1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 900 ) 

Washington, D.C. 20004, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

1050 First Street, N.E. ) 

Washington, D.C. 20463, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________ ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

1. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) brings this 

action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or 

“Commission”) under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA” or “the Act”), 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C), challenging as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and 

contrary to law the dismissal by the FEC of an administrative complaint by CREW against 

Freedom Vote, Inc. for failing to comply with the disclosure requirements the FECA imposes on 

“political committees.” Political committees are entities subject to continuous disclosure 

obligations because they spend or receive at least $1,000 to influence elections in a year and 

have a major purpose to influence federal elections as demonstrated by, for example, their 

devoting more than half of their spending in a year to electioneering. CREW alleged Freedom 

Vote met these requirements but failed to comply with its disclosure obligations. This action 

seeks to remedy the injuries to CREW and the public caused by Freedom Vote’s failure to 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 16
2 

disclose its expenses and contributors, thereby denying CREW and the public information that 

the FECA entitles CREW and the public to receive. 

2. Before the unlawful dismissal, the Commission unanimously voted to find that 

CREW’s complaint raised a reason to believe Freedom Vote violated the law; a rare consensus at 

an agency known for perpetual deadlock. The FEC’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) then 

conducted a thorough investigation. The voluminous evidence collected not only validated 

CREW’s allegations but showed Freedom Vote’s violations were greater than CREW alleged. 

According to the investigation, Freedom Vote spent about 83% of its funds in a single year on 

federal elections, and spent more than 66% and 77% on elections in following years. It further 

showed that Freedom Vote apparently had no non-electioneering activities. Additionally, at least 

one donor of a half a million dollars to the group explicitly stated the donation’s purpose was for 

“the reelection of [U.S. Senator] Rob Portman.” Freedom Vote also solicited funds by showing 

its efforts were “working” to damage a candidate’s polling. 

3. Notwithstanding its prior unanimous decision, the overwhelming evidence, and 

the recommendation of the FEC’s general counsel to proceed, the Commission failed to enter 

into a conciliation with Freedom Vote or to pursue a civil enforcement action. Rather, on 

November 9, 2021, the Commission deadlocked three-to-three on whether to proceed by finding 

the investigation showed probable cause to believe violations of law occurred. 

4. The Commission also expressly considered whether to dismiss the action as an 

exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and rejected that possibility. 

5. Nevertheless, unable to procure sufficient votes to proceed, the Commission voted 

to close the file by a vote of four-to-one, with one commissioner abstaining. One commissioner 

who voted to find probable cause and proceed joined the dissenting commissioners to close the 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 16
3 

file. That commissioner later joined a statement explaining her vote to close, stating that she 

continued to believe probable cause existed but voted to close due to the intransigence of a nonmajority of her colleagues blocking further proceedings in the face of law and fact. 

6. The commissioners who voted against finding probable cause provided no 

contemporary explanation for that action at the time of the Commission’s consideration. To date, 

they have issued no explanation for their vote to terminate proceedings against Freedom Vote 

over the conclusive weight of the evidence of wrongdoing. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties pursuant 

to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 702. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1331, 2201(a), and 2202. Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

PARTIES 

7. Plaintiff CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation organized under section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

8. CREW is committed to protecting the rights of citizens to be informed about the 

activities of government officials, ensuring the integrity of those officials, protecting our political 

system against corruption, and reducing the influence of money in politics. CREW works to 

advance reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and transparency. Further, 

CREW seeks to ensure that campaign finance laws are properly interpreted, enforced, and 

implemented. 

9. To advance its mission, CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, 

advocacy, and public education to disseminate information to the public about public officials 

and their actions, as well as the outside influences that have been brought to bear on those 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 16
4 

actions. A core part of this work is examining and exposing the special interests that have 

influenced our elections and elected officials and using that information to educate voters 

regarding the integrity of public officials, candidates for public office, the electoral process, and 

our system of government. 

