IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

PUBLIC CITIZEN 

1600 20th Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20009 

CRAIG HOLMAN 

309 Maryland Avenue, NE #3 

Washington, D.C. 20002 

PROTECTOURELECTIONS.ORG 

POB 9576 

Washington, DC 20016

KEVIN ZEESE 

402 E. Lake Ave. 

Baltimore, MD 21212 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20436 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No: __________________ 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Federal 

Election Commission ( “FEC” or “Commission”) for its dismissal of their administrative 

complaint against Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies (“Crossroads GPS”). See 2 U.S.C. § 

437g(a)(8)(A). 

2. On October 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Commission alleging 

that Crossroads GPS had violated various provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 18
2

1971 (“FECA” or “the Act”), as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq., by spending millions of 

dollars on advertising to influence federal elections while failing to register with the Commission 

as a “political committee” and comply with attendant campaign finance disclosure requirements. 

These violations resulted in non-disclosure to the public and plaintiffs of the sources of funding 

for Crossroads GPS’s political advertising in federal elections. See 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, 434. 

3. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that disclosure laws play a vital 

role in our democracy by providing voters with important information about who is funding 

political advertising during elections, so that voters can evaluate different speakers and 

messages, make informed voting choices and hold elected officials accountable. Effective 

enforcement of FECA disclosure requirements is essential to the health of our democracy. 

4. On December 3, 2013, the FEC’s six Commissioners voted 3-3 on whether there 

was “reason to believe” that Crossroads GPS had violated FECA. Without the affirmative votes 

of at least four Commissioners needed to proceed with an investigation into the alleged 

violations, the Commission then dismissed the complaint. 

5. The three Commissioners who voted to find no “reason to believe”—effectively 

blocking investigation and forcing the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint—relied 

on two erroneous propositions of law: (1) that only express advocacy could be considered in 

determining whether an entity had the “major purpose” of influencing elections required to make 

it a political committee under FECA, and (2) that the organization’s own fiscal year, rather than 

the electoral cycle, formed the only proper time frame for considering whether the organization 

was a political committee. 

6. The FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint and its failure to 

investigate Crossroads GPS was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 18
3

contrary to the law. See Orloski v. FEC, 795 F.2d 156, 161 (1986). The FEC’s dismissal of 

Plaintiffs’ complaint has undermined FECA’s purposes, including its goal of promoting 

transparency in elections and providing the electorate with information about who is speaking to 

it during elections. Plaintiffs have suffered as a result, because they, as well as the public, have 

been deprived of information about the sources, amounts, and beneficiaries of Crossroads GPS’s 

expenditures—information to which they are legally entitled under FECA. 

7. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the FEC’s failure to 

investigate Crossroads GPS and its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint was 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to the law. Plaintiffs further 

seek an order requiring the FEC to conform with such a declaration within 30 days. See 2 U.S.C. 

§ 437g(a)(8)(C). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. This Court has jurisdiction under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

9. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

PARTIES 

10. Plaintiff Public Citizen, Inc., is a nonpartisan, nonprofit membership organization. 

Public Citizen works on a variety of issues on behalf of consumers and the public, including 

consumer product safety and consumer financial protection. One of Public Citizen’s primary 

missions is also to combat corruption in the political system through election reform. In 

connection with these goals, Public Citizen studies and reports on the role of money in elections 

and the influence of political spending on officeholders and public policy. Public Citizen has 

members nationwide who are voters, and many of those members reside in states and electoral 

districts where Crossroads GPS has engaged in spending to affect federal elections. As voters, 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 3 of 18
4

those members are entitled to receive the information that FECA requires political committees 

and others to disclose to the public, and their informed exercise of the vote is impaired when 

such information is unavailable. Public Citizen brings this case on its own behalf and on behalf 

of its members. 

11. Plaintiff ProtectOurElections.org is a national collaboration of grassroots 

organizations that work together to provide oversight of elections and to advocate for campaign 

finance reform. They rely on political committees’ public disclosure reports to evaluate the 

influence of money in politics. 

12. Plaintiff Craig Holman is employed by Public Citizen as its Legislative 

Representative specializing in campaign finance and government ethics issues. He has a Ph.D. 

in Political Science from the University of Southern California and has studied the impact of 

money on politics for many years, both before and after joining Public Citizen. Dr. Holman’s 

duties, as well as his independent research interests, involve the study of contributions to and 

expenditures by political organizations of various types, including political committees that 

report contributions and expenditures to the FEC. Dr. Holman relies on disclosure information 

to advocate for new policies and to evaluate the interests to which lawmakers may be beholden. 

