IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 

1411 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

DEMOCRACY 21 

2000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

 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 Campaign Legal Center (“CLC”) and Democracy 21 (“D21”) bring this 

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

“Commission”) pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), challenging as arbitrary and capricious, and 

contrary to law, the dismissal of five administrative complaints filed by plaintiffs against entities 

and individuals (collectively, “Respondents”)1

 for making “straw donor” contributions in 

 

1

See Certification in MURs 6487 and 6488 (F8 LLC, et al.) (dated Feb. 23, 2016); Certification 

in MUR 6485 (W Spann LLC, et al.) (dated Feb. 23, 2016); Certification in MUR 6711 

(Specialty Investment Group, Inc., et al.) (dated Feb. 23, 2016); Certification in MUR 6930 

(Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, et al.) (dated Feb. 23, 2016). 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 22
2

violation of various disclosure provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), 52 

U.S.C. § 30101 et seq., and Commission regulations.2

 

2. The plaintiffs’ administrative complaints, designated by the FEC as Matters 

Under Review (“MURs”) 6485 (W Spann), 6487 and 6488 (F8/Eli Publishing), 6711 (Specialty 

Investments Group) and 6930 (Pras Michel), alleged that named and unnamed individuals made 

political contributions to independent expenditure-only political committees (commonly referred 

to as “super PACs”), using named Limited Liability Companies (“LLCs”) and other corporate 

entities as straw donors to hide their identities as the true sources of the contributions in 

disclosure reports filed with the FEC. These contributions ranged from $875,000 to over $12 

million. In so doing, the individuals violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by making a contribution “in the 

name of another” and the LLC/conduits violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by allowing their names to 

be used to make such a contribution. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaints further alleged that 

four of the five LLCs violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103 and 30104 by failing to register and 

file reports as political committees, as defined at 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4). 

3. The FEC’s six Commissioners voted on February 23, 2016 on motions to find 

“reason to believe” a violation of FECA had occurred with respect to the allegations in plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaints, and failed in each case to obtain the four or more affirmative votes 

needed to find “reason to believe” and proceed with an investigation into the alleged violations. 

See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a). Accordingly, the Commission dismissed all five complaints. 

4. The Commission’s failure to find “reason to believe” and its subsequent dismissal 

of plaintiffs’ administrative complaints rested on impermissible interpretations of FECA, as set 

 

2

 At the time four of the five complaints were filed, FECA was codified at Title 2 of the United 

States Code. Subsequently, FECA was moved to Title 52 and renumbered. All citations in this 

complaint are to the current Title 52. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 22
3

forth in the Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman (“Petersen, 

Hunter, and Goodman SOR”), which were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and 

otherwise contrary to law. See Orloski v. FEC, 795 F.2d 156, 161 (1986). 

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

role in our democracy by providing the electorate with critical 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. Key to that 

disclosure is the prohibition on the use of a straw donor to hide the true source of a contribution. 

Effective enforcement of FECA disclosure requirements is essential to ensure that the public can 

trust it is receiving accurate information. 

6. The dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints has undermined FECA’s purposes, 

including its goal of promoting transparency in elections and providing the electorate with 

information about who is speaking to influence elections. Plaintiffs have suffered as a result, 

because they, as well as the public, were deprived of timely information about the sources, of the 

contributions made to the super PACs—information to which they are legally entitled under 

FECA and which they use for their particular organizational work and advocacy. 

7. Accordingly, plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the dismissal of their 

administrative complaints was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise 

contrary to law. Plaintiffs further seek an order requiring the FEC to conform with such a 

declaration within 30 days. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has jurisdiction under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 22
4

9. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff CLC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to strengthen our 

democracy through local, state and federal efforts to ensure that the public has access to 

information about the financing of our election campaigns, and to implement and defend 

campaign finance laws targeting real and apparent corruption. As part of these efforts, CLC is 

involved in litigation throughout the nation regarding contribution limits, disclosure, political 

advertising, enforcement issues and other campaign finance matters. It also participates in 

rulemaking and advisory opinion proceedings at the FEC to ensure that the agency is properly 

interpreting and enforcing federal election laws and files complaints with the FEC requesting 

that enforcement actions be taken against individuals or organizations that violate the law. 