10. Toward this end, CREW monitors the activities of those who run for federal 

office as well as those groups financially supporting candidates for office or advocating for or 

against their election. CREW regularly reviews campaign finance reports that groups, candidates, 

and political parties file with the FEC disclosing their expenditures and contributors. Using the 

information in those reports, CREW, through its website, press releases, reports, and other 

methods of distribution, publicizes the role of these individuals and entities in the electoral 

process and the extent to which they have violated federal campaign finance laws. 

11. CREW also files complaints with the FEC when it discovers violations of the 

FECA. Publicizing violations of the FECA and filing complaints with the FEC serve CREW’s 

mission of keeping the public, and voters in particular, informed about individuals and entities 

that violate campaign finance laws and deterring future violations of campaign finance laws.

12. CREW is hindered in carrying out its core programmatic activities when those 

individuals and entities that attempt to influence elections and elected officials are able to keep 

their identities hidden. Likewise, the FEC’s refusal to properly administer the campaign finance 

laws, particularly the FECA’s reporting requirements, hinders CREW in its programmatic 

activity, as compliance with those reporting requirements often provides CREW with the only 

source of information about those individuals and groups funding the political process. 

13. As part of CREW’s work in carrying out its central mission, CREW focuses on 

so-called “pay-to-play” schemes. Toward that end, CREW looks for correlations between 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 16
5 

donations to the campaign of a member of Congress or candidate and that member’s subsequent 

congressional activities, including advocating for policies and legislation that serve the interests 

of the member’s donors. Information that an individual or entity made a large-dollar contribution 

may be very revealing about the influences that donor has brought to bear on the member postelection. Without information about the individuals and entities funding the political activities of 

organizations and individuals, CREW is stymied in fulfilling its central mission.

14. As an example, CREW published a report that revealed the sources of funding of 

over $1.5 million dollars in campaign ads that propped up an otherwise underfunded candidate, 

propelling him to win his primary election. Matt Corley, Hensel Phelps donations to pro-Buck 

dark money group finally revealed, Nov. 19, 2019, https://perma.cc/XNC6-37W8. At the time, 

voters only knew the maker of the ads was a nondescript entity called Americans for Job 

Security. The group was eventually required to register and report as a political committee and 

disclose its donors after a complaint and litigation by CREW. That information revealed for the 

first time the sources of the group’s funds, which included Peter Thiel, Sheldon and Miriam 

Adelson, and Robert McNair, and major corporations like Wynn Resorts, Bass Pro Shops, and 

Quicken Loans. One of the largest donors was Hensel Phelps Construction, which was also the 

candidate’s former employer. Hensel Phelps made contributions shortly before the group would 

run its campaign ads to influence the candidate’s election. Further, as a government contractor, 

Hensel Phelps was prohibited from making contributions to influence federal elections but was 

able to surreptitiously fund ads to do so by utilizing a 501(c)(4) entity that unlawfully failed to 

register and report as a political committee.

15. As another example, starting in June 2021, CREW published an ongoing report 

titled This sedition is brought to you by...., available at https://perma.cc/S9M4-VM9M. In that 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 5 of 16
6 

report, CREW collected and contextualized data reported by the FEC on contributions to 

political committees controlled by or allied with members of Congress who voted against 

certifying the 2020 election. CREW has so far found that more than 717 corporations and 

industry group PACs have given approximately $18 million to these members of Congress, 

despite initial public pledges not to donate to these members.

16. CREW requires access to information detailing the true sources of the money 

used to fund the political activities of federal candidates and outside groups. As a result, CREW 

is harmed when the FEC fails to properly administer the FECA, particularly the statute’s 

reporting requirements, thereby limiting CREW’s ability to obtain and review campaign finance 

information. 

17. Defendant FEC is the federal agency established by Congress to oversee the 

administration and civil enforcement of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30106(b)(1).

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Registration and Reporting Requirement for Political Committees 

18. The FECA defines the term “political committee” as “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.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(a). Expenditures include 

“any ... payment ..., deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the 

purpose of influencing any election for federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(A)(i); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 100.111. In addition, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo carved out from this definition 

organizations that, while meeting one of the statutory thresholds, are (1) not under the control of 

a candidate and (2) do not have a “major purpose” of “nominat[ing] or elect[ing] ... 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 6 of 16
7 

candidate[s].” 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976). A group that “extensive[ly]” spends on elections has a 

major purpose to influence elections and cannot be excused from reporting. FEC v. 

