UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant,

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK,

 Intervenor-Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01419-CRC

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Intervenor-Defendant American Action Network cross-moves this Court for an order 

(1) granting its motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Local Rule 7(h) and dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice, and 

(2) denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

In support of this motion, American Action Network files (1) a Memorandum of Points 

and Authorities in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and (2) a Proposed Order. 

American Action Network requests oral argument on this motion.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 56
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Claire J. Evans 

Jan Witold Baran (D.C. Bar No. 233486)

Caleb P. Burns (D.C. Bar No. 474923)

Claire J. Evans (D.C. Bar No. 992271) 

Wiley Rein LLP

1776 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Tel.: 202.719.7000

Fax: 202.719.7049

March 1, 2016 Counsel for American Action Network

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant,

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK,

 Intervenor-Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01419-CRC

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES

AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK’S 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

(1) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

(2) IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- i -

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

STATEMENT OF THE CASE........................................................................................................2

A. Legal Background....................................................................................................2

B. CREW’s Administrative Complaint ........................................................................6

C. The FEC’s Dismissal ...............................................................................................9

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................12

I. The Commission’s Dismissal Easily Survives Judicial Review........................................12

A. The Controlling Commissioners’ Decision Is Entitled To Chevron

Deference. ..............................................................................................................12

B. The Commission’s Dismissal Reflects A Reasonable Application Of Law..........16

1. The Commission Reasonably Focused On Express Advocacy 

When Deciding Whether American Action Network’s “Major 

Purpose” Is The Election Of Candidates. ..................................................17

2. The Commission Reasonably Decided That American Action 

Network’s Issue Advertisements Do Not Show A “Major Purpose” 

To Elect Candidates. ..................................................................................22

C. CREW’s Attacks On The Commission’s Dismissal Decision Are 

Meritless.................................................................................................................26

1. CREW’s First Amendment Arguments Miss The Mark............................26

2. The Commission Did Not Per Se Exclude Electioneering 

Communications From The “Major Purpose” Analysis. ...........................30

3. The Commission Reasonably Considered American Action 

Network’s Broader Spending Without Limiting Itself To CalendarYear Statistics. ...........................................................................................33

4. The Commission Did Not Adopt A Rule Requiring That The 

“Major Purpose” Be Supported By At Least Fifty Percent Of 

Spending. ...................................................................................................36

II. An Independent Jurisdictional Defect Requires The Dismissal Of This Case. .................38

A. The Statute Of Limitations On CREW’s FEC Complaint Has Expired. ...............39

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 56
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

- ii -

B. CREW Cannot Show That Success In This Action Is Significantly Likely 

To Redress Its Claimed Injury. ..............................................................................40

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................43

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 5 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

- iii -

Cases

AFL-CIO v. FEC,

333 F.3d 168, 170 (D.C. Cir. 2003).........................................................................................20

Agape Church, Inc. v. FCC,

738 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2013).................................................................................................34

Akins v. FEC,

101 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1996).................................................................................................13

Akins v. FEC,

524 U.S. 11 (1998).............................................................................................................40, 41

Akins v. FEC,

736 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2010).............................................................................................42

Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld,

684 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2010).........................................................................................14

Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Miles,

441 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................30

American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 

906 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1990).................................................................................................38

Bismullah v. Gates,

551 F.3d 1068 (D.C. Cir. 2009)...............................................................................................42

Bowsher v. Merck & Co.,

460 U.S. 824 (1983).................................................................................................................38

Buckley v. Valeo,

424 U.S. 1 (1976)............................................................................................................. passim

*Buckley v. Valeo,

519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975).................................................................................................18

CBS, Inc. v. FCC,

453 U.S. 367 (1981).................................................................................................................38

Center for Individual Freedom v. Madigan,

697 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................13

Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. Naturel Resources Defense Council, Inc., 

470 U.S. 116 (1985).................................................................................................................27

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 6 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- iv -

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

467 U.S. 837 (1984)......................................................................................................... passim

Christensen v. Harris County,

529 U.S. 576 (2000).................................................................................................................15

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,

132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012).............................................................................................................36

Citizens for Percy v. FEC,

Civ.A.No. 84-2653, 1984 WL 6601 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 1984) .................................................40

Citizens United v. FEC,

558 U.S. 310 (2010).............................................................................................................4, 29

City of Arlington, Texas v. FCC,

133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013).......................................................................................................14, 15

Colorado Right to Life Committee v. Coffman, 

498 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................20

Combat Veterans for Congress Political Action Committee v. FEC,

795 F.3d 151 (D.C. Cir. 2015).................................................................................................16

Common Cause v. FEC,

842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988).................................................................................................14

Cope v. Anderson,

331 U.S. 461 (1947).................................................................................................................43

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. FEC,

Civ.A.No. 95-0349, 1996 WL 34301203 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 1996)..........................................40

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. FEC,

745 F. Supp. 742 (D.D.C. 1990)..............................................................................................26

Doe v. Reed,

561 U.S. 186 (2010).................................................................................................................29

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.,

438 U.S. 59 (1978)...................................................................................................................39

Durning v. Citibank, N.A.,

950 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................13

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 7 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- v -

ExxonMobil Gas Marketing Co. v. F.E.R.C.,

297 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2002)...............................................................................................27

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,

132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012).............................................................................................................36

FEC v. Christian Coalition,

965 F. Supp. 66 (D.D.C. 1997)................................................................................................42

FEC v. GOPAC, Inc., 

917 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1996)........................................................................................19, 36

FEC v. Malenick,

310 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D.D.C. 2004).........................................................................................35

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.,

479 U.S. 238 (1986)......................................................................................................... passim

FEC v. National Republican Senatorial Committee,

877 F. Supp. 15 (D.D.C. 1995)................................................................................................39

FEC v. National Republican Senatorial Committee,

966 F.2d 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1992).........................................................................................12, 14

FEC v. National Rifle Ass’n.,

254 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2001).................................................................................................15

FEC v. National Right To Work Committee, Inc.,

916 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1996)...........................................................................................39, 43

FEC v. Williams,

104 F.3d 237 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................39, 42

*FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life, Inc.,

551 U.S. 449 (2007)......................................................................................................... passim

Florida Right to Life, Inc. v. Mortham,

No. 98-770CIVORL19A, 1999 WL 33204523 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 1999).............................19

Gabelli v. SEC,

133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013).............................................................................................................43

Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,

No. CV 14-2014, 2015 WL 7428532 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2015)................................................32

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 8 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- vi -

Hagelin v. FEC,

411 F.3d 237 (D.C. Cir. 2005).................................................................................................12

Independent Petroleum Ass’n v. Babbitt,

235 F.3d 588 (D.C. Cir. 2001).................................................................................................42

Iowa Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Tooker,

717 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................29

Koerber v. FEC,

583 F. Supp. 2d 740 (E.D.N.C. 2008)......................................................................................38

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555 (1992)...........................................................................................................41, 42

Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, 

499 U.S. 144 (1991).................................................................................................................16

McConnell v. FEC,

540 U.S. 93 (2003).......................................................................................................13, 29, 32

McCutcheon v. FEC,

134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014).............................................................................................................29

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson,

692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................29

National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services,

545 U.S. 967 (2005).................................................................................................................13

National Institute of Military Justice v. United States Department of Defense,

512 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................15

National Organization for Marriage v. McKee,

649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011)......................................................................................................13

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Jones,

716 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2013).................................................................................................27

New Mexico Youth Organized v. Herrera,

611 F.3d 669 (10th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................6, 19

Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar,

671 F.3d 1241 (D.C. Cir. 2012)...............................................................................................38

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 9 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- vii -

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett,

168 F.3d 705 (4th Cir. l999) ....................................................................................................18

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake,

525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................18, 33

O’Connor v. Donaldson,

422 U.S. 563 (1975).................................................................................................................13

Orloski v. FEC,

795 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... passim

Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC,

681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... passim

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,

448 U.S. 555 (1980).................................................................................................................38

*In re Sealed Case,

223 F.3d 775 (D.C. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... passim

Spectrum Five LLC v. FCC,

758 F.3d 254 (D.C. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................41

SpeechNow.org v. FEC,

599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).................................................................................................30

Spencer v. Kemna,

523 U.S. 1 (1998).....................................................................................................................41

Stop This Insanity Inc. Employee Leadership Fund v. FEC,

761 F.3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................28

United States v. Banks,

115 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................42

United States v. Mead Corp.,

533 U.S. 218 (2001).................................................................................................................15

United States v. Midwest Generation, LLC,

720 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................43

Van Hollen v. FEC,

No. 15-5016, 2016 WL 278200 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) ................................................21, 28

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 10 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- viii -

Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. v. Sorrell,

758 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014).....................................................................................................30

Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 

455 U.S. 489 (1982).................................................................................................................21

Webster v. Fall,

266 U.S. 507 (1925).................................................................................................................42

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland,

751 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................22, 29, 30, 33

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 2462......................................................................................................................39, 42

52 U.S.C. § 30101..................................................................................................................3, 4, 34

52 U.S.C. § 30102........................................................................................................................4, 5

52 U.S.C. § 30103............................................................................................................................5

52 U.S.C. § 30104........................................................................................................................3, 4

52 U.S.C. § 30109.................................................................................................................. passim

Regulations 

11 C.F.R. § 100.22(a).....................................................................................................................22

11 C.F.R. § 104.20...........................................................................................................................4

70 Fed. Reg. 3 (Jan. 3, 2005)...........................................................................................................4

72 Fed. Reg. 5,595 (Feb. 7, 2001) .......................................................................................6, 18, 38

Legislative Materials 

147 Cong. Rec. S2812 (Mar. 23, 2001).........................................................................................32

Administrative Materials 

ADR 230, Recommendation to Close File (Feb. 11, 2005)...........................................................40

FEC Adv. Op. 1996-3 (Apr. 19, 1996) ..........................................................................................35

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 11 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- ix -

Pre-MUR 395, Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Mason, Smith, and 

Wold (Feb. 27, 2002).........................................................................................................40, 41

MUR 5097R, General Counsel’s Report (Agenda Document No. X02-27) 

(Apr. 3, 2002)............................................................................................................................40

MUR 5487, Conciliation Agreement (Feb. 2007) .........................................................................35

MUR 6396, Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen 

(Jan. 8, 2014)............................................................................................................................35

Other Authorities 

Brad Smith, What does it mean when the Federal Election Commission “Deadlocks”, Center for 

Competitive Politics (Apr. 14, 2009), http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/04/14/whatdoes-it-mean-when-the-federal-election-commission-deadlocks/...........................................16

Brian Montopoli, Obama Signs Bill to Extend Bush Tax Cuts, 

CBS News, Dec. 17, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-signs-billto-extend-bush-tax-cuts/ ..........................................................................................................25

Bruce Alpert, Congress faces long to-do list after campaign recess, 

Times-Picayune, Oct. 1, 2010, 

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/congress_faces_long_to-do

_list.html ..................................................................................................................................25

Carrie Budoff Brown, Obama, GOP reach tax cut deal, Politico, Dec. 6, 2010, 

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/obama-gop-reach-tax-cut-deal-046042......................9

David M. Herszenhorn, House G.O.P. Leader Signals He’s Open to Obama Tax Cut, N.Y. 