He is also a citizen of the United States and a registered voter in the District of Columbia. As a 

registered voter, Dr. Holman is entitled to receive the information that FECA requires political 

committees and others to disclose to the public, and his informed exercise of the vote is impaired 

when such information is unavailable. 

13. Plaintiff Kevin Zeese, Esq., is an attorney with ProtectOurElections.org and is 

committed to reforming politics and elections. He relies on information about campaign-related 

spending to evaluate different speakers and messages and to monitor the impact of large 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 4 of 18
5

expenditures on officeholders and public policy. He is also a United States citizen and a 

registered voter in Maryland. As a registered voter, Mr. Zeese is entitled to receive the 

information that FECA requires political committees and others to disclose to the public, and his 

informed exercise of the vote is impaired when such information is unavailable. 

14. Defendant FEC is an independent federal agency charged with the administration 

and civil enforcement of FECA. 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b). 

FACTS 

Crossroads GPS 

15. Crossroads GPS is a nonprofit organization founded on June 1, 2010. It was 

conceived of by prominent Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, and is closely 

associated with American Crossroads, a Section 527 political organization and FEC-registered 

independent expenditure-only political committee (a.k.a. “super PAC”). American Crossroads 

was established shortly before Crossroads GPS in March 2010 and the two organizations share 

offices and personnel. 

16. Since its inception, Crossroads GPS has claimed Section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt 

status and, in September 2010, Crossroads GPS applied to the Internal Revenue Service for 

Section 501(c)(4) status. Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code exempts from federal 

income tax organizations that are exclusively engaged in promotion of social welfare, which 

under IRS regulations does not include electoral activity. Many public interest groups have 

challenged the legitimacy of Crossroads GPS’s self-claimed 501(c)(4) status. The Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”) has apparently not yet made a determination regarding Crossroads 

GPS’s application. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 5 of 18
6

17. According to press report published shortly after Crossroads GPS was formed: “A 

new political operation conceived by Republican operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie formed 

a spinoff group last month [Crossroads GPS] that—thanks in part to its ability to promise donors 

anonymity—has brought in more money in its first month than the parent organization 

[American Crossroads] has raised since it started in March.” Kenneth P. Vogel, Rove-linked 

group uses secret donors to fund attacks, POLITICO (July 21, 2010, 7:35 PM), 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39998.html. The same article reported that “a 

veteran GOP operative familiar with the group’s fundraising activities said the spin-off was 

formed largely because donors were reluctant to see their names publicly associated with giving 

to a 527 group[,]” American Crossroads. Id. 

18. Crossroads GPS is widely recognized as one of the most powerful political 

spending groups in the country, having spent tens of millions of dollars to influence federal 

elections since 2010, more than any other purported 501(c)(4) organization, and more than all 

but a handful of super PACs. 

19. In 2010, Crossroads GPS spent millions of dollars on federal campaign activity. 

The FEC’s Office of General Counsel found that the organization had spent at least $20.8 million 

on federal campaign activity (including independent expenditures and electioneering 

communications as defined by FECA as well as communications that promote, attack, support, 

or oppose federal candidates) between June and December 2010—more than half of the $39.1 

million Crossroads GPS reported to the IRS that it spent in 2010. 

20. More recently, in the 2012 election cycle, Crossroads GPS reportedly spent at 

least $71 million on federal campaign activity. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 6 of 18
7

21. Crossroads GPS is also widely recognized as one of the largest spenders of “dark 

money”—i.e., money from undisclosed sources—in federal elections. Groups organized under 

Section 501(c)(4), as Crossroads GPS purports to be, are not required by tax law to publicly 

disclose the sources of their funds. Additionally, because Crossroads GPS contends that it is not 

a political committee under FECA, it has not complied with the FECA provisions requiring 

political committees to file reports with the FEC disclosing the sources of their funds, see 2 

U.S.C. § 434. Consequently, Plaintiffs and the public have been unable to obtain information 

about the sources and amounts of the huge sums of money raised and spent by Crossroads GPS 

to influence recent federal elections. 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

22. FECA imposes registration, organization, and disclosure requirements on political 

committees. 