11. A central part of CLC’s work involves research regarding the sources of money to 

influence our election. Disclosure reports filed with the FEC are an important source of 

information, and CLC uses this information as the basis for its fact-based legal analysis and 

advice regarding existing and proposed campaign finance laws. 

12. This legal analysis is also used in campaign finance litigation in which CLC 

participates, frequently as amicus curiae, throughout the nation. For example, CLC recently filed 

amicus briefs in Wagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom.

Miller v. FEC, 136 S. Ct. 895 (2016), and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) 

(en banc), cert. denied sub. nom. Keating v. FEC, 131 S. Ct. 553 (2010). Since representing the 

principal drafters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act as intervenor-defendants in McConnell 

v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), CLC has filed amicus briefs in every campaign finance case decided 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 4 of 22
5

by the Supreme Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014), and Citizens 

United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). 

13. In addition, CLC uses information obtained from campaign finance disclosure 

reports in preparing testimony before Congress and state and local legislatures and agencies,3

publications,4 op-eds, blog posts, and other commentary through appearances on broadcast media 

and in interviews for print and web publications.5 These communications are directed towards 

educating policy makers and the public about who is spending money to influence elections 

through contributions to super PACs, candidates, political committees and party committees, as 

well as direct expenditures for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. 

14. Plaintiff D21 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to making 

democracy work for all Americans through support of campaign finance and other political 

reforms. To accomplish these goals, it conducts public education efforts, participates in litigation 

involving the constitutionality and interpretation of campaign finance laws, and engages in efforts to

help ensure that campaign finance laws are properly enforced and implemented. It also participates 

in rulemakings and advisory opinion proceedings, and other administrative matters, at the FEC. 

 

3

See, e.g., Revisiting IRS Targeting: Progress of Agency Reforms and Congressional Options: 

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts 

of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. (2015) (testimony of Lawrence M. Noble, 

General Counsel, Campaign Legal Center); Testimony of Campaign Legal Center submitted to 

the Michigan House Elections Standing Committee on S.B. 638 (Feb. 3, 2016), http://www.

campaignlegalcenter.org/document/state-michigan-testimony-clc-house-elections-standingcommittee-sb-638. 

4

See, e.g., Lawrence M. Noble, Blueprints for Democracy: Actionable Reforms to Solve Our 

Governing Crisis, http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/sites/default/files/IO_BlueprintsFor

Democracy_FINAL.PDF. 

5

 For examples of CLC’s work, see http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 5 of 22
6

15. D21 regularly publishes a Political Money Report, which is distributed to the 

media and concerned individuals and groups. D21’s Political Money Report makes extensive use 

of campaign finance information filed with the FEC under federal campaign finance disclosure 

requirements to produce analyses reported on by news organizations and nonprofits groups. D21 

also makes use of FEC campaign finance data in the op-ed articles it publishes and distributes to 

the media and the public. The organization also engages in various efforts to strengthen federal 

campaign finance disclosure requirements to ensure that accurate and complete campaign 

finance information is provided for the public and the media. 

16. Plaintiffs rely on accurate federal campaign disclosure information to carry out 

activities central to their mission, including research, analysis and reporting about the true 

sources of contributions to super PACs and other political committees. The use of straw donors 

to make contributions “in the name of another” deprives the plaintiff organizations, as well as the 

public, of information about the source of contributions to super PACs and other political 

committees, and prevents them from carrying out a central part of their mission. 

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

and civil enforcement of FECA. 52 U.S.C. § 30106. 

FACTS 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Prohibition on Contributions in the Name of Another

18. FECA provides that “[n]o person shall make a contribution in the name of another 

person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall 

knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.” 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30122. In turn, “person” is defined as including “an individual, partnership, committee, 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 6 of 22
7

association, corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group of persons . . . .” 

52 U.S.C § 30101(11). 

19. The Commission regulation implementing the statutory prohibition on 

“contributions in the name of another” provides the following examples of “contributions in the 

name of another”: 

a. “Giving money or anything of value, all or part of which was provided to 

the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of money 

or the thing of value to the recipient candidate or committee at the time the contribution is 

made.” 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(2)(i). 

b. “Making a contribution of money or anything of value and attributing as 

the source of the money or thing of value another person when in fact the contributor is the 

source.” 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(2)(ii). 

Contributions by Limited Liability Companies

20. Commission regulations provide that limited liability companies are treated as 

individuals, partnerships or corporations for FECA purposes, consistent with the tax treatment 

they elect under the Internal Revenue Code. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g). 