Times, Sept. 12, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/us/politics/

13cong.html ...............................................................................................................................9

David Rogers, Dems concede budget fight to GOP, Politico, Dec. 16, 2010, 

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/dems-concede-budget-fight-togop-046520 ..............................................................................................................................25

Gail Russell Chaddock, Congress adjourns, but spending bills and Bush tax cuts still loom, 

Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 30, 2010, 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0930/Congress-adjourns-but-spending-billsand-Bush-tax-cuts-still-loom (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).........................................................24

Jackie Calmes, Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 

2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html...................................24

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 12 of 56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(Continued)

Page(s)

- x -

Meredith Shiner, Bennet bucks Obama’s $50B plan, Politico, Sept. 8, 2010, 

http://www.politico.com/story/2010/09/bennet-bucks-obamas-50b-plan-041887..................24

Obama pushes $50 billion in infrastructure spending, CNN, Sept. 7, 2010, 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/06/obama.economy/ ................................................9

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 13 of 56
INTRODUCTION

The American Action Network is an “issue advocacy group that occasionally speaks out 

on federal elections.” AR1710. Between 2009 and 2010, only about 15 percent of American 

Action Network’s spending was for advertisements that expressly advocated the election or 

defeat of federal candidates. Over that same period, American Action Network spent 

considerably more on classic issue advertisements calling for Congress to repeal healthcare 

legislation or address other legislative issues. American Action Network disclosed this spending 

in appropriate filings with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”).

American Action Network’s central organizational purpose is not the nomination or 

election of federal candidates. But, in a complaint filed with the FEC, plaintiffs Citizens for 

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan (collectively “CREW”) asserted that 

American Action Network’s spending nonetheless made the group a political committee, 

subjecting it to punishment for failure to comply with the intrusive and burdensome regulatory 

obligations attached to that status. And, when the FEC voted to dismiss CREW’s complaint, 

CREW filed this suit, contending the FEC could not lawfully decline to prosecute CREW’s 

complaint.

First Amendment considerations limit political committee status to groups that either are 

under the control of a candidate or have as their singular “major purpose” the “nomination or 

election of a candidate.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976). This case involves only the 

major purpose prong. With judicial approval, the FEC assesses major purpose “on a case-bycase basis, taking into consideration the unique facts and circumstances involved.” AR1705. 

And its decisions command deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 14 of 56
- 2 -

CREW thus faces an exceptionally heavy burden. It must show the FEC’s 

straightforward and comprehensively explained application of law to the facts was so 

unreasonable and capricious as to be actually “contrary to law,” the controlling legal standard. 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). Seeking to lighten its burden, CREW claims a dismissal by fewer than 

four Commissioners does not deserve deference and that this dismissal is based on several 

bright-line legal rules not supported by the statute. But binding precedent gives full Chevron

deference to a decision by three controlling Commissioners. And the controlling Commissioners 

here grounded their decision not to prosecute on the unique facts and circumstances involved in 

this matter as required by the major purpose doctrine, not on the supposed bright-line rules that 

CREW erects as straw men.

The Commission’s reasoned and fact-based application of law is enough to require 

dismissal of CREW’s complaint under any standard of review. Yet there is an additional reason 

to dismiss CREW’s complaint—a jurisdictional one that stems from the fact that the statute of 

limitations has run on the violations that CREW seeks to pursue. The expiration of the statute of 

limitations leaves no significant likelihood that any decision from this Court can redress 

CREW’s claimed injury because the FEC routinely dismisses “stale” complaints—even before 

the statute of limitations has run. The statute of limitations expired here over nineteen months 

ago. This case has become merely academic and should be dismissed. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Legal Background

CREW asserts, without citation or limitation, that the Supreme Court “assum[es] that 

campaign contributions and spending would be disclosed.” CREW Mot. at 4 (Dkt. No. 33). Not 

so. The Supreme Court has imposed strict limitations on the disclosure required by the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) in order to ensure the constitutionality of the reporting and 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 15 of 56
- 3 -

other obligations it imposes. These obligations are different for two groups: “political 

committees” and “[e]very person (other than a political committee).” 52 U.S.C. § 30104(a), 

(c)(1).

The obligations are far greater for “political committees” than they are for “persons,” 

which include individuals, corporations, and “any other organization or group of persons.” Id.

§ 30101(11). When a “person” makes an “independent expenditure” or “electioneering 

communication” that meets certain statutory cost thresholds, it must file a one-time disclosure 

report. An “independent expenditure” is an expenditure “expressly advocating the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified candidate,” id. § 30101(17), using words like “vote for,” “vote 

against,” “elect,” or “defeat,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52, 79-80. An “electioneering 

communication” refers to a clearly identified federal candidate in a broadcast, cable, or satellite 

communication made shortly before an election, which targets the candidate’s electorate. 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(f)(3)(A)(i). “Electioneering communications,” by definition, do not include 

express advocacy even though they refer to a federal candidate. Id. § 30104(f)(3)(B)(ii) 

(excluding from definition of “electioneering communication” a communication that constitutes 

an independent expenditure under the Act). “Electioneering communications” can also function 

as “genuine issue ads” that “focus on a legislative issue, take a position on the issue, exhort the 

public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact public officials with respect to the 

matter.” FEC v. Wis. Right To Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 470 (2007) (“Wis. Right To Life II”).

The particulars of the required one-time disclosure report are directly linked to the type of 

communication made. For example, if a person spends more than $250 on an independent 

expenditure, the person must disclose the amount spent and those who contributed more than 

$200 for the purpose of furthering that expenditure. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c). Similarly, if a person 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 16 of 56
- 4 -

pays more than $10,000 for electioneering communications, the person must disclose the amount 

spent and those who contributed at least $1,000 for the purpose of furthering the electioneering 

communications. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(f); 11 C.F.R. § 104.20. The person need not disclose any 

other sources of funding. This limited disclosure satisfies the government’s informational 

interests by “provid[ing] precisely the information necessary to monitor [a speaker’s] 

independent spending activity and its receipt of contributions.” FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, 

Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 262 (1986).

The regulation of “political committees” is far more burdensome. FECA defines a 

“political committee” as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons” that either 

receives more than $1,000 in contributions or makes more than $1,000 in expenditures during a 

calendar year. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4). Once classified as a “political committee,” the entity must 

file comprehensive reports with the FEC that disclose all contributions and all disbursements and 

identify every donor that contributed in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Id. § 30104(a)(4), (b). 

The reports are extensive and onerous, requiring “political committees” to itemize receipts and 

disbursements according to statutory categories, disclose all operating expenses, and identify 

information about loans, rebates, refunds, dividends, and interest greater than $200. Id.

§ 30104(b); see also Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 338 (2010). And the burden is a 

recurring one—reports must be filed monthly, quarterly or semi-annually, pre-election, and postelection, until the entity is permitted to terminate political-committee status. 52 U.S.C.

§ 30104(a)(4).

Beyond reporting burdens, a political committee must appoint a treasurer who can be 

held personally liable even if the committee is incorporated, id. § 30102(a); 70 Fed. Reg. 3 (Jan. 

3, 2005); must forward all contributions to the treasurer within 10 or 30 days, depending on the 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 17 of 56
- 5 -

amount, 52 U.S.C. § 30102(b)(2); must preserve records of receipts and disbursements for three 

years, id. § 30102(d); and must file an organizational statement and promptly report to the FEC 

any changes to information on that statement, id. § 30103(a)-(c).

These significant registration, reporting, and other regulatory obligations pose a threat to 

the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. As a result, 

four decades ago, the Supreme Court held that the Act’s definition of “political committee” must 

be narrowly tailored to reach only those “organizations that are under the control of a candidate 

or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.” Id. (emphasis 

added). This means that a political committee cannot be a “group[] engaged purely in issue 

discussion.” Id. Nor can it be one that has a “central organizational purpose [of] issue advocacy, 

although it occasionally engages in activities on behalf of political candidates.” Mass. Citizens 

for Life, 479 U.S. at 252 n.6. According to the Supreme Court, the government’s interest in 

disclosure is “too remote” to burden the speech and work of primarily issue advocacy groups

whose “major purpose” is not the nomination or election of federal candidates. Buckley, 424 

U.S. at 79-80. This standard gives non-profit issue advocacy groups, like American Action 

Network, substantial room to discuss the issues that they deem salient and to engage in limited 

candidate advocacy without triggering the onerous obligations that attach to political committees.

The Supreme Court “did not mandate a particular methodology for determining an 

organization’s major purpose,” Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544, 556 (4th 

Cir. 2012), but emphasized that the “major purpose” must be so dominant that the group’s 

activities “can be assumed to fall within the core area sought to be addressed by Congress” and 

“are, by definition, campaign related,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 18 of 56
- 6 -

The FEC has concluded that the decision about an organization’s major purpose “requires 

the flexibility of a case-by-case analysis of an organization’s conduct that is incompatible with a 

one-size-fits-all rule.” Political Committee Status, 72 Fed. Reg. 5,595, 5,601 (Feb. 7, 2007) (the 

“Supplemental E&J”). It has nonetheless looked to two factors (1) whether the organization’s 

central organizational purpose, as expressed in its publications and public statements, is the 

nomination or election of federal candidates, and (2) whether there is “sufficiently extensive 

spending on Federal campaign activity” by comparing the organization’s election-related 

spending to its overall spending. Id.; see also N.M. Youth Organized v. Herrera, 611 F.3d 669, 

678 (10th Cir. 2010).1 

The Commission’s case-by-case approach is highly fact-specific and does not lend itself 

to rigid rules. For example, the FEC has looked to an entity’s spending based on the specific

facts before it without setting a strict time period for that spending (e.g., calendar year, election 

cycle, life of the organization). The FEC also has not specified the exact types of spending that 

are sufficiently related to the nomination or election of a candidate to count toward its major 

purpose. It has instead conducted its case-by-case approach guided by the Supreme Court’s 

admonition that a group’s major purpose must be so sufficiently clear and prominent that the 

group should understand that it is operating “within the core area” of candidate (not issue) 

advocacy regulated by FECA. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79.

B. CREW’s Administrative Complaint

On June 7, 2012, CREW filed an administrative complaint with the FEC, alleging that 

American Action Network violated FECA by failing to register as a political committee and 

 

1

 It is undisputed that American Action Network’s central organizational purpose is not the 

nomination or election of federal candidates. Neither CREW, the Commission’s Office of 

General Counsel, nor the dissenting Commissioners has argued otherwise. This litigation, as a 

result, focuses on the spending prong of the FEC’s analysis.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 19 of 56
- 7 -

comply with the related disclosure and other regulatory requirements. See AR1480-1552. But 

American Action Network is a not-for-profit social welfare organization, exempt from taxation 

under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which focuses its efforts primarily on 

issue advocacy and grassroots lobbying and organizing. AR1562-63. It spends little of its 

budget on express candidate advocacy, instead working to promote “principles of freedom, 

limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong national security” through policy 

briefings, educational materials, and advertising campaigns designed to educate and motivate 

like-minded Americans to take a greater role in the democratic process with respect to issues like 

energy, education, tax policy, immigration, national security, spending, and health care. Id.