23. FECA defines “political committee” to mean “any committee, club, association or 

other group of persons which receives contributions aggregating in excess of $1,000 during a 

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

year.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(4); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(a). A “contribution” is defined as “any 

gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person 

for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(A). An 

“expenditure” is defined as “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift 

of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election 

for Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(9)(A). 

24. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976), to avoid the statute reaching groups 

“engaged purely in issue discussion,” the Supreme Court construed the term “political 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 7 of 18
8

committee” to “only encompass organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the 

major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate.” The Court has 

subsequently affirmed Buckley’s “major purpose” test. See, e.g., FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens 

for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 252-53 n.6 (1986); McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 170 n.64 (2003). 

25. Thus, there is a two-prong test for political committee status under FECA. The 

first prong asks whether an entity or other group of persons has made more than $1,000 in 

“expenditures” or received more than $1,000 in “contributions” during a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 

§ 431(4)(A). The second prong asks whether the organization has as its “major purpose . . . the 

nomination or election of a candidate.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79. 

26. The FEC makes “major purpose” determinations on a case-by-case basis—an 

approach that has consistently been upheld against legal challenge. See Free Speech v. FEC, 720 

F.3d 788, 798 (10th Cir. 2013), petition for cert. filed, No. 13-772 (Dec. 30, 2013); Real Truth 

About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544, 556 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 841 

(2013); Shays v. FEC, 511 F. Supp. 2d 19, 29-31 (D.D.C. 2007). 

27. In 2007, the FEC provided additional guidance to organizations about the factors 

used to determine an organization’s major purpose. See FEC, Political Committee Status, 72 

Fed. Reg. 5595, 5596-7 (Feb. 7, 2007) (Supplemental Explanation and Justification) (“2007 

SE&J”). The Commission explained that it considers indicia such as: public and non-public 

statements about the organization’s purposes and activities; public and non-public fundraising 

appeals; and the proportion of spending related to “federal campaign activity” compared to the 

proportion spent on “activities that [a]re not campaign related.” 72 Fed. Reg. at 5601, 5604-5. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 8 of 18
9

Plaintiffs’ Administrative Complaint 

28. On October 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative complaint with the 

FEC, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a) and all applicable FEC regulations, alleging that Crossroads 

GPS violated various provisions of FECA. The FEC designated the administrative complaint 

Matter Under Review (“MUR”) 6396. 

29. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint alleged that Crossroads GPS is a political 

committee because, in 2010, it exceeded the Act’s $1,000 expenditure threshold and its major 

purpose was to influence federal elections. The complaint further alleged that Crossroads GPS 

violated the requirements governing political committees—most notably, the Act’s registration 

and disclosure requirements. 

30. Plaintiffs explained in their complaint that “[t]he deployment of section 501(c)(4) 

organizations in 2010 as a vehicle for undisclosed money to pay for partisan activities to 

influence federal elections [was] simply the latest chapter in the long history of efforts to evade 

and violate federal campaign finance laws.” Pls.’ FEC Compl. ¶ 5. 

31. In support of their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that: 

(a) Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads were both conceived of by veteran 

Republican strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie, and the two organizations largely operated 

together. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26, 31, 32, 34. 

(b) Karl Rove provided advice and fundraising support to both Crossroads GPS and 

American Crossroads. Id. ¶ 26. 

(c) Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads were avenues for Republican donors to 

support Republican candidates. For instance, Karl Rove explained on Fox News that American 

Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were simply avenues for donors who had “maxed out” to federal 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 9 of 18
10

Republican political committees to funnel money into the 2010 elections. Rove elaborated: 

“What we’ve essentially said is, if you’ve maxed out to the senatorial committee, the 

congressional committee or the RNC and would like to do more, under the Citizens United

decisions, you can give money to the American Crossroads 527 or Crossroads GPS.” Id. ¶ 32. 

(d) One purpose of Crossroads GPS is to conceal the identities of donors. Id. ¶ 5. 

For instance, the organization assures its donors that, while it must disclose donors over $5,000 

to the IRS, the IRS does not make this information public and it is Crossroads GPS’s policy not 

to make that information public. Id. ¶ 27. 

(e) On October 5, 2010, Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads announced a $4.2 

million ad buy, targeting eight hotly contested Senate races. Seventy-five percent of the ad buy 

was paid for with funds from undisclosed donors. Id. ¶ 34. 