21. A contribution by an LLC that elects to be treated as a partnership by the Internal 

Revenue Service (“IRS”) (or fails to elect treatment as either a partnership or a corporation) is 

considered a contribution from a partnership and attributed to each partner. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(e) 

and (g)(2). 

22. An LLC that elects to be treated as a corporation by the IRS is considered a 

corporation for the purposes of FECA. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g)(3). 

23. A contribution by an LLC with a single natural person member that does not elect 

to be treated as a corporation by IRS is attributed only to that single member. 11 C.F.R. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 7 of 22
8

§ 110.1(g)(4); see also FEC Advisory Opinion 2009-02 (True Patriot Network) (treating 

expenditures by a single-member LLC, like contributions, as attributable solely to the LLC’s 

single member). 

24. An LLC that is treated as a partnership, or that has a single natural person member 

and does not elect treatment as a corporation, that makes a contribution shall, at the time it makes 

the contribution, “provide information to the recipient committee as to how the contribution is to 

be attributed, and affirm to the recipient committee that it is eligible to make the contribution.” 

11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g)(5).

Political Committee Status, Registration, and Reporting Requirements 

25. FECA defines the term “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.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(a). “Contribution,” 

in turn, 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.” 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). Similarly, “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.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(A)(i). 

26. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court construed the term 

“political 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.” Id. at 79 (emphasis 

added). Thus, there is a two-prong test for “political committee” status under federal law: (1) 

whether an entity or other group of persons has a “major purpose” of influencing the 

“nomination or election of a candidate,” as stated by Buckley, and if so, (2) whether the entity or 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 8 of 22
9

other group of persons receives “contributions” or makes “expenditures” in excess of $1,000 in a 

calendar year. 

27. Any entity that meets the definition of a “political committee” must file a 

“statement of organization” with the FEC, 52 U.S.C. § 30103, comply with the organizational 

and recordkeeping requirements of 52 U.S.C. § 30102, and file periodic disclosure reports of its 

receipts and disbursements, 52 U.S.C. § 30104. 

28. The political committee disclosure reports required by FECA must disclose to the 

Commission and the public, including complainants, comprehensive information regarding such 

committee’s financial activities, including the identity of any donor who has contributed $200 or 

more to the committee within the calendar year. See 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b). 

Commission Enforcement Actions 

29. FECA requires the FEC to find “reason to believe” a violation has occurred by 

four affirmative votes of the members of the Commission prior to initiating an investigation in 

response to a complaint. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a). Commission regulations specify, in relevant part, 

that a complaint must identify the complainants and be sworn and signed, and that the allegations 

in a complaint “not based upon personal knowledge” should identify the source of the 

information that “gives rise to the complainant’s belief in the truth of such.” 11 C.F.R. 

§ 111.4(b), (d). 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS 

MUR 6485 (W Spann) 

30. Plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative complaint on August 5, 2011 alleging that 

W Spann LLC (“W Spann”) was used as a conduit to hide the true source of a $1 million 

contribution to Restore Our Future, the super PAC that supported Mitt Romney’s 2012 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 9 of 22
10

presidential run. The complaint asked the FEC to find “reason to believe” a violation had 

occurred and authorize an investigation into whether (a) the true source of the contribution had 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by making a contribution “in the name of another”; (b) W Spann had 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by allowing its name to be used to make such a contribution; and (c) 

W Spann violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103 and 30104 by failing to register and file reports as 

a political committee, as defined at 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4). 

31. In materials produced in response to the complaint, Edward Conard, a friend and 

former business partner of then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, admitted that he wanted to 

make a $1 million contribution to Restore Our Future. See Response from Conard and W Spann, 

MUR 6485 (dated Oct. 3, 2011). Conard claimed that he was concerned that disclosure of the 

contribution could jeopardize the security of his family and sought legal advice about how to 

make the contribution without disclosing his identity. He further claims he was told that he could 

set up an LLC, though “the FEC might seek to look through the contributing entity to the 

underlying contributor.” Id. at 2. 

