1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. ) 

Washington, D.C. 20001, ) 

 ) 

NOAH BOOKBINDER ) 

10206 Brookmoor Dr. ) 

Silver Spring, M.D. 20901, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 

 Plaintiffs ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

999 E Street., N.W. ) 

Washington, D.C. 20463, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________ ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

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

Bookbinder (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief 

against the Federal Elections Commission (“FEC”) 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 Plaintiffs against New Models for failing to comply with the disclosure 

requirements the FECA imposes on “political committees.” This action seeks to remedy the 

injuries to Plaintiffs and the public caused by New Models’ failure to disclose its contributors, 

thereby denying Plaintiffs and the public information that the FECA entitles Plaintiffs and the 

public to receive. 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 13
2 

2. The FEC’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) concluded that the FEC should 

find reason to believe New Models violated the FECA by not registering and reporting as a 

political committee in 2012 when it contributed over $3 million to separate political committees: 

groups which “are, by definition, campaign related.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976); see

First General Counsel’s Report 5-8, MUR No. 6872 (May 21, 2015) (attached as Exhibit 1). 

These contributions represented approximately 68.5% of New Models’ 2012 spending. Id. 

3. The FEC, however, splitting 2-2, failed to adopt the OGC’s recommendation for 

the FEC to find reason to believe that New Models violated the FECA by not registering and 

reporting as a political committee and dismissed the administrative complaint. See Certification, 

MUR No. 6872 (Nov. 16, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 2). 

4. On December 20, 2017, over a month after closing the file on Plaintiffs’ 

complaint, the two commissioners who voted against adopting the OGC’s recommendation 

issued the required statement of reasons for their votes. Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair 

Caroline C. Hunter and Comm’r Lee E. Goodman, MUR No. 6872 (Dec. 20, 2017) (attached as 

Exhibit 3). According to their statement, the commissioners based their dismissal of the 

complaint on two grounds. First, they found that New Models did not meet the statutory 

thresholds to qualify as a political committee. Second, they relied on an interpretation of 

Buckley’s “major purpose” requirement for political committee status that this District Court has 

already found to be contrary to the law. See Memorandum Opinion, CREW v. FEC, 1:14-cv01419-CRC 22, 25–26, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77, 93–94 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2016) (attached as Exhibit 

4). 

5. The two commissioners based their decision on impermissible interpretations of 

the FECA at odds with statutory language and binding agency authority, and on an old, 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 2 of 13
3 

discredited analysis. As such, it is inherently flawed. Accordingly, their failure to find even 

reason to believe that New Models was a political committee under the FECA and the 

consequent dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint are contrary to law. 

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 government 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 

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. 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 3 of 13
4 

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, in some cases, their 

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 

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 postCase 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 4 of 13
5 

election. 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, in 2015, CREW issued a report, Welcome to Washington: New 

Members of Congress Attract Special Interest Money that analyzed fundraising by newly elected 

members of Congress in their first year in office. CREW’s analysis was based on FEC campaign 

contribution records that identified contributions to those members from special interest PACs, 

including PACs tied to corporations, unions, and issues groups. From this data, CREW 

determined that new members of the House of Representatives embraced fundraising from 

special interests after they took office and became more reliant on that money than they had been 

as candidates. Those members raised nearly $17.3 million from special interest PACs in 2015, an 

increase of 15.8% over the amount they raised as candidates during the entire 2014 election 

cycle. CREW further found that special interest PAC money accounted for an average of 37.6% 

of total funds raised by the new members in 2015, more than double the 17.3% rate from the 

2014 election cycle. CREW was able to obtain this information because of the disclosure 

requirements to which the organizations receiving those contributions – federal candidates, party 

committees, PACs, and super PACs – are subject under the FECA.

15. As another example, on August 21, 2017, CREW published a blog post entitled 

Synchronized Spending: The Dark Money Phantom’s New Illusion, which highlighted section 

501(c)(4) dark money non-profits that fully fund multiple federal super PACs that attack or 

support the same candidates. By making the work of one group appear to be the work of two 

independent groups, this tactic misleads the public, exaggerates candidates’ outside support, and 

exacerbates the problems caused by secret money in politics. CREW obtained the information 

used in this post from information the FECA requires political committees to disclose.