(f) By October 5, 2010—just four months after Crossroads GPS’s inception—

Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads had already spent $18 million on the 2010 campaigns. 

Id. ¶ 26. 

(g) Crossroads GPS “micro-targeted” its efforts on seven states with hotly contested 

Senate races in 2010. Id. ¶ 33. 

(h) The Chairman of the board of American Crossroads, Mike Duncan, had told The

Washington Times that American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS planned to raise more than 

$52 million and “plan[ned] to plow more than $49 million of it into 11 Senate races in 

anticipation that the Republican Party is within reach of a Senate majority.” Id. ¶ 31 (quoting R. 

Hallow, Pro-GOP Nonprofits Kick in Millions; Cash to Target 11 Senate Races, WASH. TIMES, 

Aug. 19, 2010). 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 10 of 18
11

(i) Between September 20, 2010 and the filing of the administrative complaint in 

early October 2010, Crossroads GPS had already reported more than $2.5 million in express 

advocacy expenditures. These expenditures clearly established that the organization had 

surpassed the $1,000 expenditure threshold for political committee status and were so extensive 

as to establish the organization’s major purpose as influencing the 2010 federal elections. Id. ¶ 

36. 

(j) Crossroads GPS had produced and disseminated numerous ads for the purposes of 

influencing the elections. For instance, twenty-two of these ads, which were posted on the 

organization’s YouTube channel, clearly sought to influence the 2010 congressional elections. 

Id. ¶ 37. The scripts for several of these ads were included in Plaintiffs’ administrative 

complaint filed with the FEC. Id. ¶¶ 38-46. 

The FEC General Counsel’s Report 

32. On November 21, 2012, the FEC’s Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) 

submitted to the Commission its First General Counsel’s Report (“the Report”) recommending 

that the Commission find reason to believe Crossroads GPS had violated FECA and 

recommending that the Commission launch an investigation into the matter. FEC, In Re 

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (MUR 6396), First General Counsel’s Report, Nov. 21, 

2012. 

33. The Report stated that Crossroads GPS conceded in its response to Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint that it exceeded the Act’s $1,000 threshold for expenditures or 

contributions triggering political committee status under 2 U.S.C. § 431(4). Thus, the issue was 

whether Crossroads GPS had the major purpose of influencing federal elections in 2010. Id. at 3. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 11 of 18
12

34. The OGC found Crossroads GPS’s arguments that it did not meet the major 

purpose test “wide of the mark.” Instead, “the available information regarding Crossroad GPS’s 

overall conduct in 2010 support[ed] a finding that there [was] reason to believe that Crossroads 

GPS had as its major purpose the nomination or election of federal candidates.” Id. at 3. 

35. The Report noted the close relationship between Crossroads GPS and American 

Crossroads, including that the organizations operate from the same address and share at least 

four corporate officers and employees in common. Id. at 5. The joint communications director 

for both organizations had also reportedly stated that the two organizations raised funds jointly 

and “the fact that [the organizations were] raising [money] for two groups instead of one [was] a 

distinction without a difference.” Id. at 5-6. 

36. According to the Report, the shared President of both organizations, Steven Law, 

claimed that the reason for creating two organizations was the different focus of each. Law, 

however, had also acknowledged that anonymity for donors to the 501(c)(4) was a valuable 

fundraising tool. Id. at 6. 

37. The Report explained that, although Crossroads GPS stated in its response, on its 

website, and in its tax returns that its major purpose was not federal campaign activity, these 

statements are not dispositive to the Commission’s inquiry. Id. at 16. Instead, under the 

Commission’s case-by-case approach, the Commission considers the “overall conduct” of an 

organization, including its spending, activities, and statements. Id. at 16. The Report found that 

“Crossroads GPS’s proportion of spending related to federal campaign activity is alone sufficient 

to establish that its major purpose in 2010 was the nomination or election of federal candidates.” 

Id. at 17 (emphasis added). 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 12 of 18
13

38. Crossroads GPS, in its response to Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, reported 

that it had spent $15.4 million in independent expenditures in 2010—$13,259,915.13 on seven 

Senate races and $2,185,124.37 on eight House races. Id. at 7. 