32. Conard formed W Spann LLC “for the sole purpose of making a donation to 

Restore Our Future” in March 2011 and authorized W Spann to make the $1 million contribution 

in April 2011. W Spann was then dissolved in May 2011. Only after the contribution attracted 

media attention in August 2011, four months after the contribution was made, did Conard 

acknowledge having authorized the $1 million contribution. In his response to the complaint, 

Conard admitted that W Spann was “a vehicle for one man’s one-time political donation.” Id. 

33. Based on the complaint and the responses, the FEC’s Office of General Counsel 

(“OGC”) recommended the Commission find “reason to believe” that Conard and W Spann LLC 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 10 of 22
11

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and no “reason to believe” W Spann LLC violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30102, 30103 and 30104. First General Counsel’s Report at 19, MUR 6485 (Aug. 28, 2012). 

34. Despite Conard’s admission that W Spann was “a vehicle for one man’s one-time 

political donation” of $1 million, three Commissioners would not vote to find “reason to believe” 

a violation had occurred. By letter dated March 2, 2015, plaintiffs were notified that the FEC was 

equally divided on whether to find “reason to believe” that Edward Conard and W Spann LLC 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122; no “reason to believe” that W Spann LLC violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30102, 30103 and 30104; and no “reason to believe” that Restore Our Future and Charles R. 

Spies in his official capacity as Treasurer violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and accordingly closed the 

file, dismissing plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

MURs 6487 and 6488 (F8/Eli Publishing) 

35. Plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative complaint on August 11, 2011 alleging that 

F8 LLC and Eli Publishing L.C. were used as conduits to hide the true source of two $1 million 

contributions to Restore Our Future on March 31, 2011. The complaints asked the FEC to find 

“reason to believe” that the true source of the contributions violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by 

making a contribution “in the name of another,” and that F8 LLC and Eli Publishing L.C. 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by allowing their names to be used to make such a contribution. 

Further, plaintiffs’ complaints alleged that F8 and Eli Publishing L.C. violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30102, 30103 and 30104 by failing to register and file reports as political committees, as 

defined at 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4). 

36. According to the First General Counsel’s Report, Steven J. Lund was the source 

of the two $1 million contributions, which he made through F8 and Eli Publishing, two dormant 

LLCs owned by Lund, his family members, and his business associates. See First General 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 11 of 22
12

Counsel’s Report at 10–12, MURs 6487 and 6488 (F8 LLC, et al.) (June 6, 2012). Furthermore, 

Lund is reported to have told the news media both that “he’s not trying to hide the donation,” but 

made the contribution through a corporation because it had accounting advantages, and that “he 

did not want ‘to be real public about being a part of the campaign.’” Id. at 6. 

37. Based on the complaint and the response from Lund, the OGC concluded that 

“there is ample ‘reason to believe’ that, in violation of the Act, Lund was the true source of the 

$1 million contribution made by Eli Publishing,” and that “there is also ‘reason to believe’ that 

F8 was a conduit and not the true source of the $1 million contribution by F8 to [Restore Our 

Future].” Id. at 11. 

38. Based on the complaint and the responses, the OGC recommended the 

Commission find “reason to believe” that F8 and Eli Publishing in Steven Lund violated 52 

U.S.C. § 30122. The Office of General Counsel also recommended that the commission “take no 

action at this time” with respect to the allegations that respondents violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 

30103 and 30104. 

39. By letter dated March 2, 2015, the plaintiffs were notified that the FEC “was 

equally divided” on whether to find “reason to believe” that Eli Publishing L.C., Steven J. Lund, 

F8 LLC, and Unknown Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122; and whether to take no action 

with respect to allegations that Eli Publishing L.C. and F8 LLC violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 

30103 and 30104, or as to Restore Our Future and Charles R. Spies in his official capacity as 

Treasurer. Accordingly, the FEC closed the file, dismissing plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

MUR 6711 (Specialty Investments Group, Inc., et al.) 

40. Plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint on December 20, 2012 (amended 

April 24, 2013) alleging that Specialty Investments Group Inc. (“SIG”), Kingston Pike 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 12 of 22
13

Development LLC (“KPD”), William S. Rose, Jr., and any other persons who made 

contributions in the name of Specialty Group Inc. and Kingston Pike Development LLC, had 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and that SIG and KPD violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103 and 

30104. 