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 5 of 13
6 

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. Plaintiff Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW. He is a citizen of 

the United States and a registered voter and resident of the state of Maryland. As a registered 

voter, Mr. Bookbinder is entitled to receive all the information the FECA requires those engaged 

in political activities to report publicly. He is further entitled to the FEC’s proper administration 

of the provisions of the FECA. Mr. Bookbinder is harmed in exercising his right to an informed 

vote when a political committee fails to report the true source of its contributions, as the FECA 

requires. 

18. 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 

19. 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 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 6 of 13
7 

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] . . . 

candidate[s].” 424 U.S. at 79. 

20. 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.

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

FEC that include, among other things, (1) identification of all individuals who contribute an 

aggregate of more than $200, (2) identification of all political committees that made a 

contribution to the political committee at issue, (3) detail of a political committee’s debts and 

obligations, and (4) listing of all of a political committee’s expenditures. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30104(b)(2)–(8); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3. 

22. 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). 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 7 of 13
8 

23. If four commissioners fail to find reason 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 of the failure to find reason to believe 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). 

24. 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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

25. On September 17, 2014, CREW and its then-executive director Melanie Sloan 

filed an administrative complaint with the FEC against New Models, a tax-exempt group 

organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. The matter was given the MUR 

number 6872. The complaint was subsequently amended to substitute plaintiff Noah Bookbinder 

for Melanie Sloan. 

26. The complaint alleged that New Models failed to register and report as a political 

committee from 2012 onward as required by the FECA and that New Models failed to report 

receipt of contributions, its making of contributions, its debts, and its expenditures to the FEC as 

required under the FECA. 

27. The complaint further alleged that New Models made numerous contributions to 

various separate independent expenditure-only political committees (“super PACs”) with the 

purpose of influencing federal elections. These contributions totaled more than $3 million in 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 8 of 13
9 

2012, constituting approximately 68.5% of New Models’ expenditures in 2012. The super PACs 

that received the contributions from New Models were the Now or Never PAC, Government 

Integrity Fund Action Network (“GIFAN”), and Citizens for a Working America PAC (“CWA”). 

Now or Never PAC, GIFAN, and CWA reported receiving the funds from New Models as 

“contributions” within the meaning of the FECA, namely, gifts or other transfers of money made 

“for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). The 

administrative complaint requested that the FEC conduct an investigation into the allegations and 

declare that New Models violated the FECA and applicable FEC regulations. 

28. On November 5, 2014, New Models responded to Plaintiffs’ complaint, 

admitting that it met the statutory threshold to qualify as a political committee. Nevertheless, 

New Models contested the allegation that it had the major purpose of nominating of electing 

candidates. 

29. On May 21, 2015, the FEC OGC issued its First General Counsel’s Report in the 

New Models matter. Report, Ex. 1. In addition to the contributions alleged by Plaintiffs, the 

OGC identified three additional contributions: one $5,000 contribution in 2012 to “Special 

Operations OPSEC Political committee” and two contributions in 2010 to CWA totaling 

$265,000. OPSEC, like the other organizations to which New Models contributed, is an 

independent expenditure-only political committee. Based on these and the contributions 

Plaintiffs alleged, the OGC found New Models satisfied the statutory thresholds for political 

committee status and, by devoting at least 68.5% of its spending in 2012 to contributions to super 

PACs, New Models had a major purpose to nominate or elect candidates and thus was not 

excused from reporting by Buckley. Accordingly, the OGC recommended that the FEC should 

find reason to believe that New Models violated the FECA by failing to register and report as a 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 9 of 13
10 

political committee in 2012, that the FEC approve the OGC’s factual and legal analysis, and that 

the FEC approve compulsory process. 

30. Following the OGC’s report, the FEC failed to act on Plaintiffs’ administrative 

complaint for over two years. 

31. Finally, on November 14, 2017, in a 2-2 vote, the FEC failed to adopt the OGC’s 

factual and legal analysis and thereby failed to find reason to believe that New Models violated 

the FECA by failing to register and report as a political committee in 2012. Certification, MUR. 

