IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Virginia James, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civil No.

)

v. ) Three-Judge Court Requested

)

Federal Election Commission, ) Oral Argument Requested

)

Defendant. )

)

)

)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

I. NATURE OF ACTION

1. Plaintiff challenges the limit on total contributions to candidate

committees (“sub-aggregate limit”) under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Pub. L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 93 (2002) (“BCRA”); 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A)

(indexed for inflation per 11 C.F.R. § 1 10.5(b)(4) at 76 Fed. Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14,

2011)).

2. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), upheld the aggregate

contribution limits of BCRA’s predecessor, the Federal Election Campaign Act

1

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 1 of 12
(“FECA”). Buckley’s holding stemmed from concern that contributors could

circumvent limits on contributions to individual candidates by contributing to

parties and other committees. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 38.

3. Plaintiff does not wish or intend to give to parties or PACs, thus

negating the Buckley rationale. Therefore, this challenge to the sub-aggregate limit

on total contributions to candidates is one of first impression.

4. Moreover, Buckley did not consider the sub-aggregate limits that exist

under BCRA because those limits did not exist in 1976. Rather, Buckley

considered a statute that contained only one, overall annual aggregate limit on all

contributions to candidate committees, party committees and political committees..

Pub. L. 93-443, Sec. 10 1(3) (1974) (“Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments

of 1974”); see also Pub. L. 92-225, Sec. 205 (definition of contributions for

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971).

5. Plaintiff Virginia James, a private individual, has given to political

candidates in the past and plans to continue doing so. This biennium, she wishes to

contribute more than the current sub-aggregate limit of $46,200 to various political

candidates, but does not wish to exceed the $2,500 limit on contributions to each

individual candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(A) (indexed for inflation per 11 C.F.R.

§ 1 10.5(b)(3)-(4) at 76 Fed. Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14, 2011)). Nor does she wish to

2

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 2 of 12
exceed the overall biennial limit of $117,000 on all contributions to candidates,

PACs, and parties. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(3)(A)-(B) (indexed for inflation per 11

C.F.R. § 1 10.5 (b)(3)-(4) at 76 Fed. Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14, 2011)). Rather, she wishes

to take money that she may legally contribute to PAcs and parties, and instead

contribute it directly to candidates she wishes to support.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction because this action arises under the First

Amendment to the United States constitution and a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. §

1331 (2012).

7. This Court has jurisdiction under sections 403(a)(1) and (d)(2) ofthe

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”). Pub. L. No. 107-155 (2002),

116 Stat. 81, 113-14. See 28 U.S.C. § 2284; LCvR 9.1.

8. This court has jurisdiction as to the constitutionality of FECA and its

subsequent amendments under 2 U.S.C. § 437h (2012).

9. This Court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. 28

U.S.C. § 22Oland 2202 (2012).

10. Venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) (2012).

3

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 3 of 12
II. PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Virginia James is an investor and resident of Lambertville,

New Jersey, who has given to political candidates and political action committees

(“PACs”) in the past, and plans to continue contributing to federal candidate

committees.

12. Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is the federal

government agency charged with enforcing BCRA.

III. FACTS

13. Ms. James wishes to exercise her First Amendment right to associate

by contributing directly to various candidates for federal office.

14. This biennium, Ms. James has contributed to individual candidate

committees, political action committees (“PACs”), and independent expenditure

only committees.

15. During this biennium, Ms. James has contributed at least $27,000 to

candidate committees. Ms. James made these contributions in accordance with the

$2,500 limit on contributions to individual candidates under 2 U.S.C. §

441a(a)(1)(A) (indexed for inflation per 11 C.F.R. § 1 10.5(b)(3)-(4) at 76 Fed.

Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14, 2011)).

4

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 4 of 12
16. Ms. James’s contributions to candidates during this biennium do not

exceed $46,200.

17. During this biennium, Ms. James has contributed $5,000 to PACs, an

amount well below the $46,200 limit on contributions to PACs under 2 u.s.c. §

441a(a)(3)(B) (indexed for inflation per 11 c.F.R. § 1 10.5(b)(3)-(4) at 76 Fed.

Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14, 2011)).

18. Ms. James does not wish to make any further contributions to PAcs

this biennium, and stipulates that she will not do so.

19. Ms. James does not wish to make any contributions to political parties

this biennium, and stipulates that she will not do so.

20. This biennium, Ms. James wishes to contribute up to the $117,000

aggregate biennial limit under 2 u.s.c. § 441a(a)(3) (indexed for inflation per 11

c.F.R. § 1 10.5(b)(3)-(4) at 76 Fed. Reg. 8368 (Feb. 14, 2011)).

21. The only contributions Ms. James wishes to make during the balance

ofthis biennium are direct contributions of up to $2,500 to individual candidate

committees.

22. Ms. James wishes to contribute more than the sub-aggregate biennial

limit of $46,200 on total candidate contributions.

5

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 5 of 12
23. Ms. James does not seek to contribute in excess ofthe current

aggregate biennial contribution limit of $117,000.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1:

The Sub-Aggregate Limit on Contributions to Individual Candidates is Facially

Unconstitutional.

24. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 — 23.

25. Contribution limits implicate the First Amendment by limiting the

freedoms of political association and speech. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 15; Randall v.

Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230, 246-247 (2006).