41. The OGC recommended that the Commission find “reason to believe” that 

Richard Stephenson, a director of the super PAC FreedomWorks for America (“FWFA”), made 

twenty contributions totaling over $12 million to FWFA using the names of SIG and KPD. The 

available information demonstrated that Stephenson pledged to make $10 to $12 million in 

contributions at an August 2012 FreedomWorks retreat, FreedomWorks executive Adam 

Brandon helped to arrange the contributions, and Stephenson dictated how the contributions 

would be spent. See First General Counsel’s Report at 13–14, MUR 6711 (June 6, 2014). 

42. OGC found that SIG and KPD were established with acknowledged “political 

purposes” and funded with “private capital” shortly before the 2012 election—days before their 

first contributions to FWFA—and dissolved less than a year later. Id. at 14, 16. Based on the 

complaint and responses, the OGC recommended finding “reason to believe that respondents 

violated [52 U.S.C. § 30122]” by making contributions in the name of another. Id. at 13. 

43. By letter dated March 4, 2016, plaintiffs were advised that the FEC had 

“considered the allegations” contained in their complaint, but fell short of the four votes needed 

to find “reason to believe” that William S. Rose, Jr., SIG, KPD, FWFA, Richard J. Stephenson 

and Adam Brandon violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and accordingly closed the file and dismissed 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 13 of 22
14

MUR 6930 (Pras Michel) 

44. Plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative complaint on April 13, 2015, alleging that 

there is “reason to believe” that Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, SPM Holdings LLC/SPM 2012 

Holdings LLC, Black Men Vote, and the Treasurer of Black Men Vote, William Kirk Jr., 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, which prohibits contributions “in the name of another.” 

45. The complaint cited FEC reports as showing that Black Men Vote, a political 

committee that intends to make only independent expenditures, reported receiving a total of 

$1.325 million in itemized individual contributions in the 2012 election cycle. These 

contributions were reported as coming from only three donors, SPM Holdings ($875,000 total—

$400,000 on November 12, 2012 and $475,000 on November 24, 2012), Pras Michel ($350,000 

total—$250,000 on September 7, 2012 and $100,000 on October 5. 2012) and Earl Stafford 

($100,000 on October 4, 2012). Complaint ¶¶ 5–6, MUR 6930 (Pras Michel). 

46. On March 31, 2015, the Center for Public Integrity published a report detailing 

the $875,000 in contributions that Black Men Vote reported having received from SPM Holdings 

LLC in 2012. See Michael Beckel, Rapper-backed group illustrates blind spot in political 

transparency, Center for Public Integrity, Mar. 31, 2015, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/

03/31/16944/rapper-backed-group-illustrates-blind-spot-political-transparency. 

47. According to the Center for Public Integrity report, between 2012 and the report’s 

March 31, 2015 publication, the donor “behind SPM Holdings would remain . . . a mystery.” Id.

48. The Center for Public Integrity reported that, while Florida state business 

registration records do not show any company named “SPM Holdings LLC,” Florida real estate 

records do show a company named “SPM 2012 Holdings LLC” at the same Florida address that 

Black Men Vote listed for SPM Holdings LLC in its disclosure report filed with the 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 14 of 22
15

Commission. SPM 2012 Holdings LLC is “registered in Delaware, where records list only a 

registered agent: Dover, Delaware-based Registered Agent Solutions Inc., a for-profit company 

that boasts of being ‘an innovative leader in the registered agent and transactional service 

industry.’” Id.

49. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Pras Michel “confirmed that SPM 

Holdings LLC—which is officially called SPM 2012 Holdings LLC—was his, adding that it was 

‘just a holding company to do my everyday business through.’” According to the plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint, this acknowledgment meant that Pras Michel provided $1.225 million 

in total to Black Men Vote—$350,000 in his own name and $875,000 in the name of SPM 

Holdings LLC. Complaint ¶ 10, MUR 6930. 

50. By letter dated March 31, 2016, plaintiffs were notified that the Commission “was 

equally divided on whether to find ‘reason to believe’ the named respondents violated 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30122,” but had dismissed the allegations that the respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) 

and 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g) and issued a caution letter to Prakazrel “Pras” Michel and SPM 

Holdings LLC/SPM 2012 Holdings LLC with respect to the alleged regulatory violations. 

Accordingly, the Commission closed the file and dismissed plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

THE CONTROLLING COMMISSIONERS’ STATEMENT OF REASONS

51. On April 1, 2016, the three Commissioners who refused to vote that there was 

“reason to believe” a violation had occurred in any of the five MURs—effectively blocking 

investigation and forcing the dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaints—issued their 

Statement of Reasons (“Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman SOR”) explaining the reasons for their 

refusal to find “reason to believe.” 