No. 6872 (Nov. 14, 2017) 1, Ex. 2. Accordingly, the same day, the commissioners voted to close 

the file and dismiss the Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. Id.

32. On December 20, 2017, two commissioners, Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and 

Commissioner Lee E. Goodman, issued a Statement of Reasons setting out their basis for voting 

against finding reason to believe that New Models violated the FECA by failing to register and 

report as a political committee. Hunter, Goodman Statement of Reasons, Ex. 3. The two 

commissioners asserted that New Models’ actions did not qualify it as a political committee 

based on their belief that New Models did not make expenditures over the statutory threshold 

and that its major purpose was not related to the election of candidates, even in 2012, because it 

did not devote a majority of its spending in other years to electioneering. Id. at 18-25, 31.

33. On December 21, 2017, Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub issued her own 

Statement of Reasons. Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Ellen L. Weintraub, MUR 6872 (Dec. 

21, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 5). Commissioner Weintraub points out that the major purpose 

analysis used by Vice Chair Hunter and Commissioner Goodman was already considered and 

rejected by this Court in CREW v. FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2016). Id. at 1; see also

Mem. Op., Ex. 4. Commissioner Weintraub quoted Judge Christopher R. Cooper’s memorandum 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 10 of 13
11 

opinion in which he stated that in using a lifetime-spending-only approach, the Commission 

failed to recognize that the major purpose of an organization may change with time. 

Commissioner Weintraub commented that it was disappointing to see the other commissioners 

cite the CREW case as support for their view, when in fact the CREW decision found the 

lifetime-only approach contrary to law. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

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

Discretion, and Contrary to Law 

34. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully 

set forth herein.

35. The FEC’s dismissal of the complaint was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

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

reasons of the controlling commissioners identified two alternative grounds for dismissal: 

(1) that New Models did not satisfy either of the statutory thresholds, and (2) that New Models 

did not a qualifying “major purpose” and therefore was excused from reporting under Buckley. 

Both grounds are contrary to law. 

36. First, the controlling commissioners’ conclusion that New Models did not satisfy 

the statutory threshold under 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4) is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and otherwise contrary to law. The interpretation from which that conclusion results, 

adopted by only two commissioners of the FEC, that contributions to political committees used 

to fund independent expenditures do not satisfy the FECA’s $1,000 statutory expenditure or 

contribution thresholds conflicts with binding authority and is thus impermissible. 

37. Second, the controlling commissioners’ interpretation of Buckley’s major 

purpose test is squarely at odds with judicial authority, including authority from this Court, and 

thus is impermissible. The controlling commissioners found New Models lacked the requisite 

major purpose because they compared the organization’s political spending against its combined 

spending from all the years of its decade-plus existence to find the group did not devote a 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 11 of 13
12 

majority of its lifetime spending to electioneering (while ignoring that, for the first decade of its 

existence, any electioneering would have been illegal). In CREW v. FEC, however, this Court 

ruled in an indistinguishable situation that “[t]he Commissioners’ refusal to give any weight 

whatsoever to an organization’s relative spending in the most recent calendar year” before the 

complaint was contrary to law. CREW v. FEC, 209 F.Supp.3d at 94-95. The controlling 

commissioners, just as before, refused to give any weight to New Models spending in 2012, 

failing to heed the directive of this Court. Rather, they continue to apply a legally discredited 

and impermissible interpretation of Buckley’s “major purpose” standard when analyzing New 

Models’ conduct. The dismissal resulting from that impermissible interpretation is therefore 

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

38. Therefore, Plaintiffs are 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 

6872. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 

1. Declare that the FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint against New Models 

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 Plaintiffs their 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.

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 12 of 13
13 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Stuart McPhail 

Stuart C. McPhail 

(D.C. Bar No. 1032529#) 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org

Adam J. Rappaport 

(D.C. Bar. No. 479866) 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

 in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Phone: (202) 408-5565 

Facsimile: (202) 588-5020 

January 12, 2018 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:18-cv-00076 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 13 of 13