Massachusetts Right to Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 262 (1986). Neither the courts nor the FEC has 

defined the threshold of spending that qualifies as “extensive,” but a group devoting half of its 

yearly expenses to electioneering is sufficient. 

19. All political committees must file a statement of organization within ten days 

after becoming a political committee within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4). 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30103(a); 11 C.F.R. 102.1.

20. All registered political committees are required to file periodic reports with the 

FEC that, among other things, (1) identify all individuals who contribute an aggregate of more 

than $200, (2) identify all political committees that made a contribution to the political 

committee at issue, (3) detail a political committee’s debts and obligations, and (4) list all of a 

political committee’s expenditures. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(2)–(8); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3. 

21. A political committee’s duty to file reports is continuous until the political 

committee terminates its status with the FEC. Each failure to file a required report on the date it 

is due is a continuation of the unlawful behavior or, in the alternative, a new violation. A 

political committee may only terminate its status and end its reporting obligation when it ceases 

making any expenditure or accepting any contributions to influence federal elections. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30103(d). Moreover, political committees are under a continuous duty to supplement or correct 

any missing or erroneous reports. FEC, Filing Amendments, https://perma.cc/A9SC-3D8Y (last 

visited Jan. 5, 2022) (“The committee must file an amended report if it: [d]iscovers that an earlier 

report contained erroneous information, [or] [d]oes not obtain all of the required information 

concerning a particular transaction”); see also FEC, AO 1999-33 at 3 (MediaOne PAC) (Jan. 28, 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 7 of 16
8 

2000) (political committee “must amend” prior erroneous reports that omitted contributor 

information). 

22. Political committees are also required to identify themselves as the source of 

public communications they make through disclaimers that appear in the communication. 52 

U.S.C. § 30120(a)(3), (d)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.11. A “public communication” includes 

“broadcast, cable or satellite communication, ... to the general public, or any other form of 

general public political advertising.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(22); 11 C.F.R. § 100.26. The disclaimer 

“must clearly state the full name and permanent street address, telephone number, or World 

Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication, and that the communication is 

not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(b), (d). 

Enforcement Procedures and Administrative Exhaustion 

23. Under the FECA, any person who believes there has been a violation of the Act 

may file a sworn complaint with the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1). Based on the complaint, the 

response from the person or entity alleged to have violated the Act, facts developed by the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”), and any OGC recommendation, the FEC then votes on whether 

there is “reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). A 

“reason to believe” exists where a complaint “credibly alleges” a violation of the FECA “may 

have occurred.” FEC, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial 

Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545, 12545 (Mar. 16, 2007). If four 

commissioners find there is “reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred, the FEC 

must notify the respondents of that finding and “shall make an investigation of such alleged 

violation.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). Upon the basis of that investigation, the OGC recommends 

whether there is a “probable cause” to believe a violation occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3). If 

four commissioners vote to find probable cause exists, the Commission “shall attempt” to 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 8 of 16
9 

conciliate with the respondent, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(4), failing which the Commission may 

institute a civil action in federal court upon the affirmative vote of four commissioners, 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6). 

24. If four commissioners fail to find reason to believe or probable cause to believe a 

violation of the FECA has occurred and the Commission then dismisses the matter, the 

complainant, as a “party aggrieved” by the dismissal, may seek judicial review in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). All petitions from 

the dismissal of a complaint by the FEC must be filed “within 60 days after the date of the 

dismissal.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(B). 

