UNITED STATES COUAT OF APPfALS 

FOR OISTR~i OF COLUMBIA CIACU1T 

c::~~~~!J RECEIVE:I) 

Wntteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peal~ 

for tbe 

iJBt~tritt of QColumbia QCirmit 

GARY E. JOHNSON; JAMES P. GRAY Case No. 12-

and GARY JOHNSON 2012, INC., -------'-'-----

Petitioners 

vs. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Respondents. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW 

Gary E. Johnson, James P. Gray and Gary Johnson 2012, Inc., each of whose 

interests are identical in the matter and therefore it is practicable for them to join 

together in this petition, and pursuant to section 90 11 (a) of the Internal Revenue 

Code, 26 U.S.C. §9011(a), and Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, hereby petitions this Court for review of final determination and action of 

the Federal Election Commission, In the Matter of Final Determination on Eligibility 

and Entitlement for General Election Public Funds - Governor Gary Johnson and , 

Judge James Gray, FEC No. LRA 905 (Sept. 18, 2012) ("FEC Final 

Determination"). A copy of the FEC Final Determination is attached to this Petition 

as Exhibit 1. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9011(a) and 28 U.S.C 

§2343. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 1 of 5

(Page 1 of Total)
Gary E. Johnson is the former Governor of the State ofNew Mexico, a 

resident of that state, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party for the office of 

President of the United States. James P. Gray is a retired judge of the Superior 

Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, and is the nominee of the 

Libertarian Party for Vice President of the United States. Their authorized 

campaign committee is Plaintiff Gary Johnson 2012, Inc, and it is based in Salt 

Lake City, Utah. The names of Johnson and Gray will appear this November as 

candidates for president and vice president on the ballots of not less than 4 7 states 

and the District of Columbia. 

Defendant FEC is the government agency with the obligation under the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26. U.S.C. §900 1, et seq. to disburse 

pre-general election federal funds to candidates. 

On May 5, 2012, Plaintiff Johnson received the nomination of the 

Libertarian Party for President of the United States, and Plaintiff Gray received the 

nomination of the Libertarian Party for Vice President of the United States. The 

scheme for pre-general election funding for third party candidates is set forth in 26 

U.S.C.§9004 (a)(2)(A)1 which provides, in its entirety, that, "[t]he eligible 

candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments 

under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an amount which bears the same ratio 

to the amount allowed under paragraph (1) for a major party as the number of 

popular votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such 

candidate, in the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of 

popular votes received by the candidates for President of the major parties in the 

preceding presidential election." Johnson is an "eligible candidate" within the 

ambit of this section, as that term is defined in §9002(4) and §9003(a) and (c). 

1

All further statutory references are to 26 U.S.C., unless otherwise noted. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 2 of 5

(Page 2 of Total)
On May 8, 2012, through counsel, Petitioners Johnson, Gray and their 

authorized campaign committee Gary Johnson 20 12, Inc. applied by letter to the 

FEC for public funds for the general election, asserting their entitlement to such 

funding under §9004 (a)(2)(A). On June 11, 2012, at the FEC's request, Johnson 

and Gray sent a separate letter to the FEC requesting funding. Subsequently, on 

June 27, 2012, also at the FEC's request, Johnson and Gray sent the FEC a Letter 

Agreement in connection with their application. The request included a request for 

an extension of time, and subsequently the FEC granted this time extension. On 

September 18, 2012 the Commission acted to deny the Petitioners' request for 

General Election funding. This action directly and adversely impacts Petitioners. 

Johnson, Gray and Gary Johnson 20 12, Inc. seek relief from the 

Commission's action on the grounds that it is arbitrary, capricious, in excess of the 

Commission's statutory authority, and otherwise not in accordance with law. 

Accordingly, Petitioners request that this Court hold unlawful, vacate and set aside 

the FEC Final Determination and issue a writ of mandate, or other appropriate 

relief, directing it to immediately (prior to the November 6, 2012 election) disburse 

to Petitioners the sums they are entitled to under the law for general election 

funding. 

Gary E. Johnson 

James P. Gray 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. 

280 South 400 West 

Suite 200 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

October 16, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

• 

ul Rolf Jensen~,...,.;?~""&·, 

CounsfroJ Record 

JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, APC, Trial Lawyers 

650 Town Center Drive, 1ih Floor. 

Costa Mesa, California (714) 662-5538 

(714) 662-5528 

Counsel to Gary E. Johnson, James P. Gray and 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. 