American Action Network focuses primarily on issues—not candidates—with the goal of putting

“center-right ideas into action by engaging the hearts and minds of the American people and 

spurring them into active participation in our democracy.” American Action Network, About, 

available at https://americanactionnetwork.org/about (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).2

CREW nonetheless alleged that American Action Network’s spending on independent 

expenditures and electioneering communications between July 23, 2009 and June 30, 2011—all 

of which was reported to the FEC and made publicly available on the one-time disclosure reports 

required by law—showed that American Action Network’s “major purpose” was the nomination 

or election of a candidate. AR1486. According to CREW, during that time period, American 

Action Network spent over $18 million to “produc[e] and broadcast[] television and Internet 

advertisements in 29 primary and general elections.” AR1482. CREW admitted that the amount

American Action Network spent on independent expenditures that expressly advocated the 

 

2

 American Action Network, a not-for-profit social welfare organization devoted to issue 

advocacy, is separate and distinct from its affiliate, the “Congressional Leadership Fund,” which 

does have the “major purpose” of nominating and electing candidates and is registered with the 

FEC as a political committee.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 20 of 56
- 8 -

election or defeat of a candidate was far smaller—about $4.1 million. Id. The remaining amount 

(about $14 million) was spent on electioneering communications. Id.

CREW took issue with just six of American Action Network’s electioneering 

communications, which accounted for about 25 percent (or about $3.6 million) of the alleged 

spending on electioneering communications. AR1483-84. CREW then compared the entire 

amount (approximately $18 million) spent on express advocacy and electioneering 

communications to the overall spending that American Action Network reported to the IRS in 

Form 990 filings (approximately $27 million). AR1484-85. CREW argued that this analysis 

showed that American Action Network has a “major purpose” of influencing elections because it 

devoted 66.8 percent of its spending to independent expenditures and electioneering 

communications. AR1485-86. 

CREW tried to downplay the context of American Action Network’s electioneering 

communications, which confirmed their focus on issues of central concern to American Action 

Network. CREW admitted that some of the advertisements were “ostensibly related to the 

[health care] legislation.” AR1484. In fact, they were part of an ongoing effort to encourage the 

repeal or amendment of the health care law and addressed other “salient policy issues including 

federal spending, the stimulus, tax relief, . . . and cap and trade.” AR1709. 

For example, repeal of the health care law had gained momentum during the summer and 

fall of 2010 and came to a head during the lame duck session of Congress in November later that

year. AR1567-70. All aspects of the law—its $500 billion in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in 

higher taxes, and the individual mandate to purchase private health insurance—were up for 

debate. AR1567. By mid-September 2010, fifteen bills to repeal or revise the law had been 

introduced, including the bill (H.R. 4903) referenced in American Action Network’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 21 of 56
- 9 -

electioneering communications. AR1568. At the same time, two discharge petitions were 

circulating in the House of Representatives, and significant pressure was mounting on Members 

of Congress to defy congressional leadership and sign the discharge petitions to repeal the entire 

law or a portion of it. AR1568-69. Efforts were also underway in the Senate to fully or partially 

repeal the law. AR1568. When Members of Congress returned from recess and convened their

lame duck session in November, Congress considered several specific proposals for repealing or 

amending the law. AR1570. American Action Network’s advertisements were designed to 

enlist the American people in these repeal efforts at precisely the time Congress was addressing 

them.

The FEC’s Office of General Counsel analyzed fourteen additional advertisements that 

American Action Network reported as electioneering communications. AR1649-55. These 

additional advertisements related to the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, proposed 

spending packages, and other issues that occupied the congressional agenda before the 2010 

elections and that Congress left to debate during its November lame duck session. See, e.g., 

David M. Herszenhorn, House G.O.P. Leader Signals He’s Open to Obama Tax Cut, N.Y. 

Times, Sept. 12, 2010;

3 Carrie Budoff Brown, Obama, GOP reach tax cut deal, Politico, Dec. 6, 

2010;

4 Obama pushes $50 billion in infrastructure spending, CNN, Sept. 7, 2010.5

C. The FEC’s Dismissal

The Commission voted to dismiss the complaint against American Action Network on 

June 24, 2014. AR1686. Three Commissioners found that the record did not support the charge

 

3

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/us/politics/13cong.html (last visited Mar. 1, 2016). 

4

 http://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/obama-gop-reach-tax-cut-deal-046042 (last visited 

Mar. 1, 2016).

5

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/06/obama.economy/ (last visited Mar. 1, 2016). 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 22 of 56
- 10 -

that American Action Network’s “major purpose” is electing candidates and three would have 

pursued the matter further. AR1686.6 

As is customary, the three Commissioners who voted to dismiss (the so-called 

“controlling” Commissioners) supplied the Commission’s statement of reasons. They detailed 

Supreme Court precedent, which construes the “major purpose limitation [to] ensure[] that issue 

advocacy organizations are not swept into the Act’s burdensome regulatory scheme,” AR1699, 

and requires the FEC to “distinguish electoral advocacy from issue speech,” AR1702. They then 

applied the Commission’s case-by-case approach to CREW’s complaint against American 

Action Network and found that American Action Network “does not have the requisite major 

purpose for political committee status.” AR1706. 

First, they found that American Action Network’s “stated purpose is . . . issue-centric: to 

create, encourage, and promote a set of policy preferences.” Id. Second, they concluded that

American Action Network’s section 501(c)(4) status under the Internal Revenue Code reinforces

that its primary purpose is not “participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of 

or in opposition to any candidate for public office,” which would have been inconsistent with 

that status. AR1707. Third, they found that, aside from the “roughly $4.1 million” that 

American Action Network spent on independent expenditures for express candidate advocacy, 

“[t]he vast majority—if not all—of [American Action Network’s] remaining spending went to 

further purposes other than the nomination or election of a candidate.” AR1708. Significant 

sums were spent on forming the organization, developing its internal procedures, establishing 

 

6

 The FEC must dismiss a complaint if four Commissioners do not find “reason to believe” that 

a violation of FECA occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). If four Commissioners find “reason to 

believe” a violation occurred, the Commission conducts an investigation, and then determines 

whether there is probable cause that a violation occurred. Id. § 30109(a)(2), (4). If four 

Commissioners find probable cause, the Commission must attempt conciliation before it can 

seek civil penalties in federal court. Id. § 30109(a)(4), (6).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 23 of 56
- 11 -

policy priorities, and hosting policy briefings. AR1708-09. Additional amounts—roughly $13 

million—were devoted to “genuine issue advertisements” that “focus on a legislative issue, take 

a position on the issue, exhort the public to adopt that position, and urge the public to contact 

public officials with respect to the matter.” AR1709. Concluding that these amounts did not 

evidence a purpose to nominate or elect a candidate, the controlling Commissioners held that 

“the roughly $4.1 million that [American Action Network] spent on independent expenditures 

between 2009 and 2011 was the totality of its spending that was for the purpose of nominating or 

influencing the election of a federal candidate.” Id. This amount “represented approximately 

15% of its total expenses during the same period” and was “hardly ‘so extensive that the 

organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity.’” Id.

The decision of the controlling Commissioners was at odds with the recommendation of 

the FEC’s Office of General Counsel, as set forth in its First General Counsel’s Report. See 

AR1635-61. The controlling Commissioners rebutted what they called “the two flawed 

premises” of the First General Counsel’s Report: (1) that all electioneering communications are 

indicative of a major purpose to elect candidates, even if they do not expressly advocate a 

candidate’s election or defeat, and (2) that an organization’s “major purpose” can be “evaluated 

through the limited lens of a single calendar year.” Id. The first premise, they explained, is 

contrary to Supreme Court precedent that protects issue advocacy groups from extensive political

committee regulation. AR1710-13. The second premise is at odds with the Commission’s caseby-case approach as it could create an artificial and distorted picture of an organization’s “major 

purpose” based on whether or not the calendar year at issue is an election year. AR1713-15. 

In sum, the Commissioners found that the record shows that American Action Network

“is an issue advocacy group that occasionally speaks out on federal elections.” AR1710. It is, 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 24 of 56
- 12 -

therefore, “precisely the type of group the major purpose test was adopted” for—an issue 

advocacy group that must be spared “the ‘burdensome alternative’ of political committee status.” 

Id. 

ARGUMENT

I. The Commission’s Dismissal Easily Survives Judicial Review.

CREW’s challenge to the Commission’s dismissal order must be rejected. As explained 

below, the Commission’s decision (A) is entitled to Chevron deference, (B) reflects a reasonable 

and straightforward interpretation of FECA, judicial precedent, and Commission authorities, and 

(C) is not undermined by CREW’s various attacks, which accuse the Commission of adopting 

rules that it did not adopt in its fact-specific analysis of this case. 

A. The Controlling Commissioners’ Decision Is Entitled To Chevron Deference.

FECA requires the vote of four Commissioners for the Commission to find that there is 

reason to believe a violation of the Act has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). If three 

Commissioners vote against that finding, the matter must be dismissed, and the rationale of the 

three controlling Commissioners “necessarily states the agency’s reasons for acting as it did.” 

FEC v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d 1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992). A court, 

therefore, “owe[s] deference to a legal interpretation . . . that prevails on a 3-3 deadlock.” In re 

Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2000).7 This means that the Court can only reverse 

the FEC’s dismissal if it was the “result of an impermissible interpretation of” FECA, was 

“arbitrary or capricious,” or was an “abuse of discretion.” Orloski v. FEC, 795 F.2d 156, 161 

(D.C. Cir. 1986); see also 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); Hagelin v. FEC, 411 F.3d 237, 242 (D.C. 

 

7

 The D.C. Circuit’s decision in In re Sealed Case involved a vote after investigation about 

whether there was probable cause that a violation occurred. Because four votes are needed at 

both the reason-to-believe stage (at issue here) and the probable cause stage (at issue in In re 

Sealed Case), the same standard of review applies.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 25 of 56
- 13 -

Cir. 2005). This standard is “extremely deferential” and “requires affirmance if a rational basis 

for the agency’s decision is shown.” Orloski, 795 F.2d at 167. 