25. The district court reviewing the FEC’s dismissal of a complaint may declare the 

FEC’s actions “contrary to law.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). The court also may order the FEC 

“to conform with such declaration within 30 days.” Id. If the FEC fails to abide by the court’s 

order, the FECA provides the complainant with a private right of action, brought in the 

complainant’s own name, “to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.” Id. The 

statute of limitations on that private right of action only begins to run when the FEC fails to 

conform with the court’s order after thirty days. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

26. CREW filed an administrative complaint against Freedom Vote with the FEC on 

August 8, 2018, alleging Freedom Vote qualified as a political committee no later than 2016, but 

failed to report as required. Exhibit 1, available at https://perma.cc/YPF2-7CT2. Freedom Vote 

was registered as a section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt social welfare organization and was established 

in Ohio in 2010. Id. ¶ 2. The FEC designated the matter MUR 7465.

27. Specifically, CREW’s complaint alleged Freedom Vote spent more than $1 

million in the summer of 2016 to make and air a television advertisement expressly advocating 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 9 of 16
10 

the defeat of Ohio United States Senate candidate Ted Strickland, titled “Third Largest.” Ex. 1

¶¶ 32–37 (ad asserted Strickland “lost jobs,” that he “want[ed] to bring his job-killing policies to 

Washington,” and stated “we can’t afford more lost jobs” superimposed over image of U.S. 

Capitol; disclaimer said only “paid for by Freedom Vote”). CREW alleged this advertisement 

was an independent expenditure, and that Freedom Vote failed to file the required disclosure 

reports with the FEC. Id. ¶¶ 42–48. CREW further alleged the communication did not include 

the required disclaimers, in violation of the FECA and FEC regulations. Id. ¶¶ 49–50. 

28. CREW’s complaint further alleged Freedom Vote failed to register and report as a 

political committee in violation of the FECA and FEC regulations. Id. ¶¶ 51–67. CREW alleged 

Freedom Vote’s actions qualified it as a political committee as early as 2014 and no later than 

2016. Id. ¶¶ 19–41, ¶¶ 51–67. In particular, CREW alleged that Freedom Vote made more than 

$1,000 in expenditures in 2014, 2015, and 2016, satisfying the FECA’s statutory test. Id. ¶ 19, 

32–37, 53–56. CREW further alleged that Freedom Vote’s major purpose in these years was to 

elect or defeat federal candidates, as exhibited by the public statements of an advisor to Freedom 

Vote and the fact that its spending on electioneering was more than 50% of its total expenditures 

each year. Id. ¶¶ 19–41, 57–64. 

29. Based on CREW’s complaint, the OGC recommended the Commission find 

reason to believe Freedom Vote failed to organize, register, and report as a political committee. 

See First General Counsel’s Report 25, MUR 7465 (Freedom Vote), July 1, 2019, 

https://perma.cc/8A8D-3D34. The OGC also recommended finding the “Third Largest” ad failed 

to include the required disclaimer. Id.1 

1

 In the alternative, the OGC recommended finding that, if Freedom Vote was not a political 

committee, that it nonetheless failed to report the “Third Largest” ad as an independent 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 10 of 16
11 

30. On July 25, 2019, the Commission unanimously voted to find reason to believe 

Freedom Vote failed to organize, register, and report as a political committee and include the 

required disclaimer on its “Third Largest” ad. The Commission also unanimously voted to 

approve compulsory process. Certification, MUR 7465 (Freedom Vote), July 25, 2019, 

https://perma.cc/YW4X-JQTY. 

31. CREW learned of these developments in late 2019, after it sued the FEC over its 

failure to act on CREW’s complaint. See CREW v. FEC, 19-cv-1650 (D.D.C.). As FEC matters 

are confidential until closed, CREW had been unaware of the FEC’s actions. CREW agreed to 

dismiss its complaint in reliance on the FEC’s representation that matters were proceeding 

expeditiously. 

32. In light of the Commission’s vote, the OGC began an investigation into Freedom 

Vote which not only confirmed CREW’s allegations, but indeed demonstrated Freedom Vote’s 

violations exceeded even the amount of political spending that CREW alleged. In particular, the 

investigation showed Freedom Vote’s electioneering in 2014, 2015, and 2016 amounted to more 

than 82%, 66%, and 77% of its total spending, respectively. In total, these expenditures 

amounted to about 71% of Freedom Vote’s spending from 2014 through the remainder of its 

lifetime. 