52. This Statement of Reasons acknowledges that the use of LLC straw donors 

violates the prohibition on the making of a contribution in the name of another, but relies on 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 15 of 22
16

erroneous propositions of law as the rationale for the Commission’s failure to take any action on 

clear violations of law. These erroneous propositions include: 

a. Judicial decisions concerning unrelated FECA provisions—including 

Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 366 (invalidating ban on corporate independent expenditures), and 

SpeechNow.org, 599 F. 3d at 696 (allowing corporations to make contributions to political 

committees that only make independent expenditures)—made FECA’s longstanding ban on 

making a contribution in the name of another, 52 U.S.C. § 30122, unclear as applied to LLCs; 

b. Longstanding Commission precedent has treated funds deposited into a 

corporate account and then used for contributions as contributions from the corporation, and the 

Commission has previously rejected an attribution rule that would deem the individual owners of 

corporate LLCs as the makers of those LLCs’ contribution; and 

c. Even where the FEC is presented with allegations of someone making a 

contribution in the name of an LLC, it cannot find “reason to believe” a violation has occurred 

and begin an investigation unless it is presented with direct evidence that funds were 

“intentionally funneled” through the LLC “for the purpose of” evading FECA’s reporting 

requirements, or presented with evidence indicating that the LLC did not have sufficient funds to 

make the contribution.

53. These propositions are incorrect. A contribution made by a single-member LLC 

that is not treated as a corporation by the IRS must be reported as coming from the individual. 

First, the regulations clearly provide that a contribution from such an LLC is to be considered 

coming from the individual member. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g)(4). Second, regardless of how the 

entity is treated, exercising direction or control over funds given to any entity for the purpose of 

making a contribution in that entity’s name is a facial violation of 52 U.S.C.§ 30122. Citizens 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 16 of 22
17

United did not address these provisions or affect the prohibition on making a contribution in the 

name of another. On the contrary, the Supreme Court cited the existing laws requiring the 

disclosure of those funding independent expenditures as “a less restrictive alternative” to the ban 

on corporate independent expenditures. 558 U.S. at 369. 

54. Further, although the Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman SOR erroneously states that 

Commission precedent has always treated funds deposited into a corporate account and then used 

for contributions as contributions from the corporation, the governing rule expressly describes 

when a contribution from a single-member LLC must be treated as coming from the individual 

owner. “A contribution by an LLC with a single natural person member that does not elect to be 

treated as a corporation by the [IRS] . . . shall be attributed only to that single member.” 11 

C.F.R. § 110.1(g)(4). Under this regulation, it is clear that a contribution from a single-member 

LLC is treated as coming from the owner. 

55. Lastly, contrary to the Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman SOR, neither the Act nor 

Commission regulations require that a complainant be able to provide direct evidence of a 

violation before the Commission can find “reason to believe” a violation may have occurred and 

initiate an investigation. Such a policy would unreasonably limit the Commission’s exercise of 

its investigatory powers to situations where it has already determined it has been provided with 

sufficient evidence to find a violation of the law. There was no justification for dismissing 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaints on the basis of this cramped and erroneous view of the 

Commission’s enforcement authority. 

56. On April 1, 2016, the three Commissioners who voted to find “reason to believe” 

the contributions in these matters violated the prohibition on making a contribution “in the name 

of another” issued their Statement of Reasons (“Walther, Ravel, Weintraub SOR”). In contrast to 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 17 of 22
18

the claims of the three Commissioners blocking enforcement of the law, they determined that 

“current law clearly prohibits contributors from using the names of LLCs to shield their identity 

from disclosure to the public.” Id. at 2 (footnote omitted). According to these Commissioners, 

“[t]his was not a difficult case . . . . Although the ability of individuals and corporations to make 

unlimited contributions to super PACs is a post-Citizens United and SpeechNow phenomenon, 

the longstanding prohibition against making contributions in the name of another remains 

unchanged and squarely applies to these cases.” Id. at 3. 