26. Contribution limits are permissible in the interest of preventing actual

or apparent corruption. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 28.

27. But, “[i]n drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on

the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it,” FEC v. Wis.

Right to Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 457 (2007) (“WRTL Ii”), because “[tjhe First

Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a

campaign for political office.” Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 898 (2010)

(internal citations omitted).

6

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 6 of 12
28. In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld FECA’s contribution limits for

both individual candidates and in the aggregate, based on different rationales.

29. The Buckley Court upheld contribution limits for individual

candidates under the rationale that such limits were necessary to prevent actual or

apparent corruption. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26.

30. The Buckley Court upheld limits on aggregate contributions:

to prevent evasion ofthe [individual candidate] contribution limitation

by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of

money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked

contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that

candidate, or huge contributions to the candidate’s political party.

Buckley, 424 U.S. at 38, cf McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 152 n. 48

(2003).

31. BCRA also eliminated unlimited contributions to political parties for

party-building activities; so-called “soft money.” See BCRA, § 323, 2 U.S.C. §

441i; McConnell, 540 U.S. at 288 (Kennedy, J. concurring in part and dissenting in

part); Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 910.

32. In McConnell, the U.S. Supreme Court did not discuss BCRA’s sub

aggregate biennial limit on contributions to individual candidates—although the

issue was properly pled before the Court. However, the Court did uphold FECA’s

7

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 7 of 12
annual, total aggregate contribution limit. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 152, 167 (2003).

The Court did so on identical grounds to those in Buckley. Id.

33. The sub-aggregate limit on candidate contributions prevents

contributors from giving to more than a limited number ofraces in any one

electoral cycle, despite the fact that an individual may wish to associate with

multiple candidates in multiple races—all at a level Congress has identified as noncorrupting in setting other contribution limits.

34. Thus, there is no anti-corruption or anti-circumvention rationale that

remains for individual contributors wishing to contribute solely to candidates. The

sub-aggregate limit on individual candidate contributions unnecessarily chills

speech and infringes upon associational rights through a means that is not

appropriately tailored. Thus, that limit is unconstitutionally overbroad.

COuNT 2:

The Sub-Aggregate Limit on Contributions to Individual Candidates is

Unconstitutional as Applied to Plaintiff.

35. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 — 34.

36. McConnell did not address the factual landscape present here. Plaintiff

pledges strict adherence to the individual candidate contribution limit and the

overall biennial contribution limit. However, she wishes to contribute more than

8

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 8 of 12
$46,200 ofthe biennial limit’s $117,000 directly to candidate committees. In light

ofthe foregoing, this is a case of first impression.

37. The sub-aggregate limit on candidate contributions prevents Ms.

James from giving to more than a handful ofraces in any one electoral cycle,

despite the fact that she wishes to associate with multiple candidates in multiple

races—all at a level Congress has identified as non-corrupting in setting other

contribution limits.

38. There is no anti-corruption or anti-circumvention rationale that

remains relevant given Ms. James’s wish to emphasize candidate committees in

assigning her contributions. The sub-aggregate limit on individual candidate

contributions unnecessarily chills Ms. James’s speech and infringes upon her

associational rights through a means that is not appropriately tailored. Thus, that

limit is unconstitutionally overbroad.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

A. A declaration that the aggregate limit on contributions to individual

candidates at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(3)(A) is unconstitutional on its face.

9

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 9 of 12
B. A declaration that, in light of Ms. James’ right to association and the

government’s mooted interest in the anti-circumvention and corruption rationales,

the sub-aggregate limit on contributions to individual candidates at 2 U.s.c.

§441a(a)(3)(A) is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. James.

c. An injunction barring enforcement of 2 usc §441a(a)(3)(A).

D. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees.

E. Such equitable or other relief as this Court may consider just and

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of August, 2012.

/s/ Allen Dickerson

Allen Dickerson, DC Bar No. 1003781

center for Competitive Politics

124 West Street South

Suite 201

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Phone: 703.894.6800

Facsimile: 703.894.6811

adickersoncampaignfreedom. org

Counselfor Plaintff

10

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 10 of 12
VERIFICAi’1ON

STATE Ol MAINE

ss.

COUNTY OE

I, Virginia James. being first duly sworn, state under oath that I have read

the foregoing VERI l’l ED COMPLAINT. and that the statements contained therein

are true and correct to the best of my know1edie. information, and belief

Subscribed and sworn heibre me ibis O day ol Autusi. 2012.

4c

Notary Public

DIANE M ‘MLLEY-WARD

My Commission Expires: NotaryPubile. Mame

My Commission bxpires January 5 2019

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 31St day of August, 2012, the foregoing

document was served on the following, via first class mail:

Anthony Herman, General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20436

Phone: 202.694.1650

Facsimile: 202.219.0260

Email: ahermanfec.gov

Counselfor Defendant, FEC

Civil Process Clerk

U.S. Attorney’s Office

501 Third Street, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Secretary ofthe Senate

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510-6601

Eric H. Holder, U.S Attorney General

U.S. Department ofJustice

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20530.

Clerk ofthe House ofRepresentatives

U.S. House ofRepresentatives

U.S. Capitol, Room H154

Washington, DC 20515-6601

s/ Allen Dickerson

Allen Dickerson

12

Case 1:12-cv-01451 Document 2 Filed 08/31/12 Page 12 of 12