33. Additionally, the FEC’s investigation showed Freedom Vote’s spending on 

express advocacy in 2014 was more than previously reported or known, amounting to $239,878. 

General Counsel’s Brief 10, MUR 7465 (Freedom Vote), Sept. 20, 2021, 

https://perma.cc/4AAV-M9MJ. It also showed that Freedom Vote made electioneering expenses 

expenditure. Id. The alternative finding is because political committees do not separately report 

independent expenditures, see 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c), but rather report them along with all of their 

other expenses. 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 11 of 16
12 

in 2014 in conducting opposition research. Id. at 9. The investigation revealed that Freedom 

Vote’s Executive Director explained to a donor that Freedom Vote’s work was to make 

“maximum effort[s] through election day,” id. at 10, and that same Executive Director could not 

recall any non-electioneering work Freedom Vote performed, id. at 11. 

34. Freedom Vote’s 2015 electioneering expenses were also more than previously 

known, amounting to $217,539, including contributions to super PACs and research and polling 

on a federal candidate. Id. at 12. 

35. Similarly, Freedom Vote’s 2016 electioneering expenses were more than 

previously known, amounting to $2,987,563 in independent expenditures (including $1.1 million 

on the “Third Largest” ad that Freedom Vote’s Executive Director admitted was targeted at 

candidate Strickland’s Senate campaign), contributions to super PACs, analytics, and polling. Id.

at 16–17. In addition, an unknown 2016 donor to Freedom Vote stated the donated funds were 

for “the reelection of [U.S. Senator] Rob Portman,” Strickland’s opponent in the campaign. Id. at 

26. Freedom Vote also informed donors that its efforts were “working” to lower candidate 

Strickland’s poll numbers. Id. at 26–27. 

36. The investigation also revealed that Freedom Vote paid approximately $23,000 to 

the Internal Revenue Service in 2018 to settle an investigation into whether Freedom Vote 

violated its section 501(c)(4) status by devoting its activities primarily to electioneering. Id. at 

19. 

37. While revealing, the investigation was ultimately delayed by Freedom Vote’s 

failure to timely respond to the FEC’s subpoenas. The FEC served subpoenas on Freedom Vote 

and its Executive Director on October 15, 2019. See Notification to Freedom Vote, MUR 7465 

(Freedom Vote), Oct. 31, 2019, https://perma.cc/JR2D-CLW8 (referring to “attached 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 12 of 16
13 

subpoena”); Notification to James S. Nathanson, MUR 7465 (Freedom Vote), Oct. 31, 2019, 

https://perma.cc/J7NL-G9F2 (same). Shortly before that, one of the FEC commissioners 

resigned his seat, leaving the Commission with only three members. Three commissioners are 

an insufficient number to achieve quorum and permit the FEC to seek legal remedies for the 

disregard of the subpoenas. It was not until quorum was restored in December 2020 and Mr. 

Nathanson was issued a deposition subpoena that documents were finally produced. See

Statement of Reasons of Chair Shana M. Broussard and Commissioners Steven T. Walther and 

Ellen L. Weintraub 6, MUR 7465 (Freedom Vote), Dec. 16, 2021, https://perma.cc/LG9HHPSV. 

38. Notwithstanding this obstruction, the FEC’s General Counsel notified Freedom 

Vote that, based on its investigation, it intended to recommend the Commission find probable 

cause to believe that Freedom Vote violated the FECA and FEC regulations by failing to 

organize, register, report, and provide disclaimers as a political committee. General Counsel’s 

Brief 1–2. 

39. The Commission considered the General Counsel’s recommendation on 

November 9, 2021. Despite the conclusive evidence collected, the Commission, now with a full 

slate of six commissioners, deadlocked three-to-three on the vote to find probable cause to 

believe Freedom Vote violated the FECA. The Commission considered whether to dismiss the 

proceedings as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but declined to invoke that power. 