CREW argues that de novo review should instead apply. It should not. First, CREW 

argues that agencies are not entitled to deference on the interpretation of the Constitution or 

judicial precedent. CREW Mot. at 14. But the issue before the Commission is a statutory

question—the “major purpose” requirement is a “narrowing construction” of FECA adopted by 

the Supreme Court. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 191-93 (2003); see also Ctr. for Individual 

Freedom v. Madigan, 697 F.3d 464, 487 (7th Cir. 2012); Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 

F.3d 34, 59 (1st Cir. 2011). As a result, the FEC’s interpretation of FECA and its major purpose 

test is entitled to deference, just like any other case involving a statute previously construed by a 

federal court. See Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 

982 (2005).8

Second, CREW argues that the decision of three Commissioners should not be given 

Chevron deference because they do not represent a majority of the Commission. CREW Mot. at 

15-16. This argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, which holds that the statement of 

reasons provided by the controlling Commissioners is entitled to Chevron deference. See In re 

Sealed Case, 223 F.3d at 779; Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d at 1476. This Court 

 

8 CREW relies on Akins v. FEC, 101 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1996), arguing that the court did not 

there defer to the FEC’s interpretation of the “major purpose” test. But Akins, later vacated by 

the Supreme Court, pre-dates both McConnell and Brand X, which clarify that the FEC is 

entitled to deference because the “major purpose” test is a statutory interpretation of FECA. 

Moreover, vacatur of a judgment of the Court of Appeals “deprives that court’s opinion of 

precedential effect.” O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 577 n.12 (1975); see also Durning 

v. Citibank, N.A., 950 F.2d 1419, 1424 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991) (“A decision may be reversed on other 

grounds, but a decision that has been vacated has no precedential authority whatsoever.”).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 26 of 56
- 14 -

“is not at liberty to disregard clearly established, controlling precedent.” Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, 

684 F. Supp. 2d 103, 114 (D.D.C. 2010).

CREW tries to distinguish this circuit precedent in a footnote to no avail. CREW Mot. at 

16 n.9. It argues that In re Sealed Case “involved a peculiar situation in which the DOJ sought 

to enforce a subpoena based on an interpretation of the FECA,” rather than a case on direct 

review. Id. But the court rejected the argument that it would be less appropriate to defer under 

the case’s “peculiar” circumstances than on direct review, holding that deference applies in both

situations: it is “irrelevant that the prevailing interpretation was established in the context of 

agency enforcement, whereas this is a criminal prosecution.” In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d at 779.

CREW also fails to weaken In re Sealed Case by looking to cases that pre-date it. See 

CREW Mot. at 16 & n.9 (citing Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d 1471; Common 

Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). These cases are entirely consistent with In re 

Sealed Case as they afford the same high degree of deference to the FEC. The D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee states that the controlling 

Commissioners’ “rationale . . . necessarily states the agency’s reasons for acting as it did,” such 

that “a reviewing court should accord deference” to it. 966 F.2d at 1476. And that conclusion

was based on the Common Cause decision cited by CREW, which emphasized that “[d]eference 

is particularly appropriate in the context of the FECA.” Common Cause, 842 F.2d at 448.

CREW’s citation to Supreme Court precedent also does not alter the D.C. Circuit’s 

conclusions about the deference due to the FEC. See CREW Mot. at 15 (citing City of Arlington 

v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013); United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001); Christensen 

v. Harris Cty., 529 U.S. 576 (2000)). In re Sealed Case and circuit precedent is binding unless 

“‘effectively overrule[d],’ i.e., ‘eviscerate[d]’” by later Supreme Court decisions. Nat’l Inst. of 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 27 of 56
- 15 -

Military Justice v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 512 F.3d 677, 683 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citation 

omitted). That clearly has not occurred here. In re Sealed Case relies on the Court’s decision in 

Christensen and, if anything, anticipates its decision in Mead. The Mead Court found that 

deference is appropriate where “it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency 

generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming 

deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” Mead, 533 U.S. at 226-27. The 

court in In re Sealed Case applied this same analysis, finding that each step of the FEC’s 

enforcement process is “part of a detailed statutory framework for civil enforcement and is 

analogous to a formal adjudication, which itself falls on the Chevron side of the line.” 223 F.3d 

at 780. This process “tend[s] to foster the fairness and deliberation that should underlie a 

pronouncement” with the force and effect of law. Mead, 533 U.S. at 230; see also FEC v. Nat’l 

Rifle Ass’n, 254 F.3d 173, 185 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“[I]n making probable cause determinations, the 

Commission fulfills its statutorily granted responsibilities, giving ambiguous statutory language 

concrete meaning through case-by-case adjudication.”). The FEC’s dismissal thus resulted from 

expressly delegated adjudicatory powers and carries the force and effect of law; it is, therefore, 

entitled to Chevron deference. As the Supreme Court recently confirmed, there has not been “a 

single case in which a general conferral of rulemaking or adjudicative authority has been held 

insufficient to support Chevron deference for an exercise of that authority within the agency’s 

substantive field.” City of Arlington, 133 S. Ct. at 1874.

Moreover, a split-vote dismissal of a complaint is not a “failure to act,” CREW Mot. at 

16, on the part of the Commission. Congress consciously required four votes to proceed on a 

complaint “to assure that enforcement actions . . . will be the product of a mature and considered 

judgment.” Combat Veterans for Cong. Political Action Comm. v. FEC, 795 F.3d 151, 153 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 28 of 56
- 16 -

(D.C. Cir. 2015); see also id. (“The four-affirmative-vote, non-delegation, and bipartisanship 

requirements reduce the risk that the Commission will abuse its powers.”). By congressional 

design, “[i]f the FEC votes 3-3 not to find a violation, that means the FEC has determined that 

the conduct does not violate the law.” Brad Smith, What does it mean when the Federal Election 

Commission “Deadlocks,” Center for Competitive Politics (Apr. 14, 2009).

9

In other words, 

when the Commission votes 3-3 “that given actions do not constitute a violation of the law, it has 

decided that those actions do not violate the law,” id., and it has done so through “a form 

expressly provided for by Congress,” In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d at 780 (quoting Martin v. 

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 157 (1991)).

Finally, CREW argues that the Commission has somehow waived the deference it is due 

by stating in its motion to dismiss that three Commissioners “cannot establish any policy or 

regulation on behalf of the Commission.” CREW Mot. at 16 n.10 (citing FEC Mot. to Dismiss at 

16). But CREW confuses two separate issues: (1) whether three Commissioners can establish a 

binding policy or regulation on behalf of the Commission and (2) whether three Commissioners 

can issue a decision that has the force and effect of law in a particular case. Only the latter is at 

issue here, and circuit precedent requires that the decision be given Chevron deference.

B. The Commission’s Dismissal Reflects A Reasonable Application Of Law.

Regardless of the standard of review that applies, but especially under the deferential 

standard required by law, the Commission’s dismissal easily survives judicial review. The 

record shows that American Action Network is, at its core, an issue advocacy group. With only 

about fifteen percent of its funding spent to expressly support or oppose candidates for federal 

 

9

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/04/14/what-does-it-mean-when-the-federal-electioncommission-deadlocks/ (last visited Mar. 1, 2016). Mr. Smith is a former FEC Chairman. His 

biography can be found here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/about/staff/bradley-a-smith/.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 29 of 56
- 17 -

office, it cannot be said that “the major purpose” of American Action Network is the election of 

candidates. As explained below, the Commission (1) reasonably focused on American Action 

Network’s express advocacy, amounting to about $4.1 million of the approximately $27 million 

spent by American Action Network, and (2) reasonably concluded that the vast majority, if not 

all, of the money that American Action Network spent on electioneering communications was 

devoted to issue—not candidate—advocacy.

1. The Commission Reasonably Focused On Express Advocacy When 

Deciding Whether American Action Network’s “Major Purpose” Is 

The Election Of Candidates.

It is undisputed that American Action Network devoted about $4.1 million between July 

2009 and June 2011 to independent expenditures that expressly advocated the election or defeat 

of a candidate for federal office. AR1709. This amount, which represents only about fifteen 

percent of American Action Network’s spending during that same period, does not establish that 

“the major purpose” of American Action Network is the election of candidates. And it is only 

organizations that have “the major purpose” of electing candidates that may be regulated as 

political committees. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79 (emphasis added). This dispute thus focuses on 

American Action Network’s electioneering communications. If the Commission reasonably 

found that they do not show that American Action Network’s major purpose is the election of 

candidates, CREW’s challenge must be rejected. 

The Commission’s focus on American Action Network’s express advocacy (including 

whether its electioneering communications were the functional equivalent of express advocacy) 

was reasonable and guided by precedent. When determining an organization’s “major purpose,” 

courts have repeatedly cautioned that issue advocacy must be excluded from the calculation. 

The D.C. Circuit found that the political committee definition must be narrowly construed “since 

it potentially reaches . . . the activities of nonpartisan issue groups which [seek to] influenc[e] the 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 30 of 56
- 18 -

public to demand of candidates that they take certain stands on the issues.” Buckley v. Valeo, 

519 F.2d 821, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (en banc), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 424 U.S. l (1976). 

The Supreme Court cited this language approvingly and confirmed that the political committee 

definition should not be stretched to apply to issue-oriented groups. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. 

Instead, Buckley defined a “political committee as including only those entities that have as [the] 

major purpose engaging in express advocacy in support of a candidate . . . by using words such 

as ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘defeat,’ or ‘reject.’” N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. 

Bartlett, 168 F.3d 705, 712 (4th Cir. l999).10 The major purpose test thus ensures that the 

Commission “avoid[s] the regulation of activity ‘encompassing both issue discussion and 

advocacy of a political result.’” Supplemental E&J, 72 Fed. Reg. at 5,597 (quoting Buckley, 424 

U.S. at 79).

An organization need not only engage in issue advocacy to receive protection from the 

strictures of political committee status. Rather, an organization is protected where its “central 

organizational purpose is issue advocacy, although it occasionally engages in activities on behalf 

of political candidates.” Mass. Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. at 252 n.6. So long as the organization 

is “primarily engaged in speech on political issues unrelated to a particular candidate,” it is not a 

political committee. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 288 (4th Cir. 2008)

(emphasis added); see also Real Truth About Abortion, 681 F.3d at 556 (defining the question as 

“whether the election or defeat of federal candidates for office is the major purpose of an 

organization, and not simply a major purpose”); FEC v. GOPAC, 917 F. Supp. 851, 863-64

 

10

 The excerpt from this opinion originally used the phrase “a major purpose,” but the Fourth 

Circuit later explained that it was a “miscommunication” made in error. N.C. Right to Life, Inc. 

v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 288 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008); see also id. at 287-90.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 31 of 56
- 19 -

(D.D.C. 1996) (declining to consider a letter that did “not advocate [the candidate’s] election or 

defeat” as evidence that a group’s major purpose was the election of candidates). 