39. In addition to this $15.4 million in reported independent expenditures, “the 

available information indicate[d] that Crossroads GPS spent approximately $5.4 million in 2010 

on communications that d[id] not contain express advocacy but criticize[d] or oppose[d] a clearly 

identified federal candidate.” Id. at 17. The Report included the scripts of ten such ads. Id. at 

19-22. The Commission had previously relied on this type of spending to establish 

organizations’ major purposes. Id.

40. The Report dismissed Crossroads GPS’s claim that the $5.4 million spent on nonexpress advocacy ads should be disregarded in the major purpose determination. The Report 

explained: “that argument fail[ed] to come to terms with the Commission’s longstanding view—

upheld by the courts—that the required major purpose test is not limited solely to express 

advocacy (or the functional equivalent of express advocacy).” Id. at 22. Rather, because “[e]ach 

of the Crossroads GPS ads feature[d] a clearly identified federal candidate, criticize[d] or 

oppose[d] a candidate, and was run in the candidate’s respective state shortly before the 2010 

elections,” “[t]he fact that the ads [did] not contain express advocacy, or the functional 

equivalent, [did] not shield such ads from consideration under the major purpose test.” Id.

41. The OGC also rejected Crossroads GPS’s argument that, as a self-designated 

501(c)(4) organization, it should not be found to satisfy the major purpose test. The Report 

explained that the Commission had already concluded, in its 2007 SE&J, that an organization’s 

tax status should not be used as a substitute for the conduct-based determination required to 

assess political committee status. Id. at 24 (discussing the 2007 SE&J). And, in any event, the 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 13 of 18
14

OGC found the argument premature as to Crossroads GPS since the IRS had not approved its 

application for 501(c)(4) status. Id.

42. Finally, the OGC rejected Crossroads GPS’s argument that its activities should be 

evaluated according to its own self-selected fiscal year, instead of a calendar year. The Report 

explained that evaluating organizations according to a calendar year, rather than a self-selected 

fiscal year, is consistent with FECA’s plain language defining “political committee”; that 

allowing organizations to select their fiscal year for evaluation would lead to absurd results; and 

that evaluations based on the calendar year were consistent with the Commission’s past 

practices. Id. at 25. And, in any event, the OGC recommendation would not change if it 

considered Crossroads GPS’s 2011 spending. Id. at 26. 

43. The Report therefore concluded that, “taking into account all of its spending in 

2010, Crossroads GPS appears to have spent approximately $20.8 million on the type of 

communications that the Commission considers to be federal campaign activity” and that this 

sum “represent[ed] approximately 53 percent of the $39.1 million Crossroads GPS reported 

spending during 2010. Therefore, Crossroads GPS’s spending by itself shows that the group’s 

major purpose during 2010 was federal campaign activities (i.e., the nomination or election of a 

federal candidate).” Id. at 26-27. 

44. The General Counsel’s Office then concluded: “Although we believe there is 

sufficient information at this stage to recommend pre-probable cause conciliation based solely on 

Crossroads GPS’s spending for advertisements, . . . an investigation of Crossroads GPS’s 

additional 2010 activity, including examination of its fundraising solicitations and advocacy 

mailings, may furnish evidence of additional spending on federal campaign activity that will 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 14 of 18
15

enhance the public record and establish definitively the date by which Crossroads GPS should 

have registered as a political committee.” Id. at 27. 

The Commission’s Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Complaint 

45. Despite the Office of the General Counsel’s strongly worded recommendation to 

the Commission to investigate Crossroads GPS, on December 3, 2013, the Commission “failed 

by a vote of 3-3 to . . . [f]ind reason to believe” that Crossroads GPS violated 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 

433 and 434 and subsequently closed the file, dismissing Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

FEC, In Re Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (MUR 6396), Certification, Dec. 5, 2013. 

46. By letter dated December 12, 2013, the FEC advised Plaintiff Kevin Zeese that 

the Commission had an “insufficient number of votes” to find reason to believe that Crossroads 

GPS violated the political committee provisions of FECA. Letter from William Powers, Ass’t 

General Counsel, FEC, to Kevin Zeese, Dec. 12, 2013. The Commission sent a similar letter of 

notification to Plaintiff Craig Holman on December 23, 2013. Letter from William Powers, 

Ass’t General Counsel, FEC, to Craig Holman, Dec. 23, 2013. 

47. On January 8, 2014, the FEC released the Statement of Reasons (“SOR”) of the 

Commissioners who voted against finding “reason to believe,” and who effectively blocked the 

Commission’s investigation of Crossroads GPS and forced the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint. FEC, Statement of Reasons of Chairman Lee E. Goodman and 

Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen (MUR 6396), Jan. 8, 2014 

(“Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR”). 