*Application for Admission filed concurrently herewith 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 3 of 5

(Page 3 of Total)
UNtiED STATES,COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIACU1T I OCT 1 7 2012 ] 

RECEIVED 

Wniteb ~tate!1 QCourt of ~peal!1 

for tbe 

Jli11trirt of QColumbia QCirmit 

GARY E. JOHNSON; JAMES P. GRAY Case No. 12- 12-1418 

and GARY JOHNSON 2012, INC., --------

Petitioners 

vs. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Respondents. 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and D.C. Circuit Rule 

26.1, Plaintiffs Gary E. Johnson, James P. Gray and Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. state as follows: 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. is a nonprofit, non-stock, incorporated campaign committee 

established under the Federal Election Act and authorized by Gary E. Johnson as his principal 

campaign committee. It has no parent company, and has not issued any shares or debt securities 

to the public; thus no publicly-held &-;:;er~~ / 

Gary E. Johnson Paul Rolf Jensen* ~ .../..,--. 

James P. Gray Counsel of_Bg:eora 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. JENSEN & ASSCfCIATES, APC, Trial Lawyers 

280 South 400 West 650 Town Center Drive, 12th Floor 

Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California (714) 662-5538 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (714) 662-5528 

October 16, 2012 Counsel to Gary E. Johnson, James P. Gray and 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. 

*Application for Admission filed concurrently herewith 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 4 of 5

(Page 4 of Total)
r~~li~O SiATtS COURT OF APPEALS 

__EISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

ocr 112012 

L I 

RECEIVED 

Wniteb ~tate~ <!Court of ~peal~ 

for tbe 

lli~tritt of <!Columbia <!Circuit 

GARYE.JOHNSON;JAMESP.GRAY CaseNo.12- 12-1418 and GARY JOHNSON 2012, INC., _ ____.~____....___..__~--

Petitioners 

vs. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Respondents. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Paul Rolf Jensen, hereby certify that copies of the following documents: 

Petition for Review 

Corporate Disclosure Statement 

Declaration of James P. Gray 

Emergency Motion 

have been served via first-class mail, postage prepaid, this 16th day of October 2012, upon the 

following parties: 

Anthony Herman, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

999 "E" Street, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

October 16, 2012 

The Hon. Eric Holder 

Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 5 of 5

(Page 5 of Total)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

VIA ELECTRONIC & CERTIFIED MAIL 

Paul Rolf Jensen 

Jensen & Associates, APC 

650 Town Center Drive, Twelfth Floor 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

SEP .2 4 2012 

BY: ~Qy-~\-·\~ d cuJ 

September 18, 2012 

Re: Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray (LRA 905) 

Dear Mr. Jensen: 

The Commission has considered the response filed on behalf of your clients, 

Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, the nominees of the Libertarian Party for 

the offices of President and Vice President to the Commission's initial determination set 

forth in the Notice- Initial Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement. On 

September 18,2012, the Commission made a final determination that Governor Johnson 

and Judge Gray do not meet all applicable conditions for eligibility to receive payments 

under 11 C.P.R. § 9004.2, and therefore are not entitled to receive any pre-election 

payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a) and 

11 C.F .R. § 9004.2. 

Enclosed is a Statement of Reasons that sets forth the legal and factual basis for 

the Commission's final determination. See 11 C.P.R. § 9005.1. Judicial review of the 

Commission's determination is available pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9011. If you have any 

questions regarding the Commission's determination, you may contact me at (202) 694-

1650. 

Enclosure 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 1 of 36

(Page 6 of Total)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Final Determination on Eligibility and 

Entitlement for General Election Public 

Funds - Governor Gary Johnson and 

Judge James Gray 

) LRA 905 

) 

) 

) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on September 18, 2012, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to take the following actions in the above-captioned 

matter: 

1. Make a final determination that Governor Gary Johnson and Judge 

James Gray do not meet all applicable conditions for eligibility to 

receive payments under 11 C.P.R. §9004.2, and are not entitled to 

receive any pre-election payments of public funds for the general 

election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a) and 11 C.P.R. § 9004.2. 