Because express advocacy has a purpose of electing candidates, courts have limited the 

analysis of an entity’s “major purpose” to independent expenditures that use words such as “vote 

for,” “elect,” “support,” “vote against,” “defeat,” or “reject.” See N.M. Youth Organized, 611 

F.3d at 678 (evaluating whether a “group spends a preponderance of its expenditures on express 

advocacy” and including only “expenditures on express advocacy or contributions to candidates” 

in the major purpose inquiry) (emphasis added); Fla. Right to Life, Inc. v. Mortham, No. 98-

770CIVORL19A, 1999 WL 33204523, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 1999) (restricting political 

committee status “to organizations whose major purpose is engaging in ‘express advocacy’” as 

defined in Buckley) (emphasis added), aff’d in relevant part on appeal sub. nom., Fla. Right to 

Life, Inc. v. Lamar, 238 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2001).

But the Commission did not even draw the line at independent expenditures in this case. 

It instead left open the possibility that electioneering communications that are the “functional 

equivalent” of express advocacy may be relevant to an organization’s “major purpose.” 

AR1705. It then reasonably concluded (see Section I.B.2, below) that American Action 

Network’s electioneering communications are not the functional equivalent of express advocacy

because they are genuine issue advertisements.

The line that the Commission drew—between electioneering communications that are the 

functional equivalent of express advocacy and those that are issue advocacy—is one that follows 

directly from Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court “made clear in [Wisconsin Right To 

Life II] that the distinction between issue advocacy and express advocacy can be paramount in 

the context of electioneering communications.” Colo. Right to Life Comm. v. Coffman, 498 F.3d

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 32 of 56
- 20 -

1137, 1153 n.11 (10th Cir. 2007). The Court in Wisconsin Right to Life II rejected the FEC’s 

then view that any electioneering communication “is the ‘functional equivalent’ of an ad saying 

defeat or elect that candidate.” 551 U.S. at 470. It held that only those ads that are “susceptible 

of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” 

may be treated as the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Id. at 469-70. Any other result 

“would effectively eliminate First Amendment protection for genuine issue ads.” Id. at 471.

Moreover, Buckley made clear that disclosure requirements cannot be imposed where 

they are “too remote” from the “core area” of candidate advocacy that Congress sought to 

regulate. 424 U.S. at 79. The Commission’s decision in this case to consider only speech within 

this core area—i.e., express advocacy and its functional equivalent—as triggering political 

committee status was thus an entirely reasonable application of Buckley and its First Amendment 

principles. “The FEC is ‘unique among federal administrative agencies,’ having ‘as its sole 

purpose the regulation of core constitutionally protected activity—the behavior of individuals 

and groups only insofar as they act, speak and associate for political purposes.’” Van Hollen v. 

FEC, No. 15-5016, 2016 WL 278200, at *12 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 21, 2016) (quoting AFL-CIO v. 

FEC, 333 F.3d 168, 170 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (alterations omitted)). “[M]ore than other agencies 

whose primary task may be limited to administering a particular statute, every action the FEC 

takes implicates fundamental rights.” Id. By drawing the line at the functional equivalent of 

express advocacy, the FEC reasonably limited the application of the major purpose test in this 

case to those communications within the “core area” of candidate advocacy, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 

79, and “fulfilled its unique mandate,” Van Hollen, 2016 WL 278200, at *12.

Indeed, the First Amendment requires that speakers receive clear advance notice where 

core constitutionally protected speech, such as that at issue here, may result in punishment. See

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 33 of 56
- 21 -

Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982) (requiring a 

more stringent vagueness test where First Amendment rights are implicated). This does not 

mean that standards must be mathematically precise. But, where a standard has a sufficiently 

clear core application and a penumbra that shades off into uncertainty, the First Amendment 

counsels against aggressively enforcing that standard to its outermost bound. See Wis. Right To 

Life II, 551 U.S. at 475 (“Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, 

not the censor.”). As the agency charged with regulating the most sensitive core free speech, it 

was thus entirely reasonable for the FEC to focus on the speech that falls clearly within the 

heartland of its jurisdiction and to decline regulation of speech that was “too remote” from 

express candidate advocacy. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79.

The Commission, therefore, reasonably and necessarily decided that American Action 

Network’s issue advocacy electioneering communications are not demonstrative of a major 

purpose to elect candidates—they are not the “‘functional equivalent’ of an ad saying defeat or 

elect that candidate.” Wis. Right To Life II, 551 U.S. at 470. That left approximately fifteen 

percent of American Action Network’s spending devoted to express advocacy related to 

candidates—far from the amount that would establish that its “major purpose” is the election of 

candidates. To the contrary, American Action Network’s major purpose is the “discussion of 

issues, including political issues,” and it “may not be regulated as a political committee under the 

Act.” AR1705; see also Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland, 751 F.3d 804, 839 (7th Cir. 2014)

(“[I]ndependent groups not engaged in express election advocacy as their major purpose cannot 

be subjected to the complex and extensive regulatory requirements that accompany the PAC 

designation.” (emphasis added)). The Commission’s reasoning had a “rational basis” and must 

be affirmed. See Orloski, 795 F.2d at 167. 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 34 of 56
- 22 -

2. The Commission Reasonably Decided That American Action 

Network’s Issue Advertisements Do Not Show A “Major Purpose” To 

Elect Candidates.

The Commission’s decision, on the facts of this case, that American Action Network’s 

electioneering communications were issue advocacy was neither “arbitrary and capricious” nor 

an “abuse of discretion.” See id. at 161. CREW challenged only six of American Action 

Network’s advertisements—none of which includes explicit words of candidate advocacy and 

each of which references the ongoing health care repeal effort. See supra at 7-10; AR1483-84; 

Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52; 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(a). The Commission also considered several 

other advertisements encouraging the public to contact their representatives to oppose various 

spending proposals and support efforts to re-authorize the Bush administration’s tax cuts, as well 

as take action on other prominent issues. AR1649-55. The Commission reasonably concluded 

that these were genuine issue ads and not “the ‘functional equivalent’ of an ad saying defeat or 

elect that candidate.” Wis. Right To Life II, 551 U.S. at 470.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that issue advocacy does not have an electoral 

purpose “simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election.” Id. at 474. An issue 

advertisement, therefore, does not become the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy 

merely because it mentions, criticizes, promotes, or asks citizens to contact a particular 

candidate. Id. at 470-73. The ad must instead be “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation

other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” Id. at 469-70 (emphasis 

added). 

An issue advertisement focuses “on a legislative . . . issue [and urges] the public to 

adopt” a particular position and to contact the candidate with respect to the matter at issue. Id. at 

470. That is exactly what each of the advertisements that CREW challenged does. They 

reference the health care law and ongoing repeal efforts that occupied Congress’s attention at the 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 35 of 56
- 23 -

time. AR1709. They “contain no references to elections, candidacies, or political parties.” Id.;

see also Wis. Right To Life II, 551 U.S. at 470. They do not take a position on anyone’s 

“character, qualifications, or fitness for office.” Id.; see also AR1709. They instead focus on the 

substantive issues that were of central interest to American Action Network and were pending 

before Congress.

Even CREW acknowledged that many of the advertisements were “ostensibly related to 

[the health care] legislation.” AR1484. It argued that they nonetheless became express 

advocacy because they referenced a “vote” in “November.” Id.; see also CREW Mot. at 36.11 

But the advertisements called upon citizens to contact their representatives to tell them to “vote 

for repeal [of the health care law] in November.” AR1483 (emphasis added). In other words, 

these were genuine issue advertisements placed at a time when there was building momentum for 

the health care repeal effort that Congress would be specifically addressing in its November 2010

lame duck session. 

As explained, supra at 8-10, there was substantial activity on Capitol Hill in the autumn 

of 2010 related to proposals to repeal or modify the health care law. There were at least fifteen 

bills introduced and two discharge petitions circulated by mid-September 2010 that would have 

repealed or modified the health care law. AR1567-69. And, when Congress returned from its 

recess in November, Members considered several specific proposals to repeal or amend 

provisions of the law during its November lame duck session. AR1570. Amidst the significant 

 

11

 CREW’s brief does not distinguish between advertisements made by American Action 

Network and by Americans for Job Security. See CREW Mot. at 36. CREW also relies on 

extra-record material about the actions of other entities, such as Crossroads GPS, the 

Commission on Hope Growth & Opportunity, and the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition. See 

Decl. of Stuart C. McPhail (Dkt No. 33-1) (Dec. 22, 2015). The Court need not consider 

CREW’s irrelevant allegations about the actions of other entities; the Court’s review is limited to 

the question of whether the Commission abused its discretion in concluding that American 

Action Network was not required by FECA to register as a political committee.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 36 of 56
- 24 -

amount of public and congressional attention the health care law was attracting at the time, 

American Action Network sought to generate further support among the American public to 

pressure Congress for repeal. 

In addition, American Action Network’s issue advocacy addressed other issues and

legislation pending in the fall of 2010 that would be voted on during Congress’s lame duck 

session. One issue was the scheduled expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on December 31, 2010. 

See Jackie Calmes, Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts, N.Y. Times, Sept. 7, 

2010.

12 Another was whether to approve a number of major spending packages. See Meredith 

Shiner, Bennet bucks Obama’s $50B plan, Politico, Sept. 8, 2010 (referring to President’s 

spending proposal as a “second stimulus package”).13 There was deep disagreement in Congress

as to whether some or all of the tax cuts should be re-authorized and whether to approve these 

spending proposals. When Congress went into recess at the end of September, these issues had 

not yet been resolved and were the subjects of vigorous public debate during the recess. See Gail 

Russell Chaddock, Congress adjourns, but spending bills and Bush tax cuts still loom, Christian 

Science Monitor, Sept. 30, 2010 (“But what stands out as Congress breaks for the next six weeks 

is what’s left undone. That includes all spending bills for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 and 

decisions on extending the so-called Bush tax cuts, now set to expire on Dec. 31.”);

14 Bruce 

Alpert, Congress faces long to-do list after campaign recess, Times-Picayune, Oct. 1, 2010 

(“Congress left a lot of things undone when it recessed this week so members could return home 

 

12

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).

13

 http://www.politico.com/story/2010/09/bennet-bucks-obamas-50b-plan-041887 (last visited 

Mar. 1, 2016).

14

 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0930/Congress-adjourns-but-spending-billsand-Bush-tax-cuts-still-loom (last visited Mar. 1, 2016).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 37 of 56
- 25 -

to campaign. It failed, for example, to pass any of the 13 major spending bills . . . .”).15 

Ultimately, Congress re-authorized the tax cuts and rejected an “omnibus” spending package

during Congress’s lame duck session in November and December 2010. See Brian Montopoli, 

Obama Signs Bill to Extend Bush Tax Cuts, CBS News, Dec. 17, 2010;

16 David Rogers, Dems 

concede budget fight to GOP, Politico, Dec. 16, 2010.