48. On January 10, 2014, the FEC released the SOR of the Commissioners who voted 

to find “reason to believe” that Crossroads GPS had violated FECA and to authorize further 

investigation of the matter. FEC, Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 15 of 18
16

Commissioner Steven T. Walther, and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub (MUR 6396), Jan. 10, 

2014 (“Ravel, Walther, Weintraub SOR”). 

49. The Commissioners who voted to find “reason to believe” and to authorize further 

investigation believed this matter “gave rise to a clear-cut case for further investigation by the 

Commission, as recommended by our Office of General Counsel” and that “[t]he Commission 

ha[d] unfortunately failed to adhere to its own policy on political committee status or to recent 

judicial decisions finding that policy to be valid and constitutional.” Ravel, Walther, Weintraub 

SOR at 1. They noted that Crossroads GPS’s “spending on campaign activity is vast, both in 

absolute terms and as a proportion of its total spending.” Id. at 4. They further agreed with the 

Office of General Counsel’s legal analysis that: (1) the major purpose test’s focus on “federal 

campaign activity” is not limited solely to express advocacy or its functional equivalent; (2) an 

organization can have the major purpose of federal campaign activity even if its spending on 

federal campaign activity is not a majority of the organization’s total spending; and (3) spending 

should be analyzed according to a calendar year, rather than an organization’s self-selected fiscal 

year. Id. at 4. Thus, these commissioners agreed with the OGC’s recommendation to launch an 

investigation into Crossroads GPS’s activities. 

50. The Commissioners whose votes blocked investigation of Crossroads GPS 

concluded in their SOR that Crossroads GPS did not have the requisite major purpose. See 

Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR at 1. The SOR disregarded the Commission’s prior guidance, 

including its 2007 SE&J, and its prior advisory opinions. The SOR further mischaracterized and 

misconstrued prior court decisions. The Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR was based on a 

number of erroneous and impermissible interpretations of the law, including: 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 16 of 18
17

(a) Only an organization’s spending on express advocacy (and possibly its functional 

equivalent) could be considered in relation to its non-campaign related spending to determine a 

group’s major purpose, see Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR at 14; 

(b) A group’s spending on express advocacy must exceed 50% of the organization’s 

budget to support a finding that the group’s major purpose is the nomination or election of a 

candidate, see id. at 25; 

(c) A group’s spending must be evaluated according to time periods utilized by the 

group, rather than according to a calendar year, id. at 20-21; and 

(d) A group’s official statements in its articles of incorporation or mission statement 

and a group’s self-claimed tax status are virtually dispositive in determining an organization’s 

“central” purpose, id. at 10-13. 

51. Based on these and other incorrect interpretations and applications of the law 

governing political committees, the Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR—which forced dismissal 

of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint—wrongly concluded that there was insufficient evidence 

to find “reason to believe” that Crossroads GPS was a political committee under FECA and 

should have registered as such. The Commission’s dismissal of the complaint thus rested on 

manifest errors of law, absent which there would have been no non-arbitrary basis for the 

Commission’s action. 

CAUSE OF ACTION 

52. The Commission’s failure to find “reason to believe” that Crossroads GPS 

violated FECA and its subsequent dismissal of Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, which rested 

on the impermissible interpretation of FECA set forth in the Goodman, Hunter, Petersen SOR, 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 17 of 18
18

was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise contrary to law. See 2 U.S.C. § 

437g(a)(8)(C); 5 U.S.C. § 706. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the 

Court grant the following relief: 

a) Declare that the Commission’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint was based on an impermissible interpretation of FECA, and was 

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

b) Order the FEC to conform to such a declaration within 30 days, see 2 

U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(C); 

c) Award legal fees and costs of suit incurred by Plaintiffs; and 

d) Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: January 31, 2014 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert (DC Bar No. 447676) 

Paul S. Ryan (DC Bar No. 502514) 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER

215 E Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20002 

(202) 736-2200 

Scott L. Nelson (DC Bar No. 413548) 

PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP

1600 20th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20009 

(202) 588-1000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 18 of 18
Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1-1 Filed 01/31/14 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1-2 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:14-cv-00148 Document 1-3 Filed 01/31/14 Page 1 of 1