40. Nonetheless, with proceedings unable to move forward, four commissioners, 

including one commissioner who voted to proceed with an investigation and voted against 

exercising prosecutorial discretion, voted to close the case. Only upon doing so was CREW 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 13 of 16
14 

alerted to the fact the matter had been closed without remedy, and only then did CREW have an 

opportunity to seek review of the dismissal in court. 

41. Shortly after the vote, the three commissioners who voted to find probable cause 

of a violation—including one commissioner who voted to close the case—issued a statement of 

reasons recounting the FEC’s investigation, the voluminous evidence amassed to support 

CREW’s allegations, and rejecting possible grounds for terminating the case. 

42. The three other commissioners who voted to find the evidence did not give rise to 

a probable cause to believe a violation occurred did not issue any contemporary justification for 

their action for either the Commission or this Court to consider. To date, those three 

commissioners have not issued even a post-hoc explanation. 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

The FEC’s Dismissal of CREW’s Complaint Was Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse of 

Discretion, and Contrary to Law 

43. CREW re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully 

set forth herein. 

44. This action is timely as it was filed within sixty days of the FEC’s closure of 

MUR 7465. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(B). 

45. The FEC’s dismissal of CREW’s complaint was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and contrary to law in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

46. The FEC’s general counsel amassed conclusive evidence that Freedom Vote 

qualified as a political committee as early as 2014 and as late as December 31, 2016, which 

status Freedom Vote thus continues to possess from the point of qualification through today. 

Notwithstanding this qualification, Freedom Vote never registered with the FEC as a political 

committee, nor filed the required reports, which reports continue to be due today. Nor did 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 14 of 16
15 

Freedom Vote include required disclaimers on its communications. Moreover, Freedom Vote has 

never terminated its political committee status. 

47. The evidence the FEC collected would itself satisfy some of Freedom Vote’s 

disclosure obligations under the FECA if it were to be made public. Other information, such as 

the identity of donors, is available in the records produced to the FEC, which apparently were 

redacted on production, in bank records, and in documents filed with the IRS. 

48. Notwithstanding the conclusive evidence and the readily available remedies, 

three commissioners voted to find no probable cause existed to believe Freedom Vote violated 

the FECA by not organizing, registering, reporting, and making disclaimers as a political 

committee. That vote led to the closure of this matter when another commissioner, disagreeing 

with her colleagues on the merits, nonetheless joined them to close the case, permitting CREW 

to receive notice of the FEC’s actions and permitting this lawsuit to challenge that closure. 

49. The FEC declined to exercise prosecutorial discretion to dismiss this matter, 

which exercise requires the concurrence of four commissioners. 

50. The three commissioners who voted to find no probable cause provided no 

contemporaneous explanation of their vote for either the agency or for this Court to consider. To 

date, those three commissioners have not issued even a post-hoc explanation. The only 

commissioner who voted to close the file who has issued a statement has explained that the case 

should have proceeded and not been closed, and therefore that the dismissal she voted for was 

contrary to law. 

51. An agency action unsupported by a contemporaneous explanation is per se

arbitrary and capricious, and the FEC’s dismissal without one is contrary to law. 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 15 of 16
16 

52. Therefore, CREW is entitled to relief in the form of a declaration that the FEC is 

in violation of its statutory responsibilities under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) and has acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously, abused its discretion, and acted contrary to law in dismissing MUR 

7465. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, CREW respectfully requests that this Court: 

1. Declare that the FEC’s dismissal of CREW’s complaint in MUR 7465 was 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law;

2. Order the FEC to conform to such declaration within 30 days pursuant to 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C);

3. Award CREW its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action; 

and 

4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stuart McPhail 

Stuart C. McPhail 

(D.C. Bar No. 1032529) 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org

Adam J. Rappaport 

(D.C. Bar. No. 479866) 

Laura Iheanachor 

(Pending D.C. Bar Admission) 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

 in Washington 

1331 F Street, N.W., Suite 900 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Phone: (202) 408-5565 

Facsimile: (202) 588-5020 

Case 1:22-cv-00035-CRC Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 16 of 16