17

American Action Network’s issue advertisements took positions on these and other highprofile issues and urged constituents to contact their representatives and encourage them to vote 

for legislation consistent with American Action Network’s positions. See, e.g., AR1720 (“Call 

Chris Murphy. Tell him to repeal his government health care mess.”); AR1721 (“And instead of 

extending tax cuts for Pennsylvania families and businesses, he voted with Nancy Pelosi to quit 

working and leave town. . . . Tell Congressman Critz that Pennsylvania families need tax relief 

this November, not more government.”); AR1723 (“Tell Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin to 

vote ‘no’ on a second, wasteful stimulus in November.”). Thus, the Commission concluded that 

these were properly characterized as “genuine issue advertisements” regarding “salient policy 

issues” that were the subject of current public and congressional debate, not candidate advocacy.

On these facts, it was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion to conclude 

that electioneering communications like these were issue advocacy that did not indicate a “major 

purpose” of electing candidates. Their exclusion from the FEC’s spending analysis was 

reasonable, explained, and consistent with precedent. With just about fifteen percent of spending 

 

15

 http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/congress_faces_long_to-do_list.html (last 

visited Mar. 1, 2016).

16

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-signs-bill-to-extend-bush-tax-cuts/ (last visited Mar. 1, 

2016).

17

 http://www.politico.com/story/2010/12/dems-concede-budget-fight-to-gop-046520 (last 

visited Mar. 1, 2016).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 38 of 56
- 26 -

devoted to the election of candidates, it is clear that American Action Network’s “major 

purpose” is not the election of candidates, and the Commission’s dismissal of CREW’s 

complaint alleging otherwise must be affirmed.

18

C. CREW’s Attacks On The Commission’s Dismissal Decision Are Meritless.

CREW challenges the Commission’s straightforward and fact-specific decision by 

presenting an incomplete analysis of the First Amendment and arguing that the Commission 

somehow adopted improper bright-line rules that the Commission denied making. See, e.g., 

AR1705 (emphasizing that the Commission was considering American Action Network’s “major 

purpose” on a “case-by-case” basis and in light of the “unique facts and circumstances” 

presented). CREW’s arguments do not undermine the case-specific decision that the 

Commission in fact made, which follows directly from on-point First Amendment precedent that 

CREW largely ignores.

1. CREW’s First Amendment Arguments Miss The Mark.

CREW begins its brief with a lengthy discourse about the limitless disclosure that it 

thinks the First Amendment allows. CREW Mot. at 17-25. But the question before this Court is 

far more limited—whether the Commission reasonably concluded that American Action 

Network is not a “political committee” under FECA. While the strict limitations on political 

committee status are necessitated by First Amendment considerations, see Buckley, 424 U.S. at 

 

18

 Technically, the dismissal was the result of the Commission’s failure to affirmatively find 

“reason to believe” that a violation occurred. A “reason to believe” finding requires “a minimum 

evidentiary threshold [providing] at least some legally significant facts to distinguish the 

circumstances from every other” situation where an entity engages in unregulated

speech. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 745 F. Supp. 742, 744-46 (D.D.C. 

1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The conclusion reached in the 

Commission’s statement of reasons was one of law and was based on the absence of “legally 

significant facts” that would have indicated a violation of the Act occurred. There was, 

therefore, no basis for finding “reason to believe” that a violation occurred.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 39 of 56
- 27 -

79, there is no reason to resolve broad questions of First Amendment law in this case. The Court 

need only decide whether the Commission’s decision reasonably interpreted FECA when it 

found that American Action Network—having devoted the vast majority (about 85 percent) of its 

spending to issue advocacy, educational events, and internal administrative issues—does not 

have the “major purpose” of electing candidates. See, e.g., Orloski, 795 F.2d at 162 (A “court 

need not find that agency’s construction of the statute is the only permissible one, but rather that 

it is a ‘sufficiently rational’ one.” (citing Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 470 U.S. 116, 125 (1985)).

CREW’s advocacy for limitless disclosure under the First Amendment is thus beside the 

point—for even CREW admits that disclosure is not boundless under FECA. CREW concedes 

that disclosure is far more constrained for those that do not have political committee status—and 

that political committee burdens apply only to organizations that have as their “major purpose” 

the “nomination or election of a candidate.” CREW Mot. at 7 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79). 

CREW would prefer that the FEC construe the “major purpose” limitation to capture more 

organizations. But it is not this Court’s role to determine precisely where the line could be 

drawn, so long as the Commission identified a reasonable standard and explained the basis for it. 

See Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., Inc. v. Jones, 716 F.3d 200, 214 (D.C. Cir. 2013); see also

ExxonMobil Gas Mktg. Co. v. F.E.R.C., 297 F.3d 1071, 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (Courts should not 

review an agency’s line-drawing decision “unless a petitioner can demonstrate that lines 

drawn . . . are patently unreasonable, having no relationship to the underlying regulatory 

problem.” (citations omitted)). 

And here, the line that the Commission drew—between organizations devoting 

significant funds to express advocacy and those devoting significant funds to issue advocacy—

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 40 of 56
- 28 -

was reasonable and thoroughly explained, with reference to Supreme Court precedent that draws 

the line in the same place. AR1710-13; see also supra at 17-19. CREW largely ignores this 

precedent. Its entire First Amendment section does not once mention Buckley’s holding that 

political committee status (and the attendant disclosures and other burdens) may apply only to 

those groups with the major purpose of electing candidates or Wisconsin Right To Life II’s 

holding that not all electioneering communications advocate for the election or defeat of a 

candidate. See CREW Mot. at 17-25.

CREW instead cherry picks sentences from various judicial decisions in an effort to paint 

a picture of unlimited disclosure under the First Amendment. But “[n]ot every intrusion into the 

First Amendment can be justified by hoisting the standard of disclosure.” Stop This Insanity, 

Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. FEC, 761 F.3d 10, 16 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Indeed, earlier this year, 

the D.C. Circuit found that “a robust disclosure rule” could do far more harm than good: it could 

“mislead voters as to who really supports” a group’s political activities and threaten donor 

privacy. Van Hollen, 2016 WL 278200, at *9, *12.

It is, therefore, not enough to simply point to cases that acknowledge that there is a public 

interest in disclosure. See, e.g., CREW Mot. at 18-19 (citing cases). Cases that permit

disclosure in different circumstances do not require disclosure here, where the Court has placed 

strict limitations on political committee status. For example, CREW relies on decisions 

permitting one-time, event-driven disclosure reports. See, e.g., Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 371; 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 201 (cited at CREW Mot. at 18-19). But these reports, which are not at 

issue here, are far removed from “the comprehensive registration and reporting system imposed 

on political committees.” Barland, 751 F.3d at 824; see also Iowa Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. 

Tooker, 717 F.3d 576, 597-98 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing “perpetual, ongoing reports” from 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 41 of 56
- 29 -

“a one-time report”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1787 (2014); Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, 

Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 876-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (similar). 

CREW points to nothing that requires the FEC to impose political committee status on an 

issue advocacy group like American Action Network (and, in fact, Supreme Court precedent 

prevents it). Indeed, CREW relies on cases that undermine its argument, emphasizing that there 

are limits on the public interest in disclosure. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 

1456-57 (2014) (requiring that reporting laws be drawn “in proportion to the interest served, . . . 

[and] employ[] . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective”); Doe v. Reed, 

561 U.S. 186, 228 (2010) (confirming a “governmental interest in disclosure must survive 

exacting scrutiny” (citation omitted)); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64 (holding that “compelled 

disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the 

First Amendment”) (cited at CREW Mot. at 18-19). It is those limits that restrict the analysis 

here and confirm that the Commission’s decision was rational and fully in accordance with law. 

Without federal law on its side, CREW tries to find refuge in state law, arguing that 

courts have authorized broader “political committee” definitions under their state regimes. This 

effort to find a one-size-fits-all approach to “political committee” status ignores the variations 

among state laws—as CREW itself concedes. See CREW Mot. at 32 (arguing that certain state 

cases do not “shed light on the proper application of Buckley’s ‘major purpose’ test”). 

Indeed, political committee status under FECA carries significant and continuing burdens 

that are not imposed under the laws of each state. It is those burdens that require the “major 

purpose” limitation. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. In states with similarly burdensome political 

committee regulations, courts have also imposed a major purpose requirement. See, e.g., 

Barland, 751 F.3d at 841-42 (invalidating a Wisconsin disclosure regime). In states with less 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 42 of 56
- 30 -

burdensome obligations, the result may be different. See, e.g., Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. 

Sorrell, 758 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014) (approving Vermont law where—unlike under FECA—

political committee status requires the making of both expenditures and contributions for the 

purpose of influencing Vermont elections, does not trigger perpetual reporting obligations, and 

requires solely the reporting of expenditures, contributions, and debts).

19

 

In the end, comparisons to state laws cannot change the result under FECA, which must 

adhere to Buckley’s “major purpose” limitation. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. For groups with the 

major purpose of electing candidates, FECA’s burdensome political committee regulations are 

constitutional. See SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2010). For all other 

persons, disclosure is limited to one-time, event-driven reports that are linked to their particular 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications and that American Action 

Network dutifully filed.

2. The Commission Did Not Per Se Exclude Electioneering 

Communications From The “Major Purpose” Analysis. 

CREW’s next criticism of the Commission’s decision is unwarranted because the 

Commission did not do what CREW claims it did. CREW Mot. at 25-37. According to CREW, 

the Commission “interpreted the ‘major purpose’ test to capture only those groups who spend a 

majority of their budget on express advocacy, to the exclusion of all other campaign activity, 

including electioneering communications.” Id. at 25 (emphases added). The decision on review, 

however, did not find that electioneering communications could never be indicative of a major 

 

19

 CREW also relies on Alaska Right to Life Comm. v. Miles, 441 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2006), 

arguing that it shows that electioneering communications may trigger political committee status. 

See CREW Mot. at 29. CREW fails to mention that the Alaska statute at issue in that case 

distinguishes between “electioneering communications” and “issues communications” and 

allows only the former to trigger political committee status. Alaska Right to Life Comm., 441 

F.3d at 785 (“The disclosure requirement is not triggered by an expenditure that supports an 

‘issues communication.’” (citation omitted)).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 43 of 56
- 31 -

purpose to elect candidates. It instead concluded, on the facts of this case, that American Action 

Network’s electioneering communications are not. See, e.g., AR1705 n.98 (“None of [American 

Action Network’s] advertisements are the ‘functional equivalent’ of express advocacy.”), 

AR1709 (American Action Network’s advertisements “are genuine issue advertisements.”). The 

Commission’s decision was reasonable and followed directly from precedent that precludes the 

FEC from imposing political committee burdens on issue advocacy groups like American Action 

Network. See supra at 17-19.

There is, therefore, no reason to decide in this case whether the Commission erred by 

adopting “a bright line rule that looks only at the sum of a group’s reported independent 

expenditures compared to the organization’s reported expenditures in its tax filings.” CREW 

Mot. at 35. The Commission’s decision is devoid of any such rule. It instead reflects an 

“appl[ication] [of] the major purpose doctrine on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration 

the unique facts and circumstances involved.” AR1705.

