant to intervene in agency operations without substantial 

justification.” Id. Further, “it is to be expected that the agency will be busy during an election year” 

and that the Commission’s resources will be diverted to issues arising from the current 2020 

election cycle. Citizens for Percy ’84, 1984 WL 6601, at *4.

Plaintiff’s claim that “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that the FEC lacks the resources or 

information to complete its investigation” is meritless. For one thing, there is no dispute that, for 

a significant part of the time Plaintiff’s complaint has been pending, the FEC has lacked the 

resources necessary to adjudicate it. See ECF No. 21 at 29-32. While extensive knowledge of the 

limits of the FEC’s resources is information that is most readily within the control of the 

Commission, see id. at 15, Plaintiff’s own exhibits demonstrate that the FEC’s hands were tied 

while it lacked a quorum, and that it was unable to investigate cases, see ECF No. 20-2 at 4 n.1 

(noting that, as of September 1, 2019, the FEC had only three commissioners, and thus “has been 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 24 of 28
19

unable to launch any new investigations, issue any advisory opinions, promulgate any rules, grant 

any matching funds request, or render any decisions on pending enforcement actions”) (cleaned 

up). Simply put, Plaintiff provides no basis to conclude that the FEC’s delay in resolving TPF’s 

administrative complaint is “a product of anything other than excessive demands on a strapped 

federal agency.” Stockman, 944 F. Supp. at 524.

D. Plaintiff’s attempt to generalize its allegations cannot mask the complexity of 

its administrative complaint. 

This case is complex. Plaintiff attempts to cabin this case as just about run-of-the-mill 

coordination and contribution limits, ECF No. 22 at 16, but that is a drastic oversimplification. 

Plaintiff’s administrative complaint alleges that “numerous excessive and prohibited in-kind 

contributions” took place between several different respondents. See ECF No. 1-1. Those 

respondents are categorically different entities—some are non-profit organizations while others 

are political committees—to which different rules apply. See id. Before it can take public action 

on the administrative complaint, the FEC must analyze numerous financial transactions that are 

called into question by the Plaintiff, as well as the relationships between the DefendantIntervenors. Not only that, but this case is also closely related to other administrative complaints 

that were filed against HFA, CTR PAC, and other Defendant-Intervenors in the wake of the 2016 

election. See MURs 6940, 7097, 7146, 7160, and 7193. And Plaintiff’s theory of excessive in-kind 

contributions made by CTR PAC in support of HFA is closely related to a novel theory pushed by 

Campaign Legal Center in a complaint that has been rejected by the FEC. See Amended 

Certification, MURs 6940, 7097, 7146, 7160, and 7193, available at 

https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/matter-under-review/7146/ (signed June 13, 2019).

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 25 of 28
20

E. Plaintiff provides no basis to find the FEC’s failure to take public action 

violates the rule of reason. 

Plaintiff’s fails to provide any reason why an FEC complaint that has been pending with 

the agency for just over 15 months following eight months of agency inaction due to lack of 

quorum is violative of reason. As an initial matter, there is no “statutory deadline” by when the 

FEC must respond to an administrative complaint, as Plaintiff contends, see ECF No. 22 at 11-12. 

Congress did not provide a timetable within which the FEC must act, see Rose, 806 F.2d at 1092. 

Elsewhere in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings, Plaintiff acknowledges the same. See ECF No. 22 at 17. 

But more to the point, courts regularly find comparable—and longer—delays reasonable. 

See, e.g., Common Cause, 489 F. Supp. at 745 (finding a two-year delay was not contrary to law); 

Stockman, 944 F. Supp. at 523 (noting that “an FEC investigation lasting approximately one year 

and ten months does not strike the Court as violative of rules of reason” and that resolution of 

similar matters “take[s] 3.3 to 4.6 years to complete”). In fact, it is not at all unusual for similar 

matters to take the FEC more than eight months to resolve. See, e.g., MUR 7878 (resolving 

administrative complaint regarding contribution limits 24 months after the matter was opened); 

MUR 7875 (resolving administrative complaint regarding contributions 34 months after the matter 

was opened); MUR 7768 (resolving administrative complaint regarding contribution limits 16 

months after the matter was opened); MUR 7767 (resolving administrative complaint regarding 

contribution limits s16 months after the matter was opened).

F. Plaintiff’s allegations utterly fail to allege that it has been prejudiced by the 

FEC’s failure to take public action on its administrative complaint, and 

Plaintiff’s own—far greater—delay in filing its administrative complaint

belies its attempt to do so now. 

To survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff must point to where it alleges 

that the FEC’s delay has prejudiced its interests. Pub. Citizen Health Rsch. Grp. v. Comm’r, Food 

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 26 of 28
21

& Drug Admin., 740 F.2d 21, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stockman, 944 F. Supp. at 524 (considering 

whether the plaintiff provided “real evidence of any injury resulting from the delay”). However, 

because of its own delay in filing its administrative complaint, and its requests to delay the instant 

action, Plaintiff cannot plausibly claim that the FEC’s delay has prejudiced its interests. See ECF 

No. 21 at 28-29. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above and in Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion, Defendant-Intervenors 

respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Dated: August 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Aria Branch

Marc E. Elias

Aria C. Branch

PERKINS COIE

700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20005-3960

Telephone: 202.654.6200

Facsimile: 202.654.6211

Email: MElias@perkinscoie.com

Email: ABranch@perkinscoie.com 

 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

Case 1:20-cv-02229-EGS Document 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 27 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 10, 2021, 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 Branch

Marc E. Elias

Aria C. Branch

PERKINS COIE

700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800

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 24 Filed 08/10/21 Page 28 of 28