IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

Republican National Committee, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

Federal Election Commission, et al., ) THREE-JUDGE COURT 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________)

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF

INTERVENING DEFENDANT 

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER VAN HOLLEN, JR.

Intervening defendant Representative Christopher Van Hollen, Jr., by his undersigned 

counsel, answers each numbered paragraph of the plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as follows: 

ANSWER 

Introduction

1. Admits that this is an action challenging § 101 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (“BCRA” or “Act”) on constitutional grounds, that BCRA § 101 added a new § 323 

to the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), and that the provisions challenged in this 

action are codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441i. Plaintiffs’ contention that this action constitutes an asapplied challenge is a conclusion of law or legal characterization, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. Denies that BCRA is unconstitutional in any manner. 

2. Plaintiffs’ contention that this action constitutes an as-applied challenge is a 

conclusion of law or legal characterization, to which no responsive pleading is required. 

Admitted in all other respects. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 1 of 10
-2- 

3. The provisions of BCRA and FECA speak for themselves, and therefore no further 

answer is required of this intervening defendant. 

4. The provisions of BCRA and FECA speak for themselves, and therefore no further 

answer is required of this intervening defendant. 

5. This paragraph contains tendentious characterizations of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which speaks for itself, and conclusions of law, 

to which no responsive pleading is required. Therefore, no further answer is required of this 

intervening defendant. 

6. This paragraph contains tendentious characterizations of the Supreme Court’s 

decisions in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 

S. Ct. 2652 (2007), which speak for themselves, and conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. Therefore, no further answer is required of this intervening defendant. 

7. This paragraph contains tendentious characterizations of legal precedent from other 

jurisdictions, which speaks for itself, and conclusions of law, to which no responsive pleading is 

required. Therefore, no further answer is required of this intervening defendant. 

8. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of plaintiffs’ allegation that they plan to engage in certain activities and that 

they will not proceed as planned without the relief requested in the complaint. This paragraph 

also contains conclusions of law, to which no responsive pleading is required. In all other 

respects, the intervening defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph and denies that the 

Act is unconstitutional in any manner. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

9. Admitted. 

10. Admitted. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 2 of 10
-3- 

Parties 

11. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The second 

sentence contains conclusions of law, to which no responsive pleading is required. 

12. Admits the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence 

contains conclusions of law, to which no responsive pleading is required. 

13. This paragraph contains only conclusions of law, to which no responsive pleading is 

required. 

14. Admits that Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. 

The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of all other allegations contained in this paragraph. 

15. Admitted. 

Facts

16. Admits that there are currently no federal candidates scheduled to appear on the 2009 

ballot in New Jersey. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief whether there will be any federal candidates on the 2009 ballot in New Jersey at 

the time of that election. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this 

paragraph are (a) unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of 

a particular federal candidate,” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 80 (1976), are conclusions of law, 

to which no responsive pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 

this paragraph. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 3 of 10
-4- 

17. Admits that there are currently no federal candidates scheduled to appear on the 2009 

ballot in Virginia. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief whether there will be any federal candidates on the 2009 ballot in Virginia at the 

time of that election. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph 

are (a) unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

18. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

19. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

20. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 4 of 10
-5- 

21. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

22. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

23. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

24. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

25. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are (a) 

unlawful under BCRA and (b) not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular 

federal candidate,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 80, are conclusions of law, to which no responsive 

pleading is required. In all other respects, the intervening defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 5 of 10
-6- 

26. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

27. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph. 

28. The intervening defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations in the first sentence. In all other respects, the intervening 

defendant denies the allegations in this paragraph and denies that application of BCRA to 

plaintiffs’ alleged intended activities would deprive them of their constitutional rights in any 

manner. 

Count 1

29. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

30. Denied. 

31. Denied. 

Count 2

32. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

33. Denied. 

34. Denied. 

Count 3

35. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

36. Denied. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 6 of 10
-7- 

37. Denied. 

Count 4

38. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

39. Denied. 

40. Denied. 

Count 5

41. Denied. 

42. Denied. 

Count 6

43. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

44. Denied. 

45. Denied. 

Count 7

46. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

47. Denied. 

48. Denied. 

Count 8

49. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

50. Denied. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 7 of 10
-8- 

51. Denied. 

Count 9

52. In response to this paragraph, the intervening defendant incorporates his responses 

contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this answer. 

53. Denied. 

54. Denied. 

The intervening defendant denies any and all allegations of the Amended 

Complaint not expressly admitted herein to which a response is required. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

First Affirmative Defense 

To the extent principles of res judicata preclude the plaintiffs from asserting any of the 

claims set forth in the Amended Complaint, those claims should be dismissed. 

Second Affirmative Defense 

To the extent principles of collateral estoppel preclude the plaintiffs from relitigating any factual or legal issues relevant to the claims set forth in the Amended 

Complaint, those factual and legal issues should be deemed conclusively adjudicated for 

purposes of this action. 

Third Affirmative Defense 

To the extent plaintiffs lack standing with respect to any claim, that claim should be 

dismissed. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense 

To the extent any claim is not currently ripe for adjudication, that claim should be 

dismissed. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 8 of 10
-9- 

Fifth Affirmative Defense 

To the extent plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief 

can be granted, it should be dismissed. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based upon these answers and affirmative defenses, the intervening defendant 

respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment as follows: 

(a) Dismissing plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in its entirety, on the merits, and with 

prejudice; 

(b) Denying plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief in their entirety and 

entering judgment for defendants and intervening defendants; 

(c) Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may find to be just and equitable. 

Dated this 15th day of May 2009. Respectfully submitted, 

 /s Randolph D. Moss 

Roger M. Witten (D.C. Bar No. 163261) 

Shane T. Stansbury 

Lauren E. Baer 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

399 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Tel.: (212) 230-8800 

Fax: (212) 230-8888 

E-mail: roger.witten@wilmerhale.com 

Seth P. Waxman (D.C. Bar No. 257337) 

Randolph D. Moss (D.C. Bar No. 417749) 

Francesco Valentini (D.C. Bar. No. 986769) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Tel.: (202) 663-6000 

Fax: (202) 663-6363 

E-mail: randolph.moss@wilmerhale.com 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 9 of 10
-10- 

Donald J. Simon (D.C. Bar No. 256388) 

SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, 

ENDRESON & PERRY LLP 

1425 K Street. N.W., Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tel.: (202) 682-0240 

Fax: (202) 682-0249 

Email: dsimon@sonosky.com 

Fred Wertheimer (D.C. Bar No. 154211) 

DEMOCRACY 21 

1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 500 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Tel.: (202) 429-2008 

Fax: (202) 293-2660 

E-mail: FWertheimer@democracy21.org 

Counsel for Intervenor-Defendant 

 Representative Christopher Van Hollen, Jr.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 69 Filed 05/15/2009 Page 10 of 10