It would also be inappropriate to accept CREW’s invitation to adopt a different “bright 

line rule” that counts all electioneering communications as indicative of a major purpose. See, 

e.g., CREW Mot. at 26 (“Electioneering communications are as relevant as express advocacy to 

the analysis of a group’s major purpose.”).20 First, CREW itself argues that the Commission 

should follow a “flexib[le] . . . case by case analysis” and not adopt a “one-size-fits-all rule.” Id.

at 35 (citation omitted). Second, the rule CREW seeks is foreclosed by precedent.

 

20

 While CREW suggests that Congress envisioned that electioneering communications would 

trigger political committee status, CREW Mot. at 26-27, the opposite is true. The principal 

sponsor of the electioneering communication disclosure regulations, Senator Jim Jeffords, stated 

that these new provisions (the “Snowe-Jeffords provisions” of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance 

Reform Act) would “not require . . . groups [like the National Right to Life Committee or the 

Sierra Club] to create a PAC or another separate entity” and would “not require the invasive 

disclosure of all donors.” 147 Cong. Rec. S2812-13 (Mar. 23, 2001).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 44 of 56
- 32 -

As detailed above, see supra at 17-18, the Supreme Court held in Buckley that political 

committee burdens cannot be imposed absent a “major purpose” to elect candidates. See 

Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. In Wisconsin Right To Life II, the Supreme Court clarified that not all

electioneering communications are the equivalent of candidate advocacy. 551 U.S. at 469-70. 

CREW would nonetheless find that all electioneering communications per se reflect a purpose to 

elect candidates. Such a rule flatly contradicts Wisconsin Right To Life II, and the Commission 

reasonably declined to adopt it.21 

CREW attempts to cast doubt on the Commission’s decision by trying to distinguish the 

appellate court cases cited in the Commissioners’ statement of reasons. CREW Mot. at 30-35. 

But the Commission did not state that it was bound by those decisions; all parties agree that the 

courts have not “mandate[d] a particular methodology for determining an organization’s major 

purpose.” Real Truth About Abortion, Inc., 681 F.3d at 556. The Commission instead pointed to 

them as examples of courts’ adopting a similar “major purpose” approach. For example, the 

Seventh Circuit in Barland held that “political committee” status must be “limited to express 

advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms were explained in Buckley and Wisconsin 

Right to Life II,” see 751 F.3d at 834, and the Fourth Circuit in North Carolina Right to Life

 

21

 CREW’s alternative bright-line rule fares no better. In a footnote, CREW argues that any 

communication that “promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes” a federal candidate should be 

considered reflective of a major purpose to elect candidates. CREW Mot. at 37 n.21. This 

standard has remarkable breadth and presents insurmountable vagueness issues, as it would 

cover nearly any statement about any elected official at any time and in any place. And, contrary 

to CREW’s suggestion, it has not been accepted as “sufficiently clear to withstand constitutional 

scrutiny” in this context. See id. (citing McConnell, 540 U.S. at 170 n.64). This standard was 

considered in the context of political “party speakers,” where advertisements can be “presumed 

to be in connection with election campaigns.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 170 n.64 (emphasis 

added). “The context . . . is very different” here. Barland, 751 F.3d at 837. In any event, the 

Court need not consider this alternative argument because CREW raised it “in a perfunctory 

manner, such as in a footnote.” Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. CV 

14-2014, 2015 WL 7428532, at *9 (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2015) (citation omitted).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 45 of 56
- 33 -

confirmed “that the burdens of political committee designation [may] only fall on entities whose 

primary, or only, activities are within the ‘core’ of Congress’s power to regulate elections,” 525

F.3d at 288. CREW tries to shrug off these examples as relevant only to different “state 

regime[s].” See CREW Mot. at 32. But the question before this Court is whether the 

Commissioners’ reasoning had a “rational basis,” not whether they were bound by the decisions 

they cited. Orloski, 795 F.2d at 167. The fact that federal courts in similar contexts have 

approached the “major purpose” analysis in a nearly identical way merely confirms that the 

Commissioners had a “rational basis” for their similar case-specific approach here.

3. The Commission Reasonably Considered American Action Network’s 

Broader Spending Without Limiting Itself To Calendar-Year 

Statistics.

CREW next argues that the Commissioners acted contrary to law when they did not adopt 

a rigid calendar-year timeframe in which to assess American Action Network’s major purpose. 

CREW Mot. 37-40. CREW did not ask for a calendar-year timeframe in its administrative 

complaint; there, it relied on American Action Network’s approximately $27 million in overall 

spending between July 23, 2009 and June 30, 2011. AR1485-86. It now changes its approach, 

arguing that the Office of General Counsel was correct when it recommended in the First 

General Counsel’s Report that the question of “whether [American Action Network] had the 

requisite major purpose” be limited to a review of only “its activities during the 2010 calendar 

year.” AR1659. Using this approach—and ignoring information from 2009 and 2011 in the 

record—the Office of General Counsel estimated that, in 2010, American Action Network spent 

about $17 million on independent expenditures and electioneering communications and about 

$27.1 million in total. Id.

This argument is a sideshow because it depends entirely on CREW’s ability to pull in 

electioneering communications, which were properly excluded from the analysis. See supra at 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 46 of 56
- 34 -

17-23. The Office of General Counsel estimated that American Action Network spent about $4 

million on express advocacy during 2010—totaling just about fifteen percent of its $27.1 million 

in total spending. AR1638. A calendar-year metric, therefore, does not turn American Action 

Network into a political committee. Its “major purpose” remained issue advocacy in 2010.

The argument is also meritless. The Commissioners’ decision to reject a calendar-year 

approach that CREW did not request was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. 

CREW does not argue that federal law mandates a calendar-year metric; it instead argues that 

such an approach would “harmonize” a different and earlier-enacted pre-requisite to political 

committee status, which requires the “political committee” to have received contributions or 

made expenditures totaling more than $1,000 in a calendar year. CREW Mot. at 37-38 (citing 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A)). If Congress “has directly spoken to the precise question at issue,” the 

court and the agency “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent.” Agape Church, 

Inc. v. FCC, 738 F.3d 397, 406 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43). But

even CREW concedes that FECA does not expressly require that the Commission assess an 

entity’s electoral and non-electoral spending on a fixed calendar-year basis to determine an 

entity’s “major purpose.” CREW’s sole support for the fixed formula is in a section of FECA 

that was drafted five years before the “major purpose” test existed.

It was not unreasonable for the Commissioners to reject a calendar-year approach in this 

case. As the controlling Commissioners explained, “determining an organization’s major 

purpose via a narrow snapshot of time” undermines the point of the major purpose test, which is 

to limit the application of political committee requirements “to groups with the clearest electoral 

focus.” AR1713. CREW agrees, admitting that an organization’s activities may differ in an 

election year, such that its spending “over the following year” may be relevant to determining its 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 47 of 56
- 35 -

“major purpose.” See CREW Mot. at 39. The Commissioners reasonably concluded that the 

time frame of its analysis—like every other part of its analysis—should proceed on a case-bycase basis. See AR1713 n.141 (incorporating Matter Under Review (“MUR”) 6396, Statement 

of Reasons of Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen at 24 n.101 (Jan. 8, 2014) (“[T]he 

facts in [each] case . . . will determine the appropriate time frame for analysis.”).22

And contrary to CREW’s argument, this case-by-case approach to the pertinent time 

frame was also supported by prior Commission decisions—including those attached to CREW’s 

Motion. In MUR 5751, the Office of General Counsel examined receipts and disbursements 

from 2002-2006. See Decl. of Stuart McPhail, Ex. 28 at 3. In MUR 5753, Commission staff 

based their analysis on activity “during the entire 2004 cycle.” Id., Ex. 29 at 11, 18. MUR 5754 

similarly involved an analysis of “the entire 2004 election cycle.” Id., Ex. 30 at 13.

There are many more similar examples. In MUR 5487, the Commission looked at the 

spending “[d]uring the entire 2004 election cycle.” MUR 5487, Conciliation Agreement ¶¶ 18, 

36 (Feb, 28, 2007). In an advisory opinion, the Commission analyzed a “pattern of . . . 

contributions” over a “six-year period (1990 to 1995).” FEC Adv. Op. 1996-3, at 3 (Apr. 19, 

1996). Even judicial cases look to a broader time period. See FEC v. Malenick, 310 F. Supp. 2d 

230, 234 n.5 (D.D.C. 2004), rev’d in part on reconsideration, No. 02-cv-1237, 2005 WL 588222 

(D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2005) (considering contributions over a two-year period (1995 and 1996)); 

GOPAC, 917 F. Supp. at 865 (considering activities from 1989 and 1990).

Indeed, the Commission’s flexible approach is so long-standing that application of a 

calendar-year approach in this case would have due process implications. The Commission’s 

 

22

 All documents associated with a MUR or Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) file can be 

found by using the FEC’s Enforcement Query System (http://eqs.fec.gov/eqs/searcheqs). Users 

can locate the relevant file by entering the appropriate MUR or ADR number in the “Case #” 

field.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 48 of 56
- 36 -

Office of General Counsel did not begin advocating a calendar-year approach until 2012—well 

after the 2010 calendar year to which CREW seeks to apply it. See MUR 6396, Statement of 

Reasons of Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen at 23 (Jan. 8, 2014). It is axiomatic 

in administrative law that “regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may 

act accordingly.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012). In 2010, 

there was no reason to conclude that a strict calendar-year approach would apply to the political 

committee analysis. For this reason also, it was reasonably rejected here. “It is one thing to 

expect regulated parties to conform their conduct to an agency’s interpretations once the agency 

announces them; it is quite another to require regulated parties to divine the agency’s 

interpretations in advance or else be held liable when the agency announces its interpretations for 

the first time in an enforcement proceeding . . . .” Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 

132 S. Ct. 2156, 2168 (2012). 

4. The Commission Did Not Adopt A Rule Requiring That The “Major 

Purpose” Be Supported By At Least Fifty Percent Of Spending.

Finally, CREW faults the Commission for adopting a “bright-line 50% test” that 

determines an organization’s status by “asking, not whether the group’s major purpose is the 

nomination or election of a candidate, but whether more than 50% of the group’s expenditures go 

to express advocacy.” CREW Mot. at 40-43. This argument also finds no support in the 

Commission’s actual statement of reasons. The Commission applied “the major purpose 

doctrine on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the unique facts and circumstances 

involved with [American Action Network].” AR1705. Those facts showed that the money spent 

by American Action Network for the purpose of electing a candidate “represented approximately 

15% of its total expenses during the same period”—an amount “hardly ‘so extensive that the 

organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity.’” AR1709 (quoting Mass. 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 49 of 56
- 37 -

Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. at 262). The Commission did not—and had no reason to—determine 

the exact percentage of spending that could constitute a “major purpose” in this case or any other 

case.23

The Commission’s conclusion that about fifteen percent of spending falls far short of a 

“major purpose” follows directly from the fact that an organization can only have one “major 

purpose.” The Supreme Court limited political committee status to “organizations that are under 

the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a 

candidate.” Buckley , 424 U.S. at 79 (emphasis added). The Court reiterated the necessity of a 

singular purpose ten years later, confirming that “an entity subject to regulation as a ‘political 

committee’ under the Act is one that is either ‘under the control of a candidate or the major 

purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.’” Mass. Citizens for Life, 479 

U.S. at 252 n.6. An organization “fits neither of these descriptions” where—as with American 

Action Network—“[i]ts central organizational purpose is issue advocacy, although it 

occasionally engages in activities on behalf of political candidates.” Id.