2. Approve the Statement of Reasons, as recommended in the General 

Counsel's Memorandum dated August 29, 2012, subject to replacing 

"twice" with "in two ways" on page 7 as agreed to via email. 

3. Approve the appropriate letter. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the ommission 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 2 of 36

(Page 7 of Total)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Governor Gary Johnson and 

Judge James Gray 

) 

) 

) 

LRA # 905 

STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF FINAL DETERMINATION ON 

ELIGIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENT 

I. SUMMARY OF FINAL DETERMINATION 

The Federal Election Commission ("Commission") made a final determination on 

September 18, 2012, that Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, the nominees of 

the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, are not 

entitled to receive any pre-election payments of public funds for the general election 

pursuant to 26 U.S. C.§ 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. See 11 C.F.R. § 9005.1(b)(l). 

The candidates do not meet the requirements for pre-election payments of public funds 

because neither the Libertarian Party nor these individual candidates received 5% or more 

of the vote in the previous presidential general election. See 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2), 

9002(7) and (8); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. This Statement of Reasons sets 

forth the legal and factual basis for the Commission's final determination. 

II. BACKGROUND 

On June 15, 2012, Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, (the 

"candidates"), the nominees of the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice 

President, respectively, submitted a letter of candidate and committee agreements and 

certifications ("9003 letter") applying for public funds for the general election. 

Attachment 1. In a letter dated June 14, 2012 accompanying the candidates' 9003 letter, 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 3 of 36

(Page 8 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page2 

counsel argues that the candidates are entitled to receive public funds under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) in the amount of$747,115.34. 1 Attachment 1. 

Commission staff informed counsel that the 9003 letter was deficient in several 

respects, and provided a draft letter for the candidates to complete and submit. The 

candidates submitted an amended 9003 letter dated June 27, 2012, which was received on 

July 5, 2012. Attachment 2. The amended 9003 letter omitted information identifying 

the person entitled to receive payments and the campaign's designated depository, which 

had been included in the original 9003 letter. The Commission concluded that, taken 

together, the 9003 letters are sufficient and the candidates have met all applicable 

conditions for eligibility to receive payments under 11 C.P.R. § 9003.1 and 9003.2. 

The Commission initially concluded, however, that the candidates have not met 

all applicable requirements of 11 C.F .R. § 9004.2 and are therefore not eligible to receive 

pre-election payments of public funds. On August 2, 2012, the Commission made an 

initial determination that Governor Johnson and Judge Gray are not entitled to receive 

any pre-election payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. See 11 C.F.R. § 9005.l(b)(l); Attachment 4. 

The Commission notified the candidates of the initial determination by letter 

dated August 6, 2012. The candidates responded by letter dated August 14, 2012, and 

stated that they "disagree with your initial decision for the reasons stated in our attorney's 

Prior to submitting the 9003 letter, counsel contacted the Commission by letter dated May 8, 2012, 

which set forth the same arguments. Attachment 3. Counsel subsequently informed Commission staff that 

his letter was not an advisory opinion request, but was intended to be a precursor to an application for 

public funds, and that he expected that staff would contact him to inform him of what was required in an 

application. Staff contacted him and refetTed him to 11 C.F.R. part 9003. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 4 of 36

(Page 9 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA905 

Page 3 

letter, however, we have nothing further to submit and request that you immediately issue 

your final determination." Attachment 5. 

III. FINAL DETERMINATION- CANDIDATES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO 

PRE-ELECTION PUBLIC FUNDS 

The Commission has considered the arguments incorporated by reference in the 

candidate's response to the initial determination. It now makes a final determination that 

Governor Johnson and Judge Gray, the Libertarian Party nominees for the offices of 

President and Vice President, respectively, are not entitled to receive any pre-election 

payments of public funds for the general election in 2012. In summary, neither the 

Libertarian Party nor these individual candidates received 5% or more of the vote in the 

2008 presidential general election. See 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2), 9002(7) and (8); 

11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. The Libertarian Party is not a "minor party" 

because its candidate did not receive 5% or more of the vote in the previous presidential 

general election, and these individual candidates did not run in the previous presidential 

general election. 2 See 26 U.S.C. §§ 9004(a)(2), 9002(7) and (8); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 

9002.7, 9002.8. 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. § 9001 et. seq. ("the 

Fund Act") provides two ways that a candidate of a non-major party may be entitled to 

receive pre-election payments of public funds for the general election based on: (1) the 

performance of the candidate's party in the last presidential election, 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A); and (2) the performance of the current presidential candidate, 

The Libertarian Party's former presidential candidate, Bob Barr, received less than 5% of the 

popular vote in the 2008 presidential election. Specifically, Mr. Barr received 523,713 votes, or 0.40% of 

the popular vote in the 2008 election. See Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 2008 at 5 (Jul. 