57. They further noted that, while 52 U.S.C. § 30122 prevents evasion of contribution 

limits, where relevant, “it also ensures the complete and accurate public disclosure of the sources 

of campaign contributions.” Id. at 4. In support of this self-evident proposition, they cited, inter 

alia, United States v. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he congressional 

purpose behind [Section 30122]—to ensure the complete and accurate disclosure of the 

contributors who finance federal elections—is plain.”). 

COUNT I – MUR 6485 

58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 57 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

59. As discussed, the Commission’s failure to find “reason to believe” that that 

Edward Conard and W Spann LLC violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122; W Spann LLC violated 52 

U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103 and 30104; and Restore Our Future and Charles R. Spies in his official 

capacity as Treasurer, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and the subsequent dismissal of plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint, was based on the impermissible interpretation of FECA set forth in the 

Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman SOR, and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 18 of 22
19

otherwise contrary to law. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 706. See also Orloski v. FEC, 

795 F.2d 156, 161 (1986). 

60. As a result of the FEC’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

plaintiffs, as well as the public, were deprived of timely information about the sources of the 

contributions made to Restore Our Future—information to which they were legally entitled 

under FECA. 

COUNT II – MURs 6487 and 6488

61. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 60 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

62. For the reasons alleged, the Commission’s failure to find “reason to believe” that 

Eli Publishing L.C., Steven J. Lund, F8 LLC and Unknown Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30122, and that Eli Publishing L.C. and F8 LLC violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103 and 

30104, and that Restore Our Future and Charles R. Spies in his official capacity as Treasurer, 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and its subsequent dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

rested on an impermissible interpretation of FECA and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion and otherwise contrary to law. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 706. See also

Orloski, 795 F.2d at 161. 

63. As a result of the FEC’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

plaintiffs, as well as the public, were deprived of timely information about the sources of the 

contributions made to Restore Our Future—information to which they were legally entitled 

under FECA. 

COUNT III – MUR 6711 

64. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 63 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 19 of 22
20

65. For the reasons alleged, the FEC’s failure to find “reason to believe” William S. 

Rose, Jr., Specialty Investment Group, Inc., Kingston Pike Development, LLC, Freedom Works 

for America, Richard J. Stephenson and Adam Brandon violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and that 

Specialty Investment Group, Inc. and Kingston Pike Development, LLC, violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30102, 30103, and 30104, and its subsequent dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

rested on an impermissible interpretation of FECA and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion and otherwise contrary to law. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 706. See also

Orloski, 795 F.2d at 161. 

66. As a result of the FEC’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

plaintiffs, as well as the public, were deprived of timely information about the sources of the 

contributions made to FreedomWorks—information to which they were legally entitled under 

FECA. 

COUNT IV – MUR 6930 

67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 to 66 as if fully set 

forth herein. 

68. For the reasons alleged, the FEC’s failure to find “reason to believe” that 

Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, SPM Holdings LLC/SPM 2012 Holdings LLC, Black Men Vote, and 

William Kirk Jr. violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122; that Prakazrel “Pras” Michel and SPM Holdings 

LLC/SPM 2012 Holdings LLC violated 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g); and that Black Men Vote violated 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b), and the subsequent dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, was 

based on an impermissible interpretation of FECA and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion and otherwise contrary to law. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 706. See also

Orloski, 795 F.2d at 161. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 20 of 22
21

69. As a result of the FEC’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ administrative complaint, 

plaintiffs, as well as the public, were deprived of timely information about the sources of the 

contributions made to Black Men Vote—information to which they were legally entitled under 

FECA. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

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

Court grant the following relief: 

a) Declare that the Commission’s decisions to dismiss plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaints were based on an impermissible interpretation of FECA, and 

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

b) Order the Commission to conform to such a declaration within 30 days, 

see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(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. 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 21 of 22
22

Dated: April 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ J. Gerald Hebert 

J. Gerald Hebert (DC Bar No. 447676) 

Lawrence M. Noble (DC Bar No. 244434) 

Tara Malloy (DC Bar No. 988280) 

Megan P. McAllen (DC Bar No. 1020509) 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER

1411 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 736-2200 

Fred Wertheimer (DC Bar No. 154211) 

DEMOCRACY 21 

2000 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 355-9600 

Donald J. Simon (DC Bar No. 256388) 

SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, 

ENDRESON & PERRY, LLP 

1425 K Street N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 682-0240 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:16-cv-00752-JDB Document 1 Filed 04/22/16 Page 22 of 22