The Court’s requirement of one “major purpose” in this analysis is evident from the 

different words it has used where multiple “major purposes” are appropriate. See, e.g., CBS, Inc. 

v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 405 n.2 (1981) (“One of the major purposes of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act . . .”); Bowsher v. Merck & Co., 460 U.S. 824, 833 (1983) (“the two major 

purposes of the bill . . .”); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 592 (1980) (“a 

major purpose of the First Amendment . . .”). The question, therefore, is not “whether 

influencing campaigns is [only] ‘a major purpose’ of the group,” see Koerber v. FEC, 583 

 

23

 In the Americans for Job Security MUR, the controlling Commissioners concluded that 

spending only 9.8% on express advocacy is not enough to demonstrate that an organization’s 

major purpose is the election or defeat of federal candidates. AR1458.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 50 of 56
- 38 -

F. Supp. 2d 740, 748 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (emphasis added), but “whether the election or defeat of 

federal candidates for office is the major purpose of an organization, and not simply a major 

purpose,” Real Truth About Abortion, 681 F.3d at 556. The Commission agrees: an 

organization “must . . . have the major purpose of engaging in Federal campaign activity” before 

it may be regulated as a political committee. Supplemental E&J, 72 Fed. Reg. at 5601 (emphasis 

added).

In this case, where spending on advertisements to elect candidates amounted to only

fifteen percent of American Action Network’s total spending, it was neither arbitrary, capricious, 

nor contrary to law to conclude that “the major purpose” of American Action Network is not the 

election of candidates.24

II. An Independent Jurisdictional Defect Requires The Dismissal Of This Case.

As detailed above, CREW’s challenge to the Commission’s dismissal decision must be 

rejected on the merits, as the decision reflects a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of 

FECA, judicial precedent, and Commission authorities. It also must be rejected because it 

depends on an alleged injury that can no longer be redressed. Over 19 months ago, in July 2014,

the statute of limitations expired, precluding further proceedings before the Commission. 

CREW, as a result, cannot show—as it must—that there is a “substantial likelihood that the 

judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina 

 

24

 If, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court were to conclude that American Action 

Network’s issue advocacy electioneering communications should have been considered in 

determining its “major purpose,” the Court should remand the question of whether American 

Action Network’s “major purpose” is the election of candidates to the FEC for consideration in 

the first instance. Cf. Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, 671 F.3d 1241, 1246 (D.C. Cir. 2012) 

(“[A]n agency is entitled to construe its own regulations in the first instance.” (quoting Am. 

Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 906 F.2d 729, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1990)).

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 51 of 56
- 39 -

Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 79 (1978). Absent that showing, CREW lacks standing to 

maintain this action and it must be dismissed. 

A. The Statute Of Limitations On CREW’s FEC Complaint Has Expired.

Stamped across the front of the First General Counsel’s Report are the words 

“EXPIRATION OF SOL: 7/23/14.” AR1635. This reflects the five-year statute of limitations 

that applies to FEC enforcement actions. 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (a “proceeding for the enforcement 

of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless 

commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued”). CREW has 

challenged conduct that began in July 2009. The time the FEC required to consider CREW’s 

challenge did not toll the statute of limitations. FEC v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 877 

F. Supp. 15, 19-21 (D.D.C. 1995). As a result, the FEC can no longer pursue a timely judicial 

enforcement action even if it were warranted. See id.; FEC v. Nat’l Right To Work Comm., Inc.,

916 F. Supp. 10, 13-14 (D.D.C. 1996). It would be dismissed as untimely. See FEC v. Williams,

104 F.3d 237, 237-41 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissing FEC enforcement action filed in 1993 as 

untimely where administrative complaint was filed in 1988 based on conduct between “1987 and 

the end of January 1988”).

25

The FEC, as a result, regularly dismisses administrative complaints when five years 

elapse before a judicial enforcement action is commenced. “[C]itizens ought not have the threat 

of an investigation hanging over them for a lengthy time if it is unlikely that the investigation 

 

25

 If a complainant believes the FEC is arbitrarily and unreasonably delaying a matter, FECA 

provides a remedy. Beginning 120 days after an administrative complaint is filed, a complainant 

may bring suit to challenge the delay. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A); Democratic Senatorial 

Campaign Comm. v. FEC, Civ.No.A. 95-0349, 1996 WL 34301203, at *8 (D.D.C. Apr. 17,

1996) (600-day delay held unlawful, noting “approaching statute of limitations”); Citizens for 

Percy v. FEC, Civ.No.A. 84-2653, 1984 WL 6601 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 1984) (124-day delay 

unlawful). CREW did not take advantage of this opportunity.

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 52 of 56
- 40 -

will actually take place,” and “the Commission should focus resources on important cases of 

more recent vintage, with fresher evidence and more importance to current campaigns.” PreMUR 395, Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Mason, Smith, and Wold at 2 (Feb. 27, 

2002); see also ADR 230, Recommendation to Close File (Feb. 11, 2005) (“Due to the fact that 

the alleged activities noted in the complaint took place more than five years ago, this matter 

should be dismissed in accordance with the five year statute of limitations period.”).

The FEC even has an established procedure for the systematic dismissal of claims that 

have become “stale” before the statute of limitations has run because “[f]ocusing investigative 

efforts on more recent and more significant activity . . . has a more positive effect on the 

electoral process and the regulated community.” See MUR 5097R, General Counsel’s Report

(Agenda Document No. X02-27) (Apr. 3, 2002). Dismissal was warranted on this basis where 

the underlying conduct was four years old because “any investigation would have had to be 

conducted in a hasty and less than thorough fashion in order to beat the statute of limitations.” 

Pre-MUR 395, Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Mason, Smith, and Wold at 3.

B. CREW Cannot Show That Success In This Action Is Significantly Likely To 

Redress Its Claimed Injury.

As the “party invoking federal jurisdiction, [CREW] bears the burden” of showing that a 

“case or controversy” exists during all “successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders 

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). This means that CREW must show it is “likely, as 

opposed to merely speculative, that [its] injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 

560 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard requires CREW to 

“demonstrate a significant likelihood that a decision of [the] Court would redress its alleged 

injury.” Spectrum Five LLC v. FCC, 758 F.3d 254, 256 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). 

Otherwise, its case must be dismissed. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (“[T]hroughout 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 53 of 56
- 41 -

the litigation, the plaintiff [must show injury] likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial 

decision.”).

CREW cannot meet this standard because—even if it receives the relief it has 

requested—it cannot show a “significant likelihood” that the Commission will proceed to 

investigate its complaint and, if warranted, impose the political committee burdens on American 

Action Network that CREW seeks. Under FECA, this Court’s authority is limited to a 

declaration (where appropriate) that the Commission’s dismissal was contrary to law and an 

order directing the Commission to conform to that judgment. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

The Court cannot directly order the FEC to pursue the administrative complaint, which is now 

stale and past its statute of limitations.

To be sure, the mere fact that “we cannot know” with certainty what the Commission will 

do if a dismissal order is deemed unlawful does not negate standing in every case. In Akins v. 

FEC, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998), for example, the Court found standing even though redress was not 

certain because the FEC could, in “its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different 

reason.” Id. But the case before this Court is not a standard case. This is a case where the 

statute of limitations has run and where the FEC has a practice of dismissing stale complaints—

even complaints less stale than CREW’s. See supra at 37-38. On these facts, CREW cannot 

show there is a “substantial likelihood” that its informational injury will be redressed. Article 

III, accordingly, requires that its case be dismissed for lack of standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 

560-61.26

 

26

 The Court did not consider the statute of limitations issue in Akins, which also involved 

conduct that was over five years old. This silence does not affect the analysis here, because 

“[q]uestions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor 

ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” 

Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925); Bismullah v. Gates, 551 F.3d 1068, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 54 of 56
- 42 -

CREW may seek to prolong this litigation by pointing to the Commission’s equitable 

authority, arguing that the statute of limitations statute speaks only of civil fines and penalties. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (A “proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, 

pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the 

date when the claim first accrued . . . .”). Some courts have relied on the possibility of equitable 

relief in cases where the statute of limitations has run. See, e.g., United States v. Banks, 115 F.3d 

916, 919 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding equitable claims not barred); FEC v. Christian Coalition, 965 

F. Supp. 66 (D.D.C. 1997) (same). 

But others squarely reject the argument: “equity will withhold its relief . . . where the 

applicable statute of limitations would bar the concurrent legal remedy.” FEC v. Williams, 104 

F.3d 237, 240 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461, 464 (1947)); see also 

United States v. Midwest Generation, LLC, 720 F.3d 644, 647-48 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Gabelli 

v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013)) (barring all government claims, including those for equitable 

relief, because there must be “effective time constraints” on government action); Nat’l Right To 

Work Comm., 916 F. Supp. at 14 (quoting Cope, 331 U.S. at 464) (“when legal and equitable 

relief are available concurrently, ‘equity will withhold its relief . . . where the applicable statute 

of limitations would bar the concurrent legal remedy.’”).

The Court need not pick sides here because—regardless of whether or not the 

Commission could pursue an enforcement case seeking solely equitable relief—it does not 

appear that the Commission does pursue such actions after the statute of limitations on civil 

penalties has run. In the ten years since Williams was decided, the FEC has not proceeded under 

 

2009); Indep. Petroleum Ass’n v. Babbitt, 235 F.3d 588, 597 (D.C. Cir. 2001). It is worth noting, 

however, that on remand the Commission dismissed the claims that remained due to “the 

expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.” Akins v. FEC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 9, 16 (D.D.C. 

2010). Further action “would not be an appropriate use of the FEC’s limited resources.” Id. 

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 55 of 56
- 43 -

these circumstances. Any suggestion that it would deviate from that settled practice here is 

speculative at best. CREW’s complaint must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant American Action Network’s crossmotion for summary judgment, deny CREW’s motion for summary judgment, and dismiss 

CREW’s complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Claire J. Evans 

Jan Witold Baran (D.C. Bar No. 233486)

Caleb P. Burns (D.C. Bar No. 474923)

Claire J. Evans (D.C. Bar No. 992271) 

Wiley Rein LLP

1776 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006

Tel.: 202.719.7000

Fax: 202.719.7049

March 1, 2016 Counsel for American Action Network

Case 1:14-cv-01419-CRC Document 38 Filed 03/01/16 Page 56 of 56