2009). Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray did not run in the 2008 presidential election. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 5 of 36

(Page 10 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page4 

personally, in the last presidential election, 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). See also 

II C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. Neither criteria is satisfied here. 

First, the Fund Act provides that the eligible candidate of a minor party whose 

candidate in the previous presidential election received 5% or more of the popular vote is 

entitled to pre-election payments of public funds. 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A); II C.P.R. 

§ 9004.2. The Fund Act, at section 9002(7), defines the term "minor party" as a 

"political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential 

election received, as the candidate of such party, 5 percent or more but less than 25 

percent of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office." 

26 U.S.C. § 9002(7); see II C.F.R. § 9002.7. 

party: 

Section 9004(a)(2)(A) of the Fund Act applies only to candidates of a minor 

The eligible candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be 

entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an 

amount which bears the same ratio to the amount allowed under paragraph 

(1) for a major party as the number of popular votes received by the 

candidate for President of the minor party, as such candidate, in the 

preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular 

votes received by the candidates for President of the major parties in the 

preceding presidential election. 

26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). See also 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(b). Pursuant 

to this provision, a minor party's nominees are entitled to at least 5% and up to nearly 

25% of the amount of public funds that major party candidates would receive. The 

Commission has stated that "[n]on-major party candidates who were not candidates for 

President in the preceding election, and who wish to qualify for pre-election funding in 

the next following presidential election, can become eligible only as candidates of a 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 6 of 36

(Page 11 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA905 

PageS 

minor party." See Advisory Opinion ("AO'·') AO 2002-01 (Fulani) (Entitlement to preelection funding as a minor party under section 9004(a)(2)(A) may only be determined by 

the vote totals received by that party in the previous presidential election), AO 1996-22 

(Perot). 

The candidates in this case do not meet the requirements to receive pre-election 

payments under section 9004(a)(2)(A) because the Libertarian Party is not a minor party. 

Rather, the Libertarian Party is a "new party" because its presidential candidate in 2008 

received only 0.40% of the popular vote, so it is neither a major party nor a minor party. 

See 26 U.S.C. § 9002(7) and (8); 11 C.F.R. § 9002.7, 9002.8. Unless the presidential 

candidate of a new party qualifies for pre-election funding under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(B), see infra, a new party's ticket can qualify only for post-election funding, 

and then only if that ticket receives at least 5% of the total votes in the current 

presidential election. 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(3). 

Second, a candidate may receive pre-election payments of public funds based on 

his or her individual performance in the preceding presidential election. If the individual 

who is the nominee of a minor or new party in the current presidential election was also a· 

presidential candidate of any party, or no party, in the previous presidential general 

election, and received 5o/o or more but less than 25% of the total popular votes received 

by all candidates, then that candidate and his or her running mate are entitled to preelection payments. See 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(a) and (c); see 

also AO 1996-22 (Perot) (Because Perot received over 5o/o of the popular vote in 1992, 

he would be eligible for pre-election funding in 1996 ifhe obtained the nomination of 

any non-major party and tnet the other conditions for eligibility.) 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 7 of 36

(Page 12 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 6 

The candidates here do not meet the requirements to receive pre-election 

payments under section 9004(a)(2)(B) because Governor Johnson was not a candidate in 

the 2008 presidential general election, and thus, could not and did not receive 5% or more 

of the vote. 

Counsel does not dispute that the candidates are ineligible for funding under 

section 9004( a)(2)(B), based on the candidates' individual past performance. Instead, 

counsel argues that the candidates are entitled to receive public funds under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) in the amount of$747,115.34, which is .81% of the $92,241,400 a major 

party candidate would receive, because the Libertarian nominee in 2008 received ".81% 

of the average vote of the major party candidates." Attachment 1 at 2. Counsel contends 

that nothing in section 9004(a)(2)(A) "imposes a 5% threshold" and that the 5% threshold 

only applies to section 9004(a)(2)(B). ld. Moreover, counsel contends that the 

definitions of "candidate" and "minor party" in 26 U.S.C. § 9002(2) and (7) are only 

applicable to 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B) and are "not relevant to" 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A). ld. Counsel asserts that the different language in the two subsections 

indicates that the "draftsmen of§ 9004(a)(2) intended the five percent threshold to apply 

to section (B) and not subsection (A)." ld. Counsel further argues that 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) only has meaning when the minor party candidate received less than 5% 

of the vote, and "subsection (B) governs all situations when the candidate received 5% or 

more in the preceding election." !d. 

In essence, counsel argues that Congress did not intend for the term "minor 

party," as used in section 9004(a)(2)(A), to incorporate the meaning of the term "minor 

party" as defined in section 9002(7). Counsel appears to be arguing that because section 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 8 of 36

(Page 13 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page? 

9004(a)(2)(B) already accounts for the situation where the party's nominee "received 5 

percent or more but less than 25 percent of the total number of popular votes" in the last 

election, applying the statutory definition of"minor party" to section 9004(a)(2)(A) 

would render the two subparagraphs redundant. But this argument misunderstands the 

difference between the two subparagraphs. 

Subparagraph (A) turns on the party's previous nominee's performance in the last 

election, no matter who that nominee was. The entitlement belongs to "the eligible 

candidates of a minor party in a presidential election," 26 U.S.C. 9004(a)(2)(A), with 

status as a minor party dependent, as defined in section 9002(7), on the party's past 

performance. Subparagraph (B) turns on the current nominee's individual performance 

in the past election. The entitlement belongs to "the candidate of one or more political 

parties (not including a major party) for the office of President" if the candidate "was a 

candidate for such office in the preceding presidential election'' and "received 5 percent 

or more but less than 25 percent of the" popular vote. This entitlement can be held by the 

nominee of either a minor or a new party, but not the nominee of a major party. 26 

U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). Rather than being redundant, subparagraph (B) expressly 

contemplates a scenario where an eligible candidate of a "minor party" may qualify for 

funding in two ways- based both on the minor party's performance and the candidate's 

personal performance in the prior presidential election- and adjusts the formula for 

funding according! y. 

The Commission's regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2 further clarify the statutory 

requirements for pre-election funding. Section 9004.2(b), applying 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A), provides that the eligible candidate of a "minor party whose candidate 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 9 of 36

(Page 14 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA905 

Page 8 

for the office ofPresident in the preceding election received at least 5% but less than 

25% of the vote is eligible to receive pre-election payments." 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(b) 

(emphasis added). Section 9004.2(c), applying 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B), provides that 

the nominee of a new party is entitled to funds only "if he or she received at least 5% but · 

less than 25% of the total popular vote in the preceding election" (emphasis added). 

Moreover, the Commission has interpreted the section 9004( a)(2)(B) entitlement as 

determined by the candidate's personal past performance in the prior presidential 

election. See AO 1996-22 (Determining that Ross Perot would be entitled to pre-election 

payments of public funds in the 1996 general election based on his performance as an 

independent candidate in the 1992 general election, assuming other eligibility 

requirements were met). The Commission's long-standing interpretation is far more 

consistent with the statutory text than counsel's interpretation, which would read out of 

the statute a defined term where it makes a practical and significant difference. 

Consequently, because the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee in the 2008 

general election received less than 5% of the total popular vote in that election, the 

Libertarian Party is a "new party," and its nominees in the 2012 presidential election have 

no pre-election entitlement to public funds under 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A). Moreover, 

because Governor Gary Johnson was not a candidate for President in the 2008 general 

election, neither he nor his running mate, Judge James Gray, have any pre-election 

entitlement to public funds under 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission has made a final determination that 

Goven1or Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray do not meet all applicable conditions for 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 10 of 36

(Page 15 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 9 

eligibility to receive payments under 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2, and are not entitled to receive 

any pre-election payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. 

Attachments 

1 9003 Letter with cover letter dated June 14,2012 submitted by Governor Gary 

Johnson and Judge James Gray 

2 Amended 9003 Letter 

3. Letter from Paul Rolf Jensen to Anthony Herman dated May 8, 2012. 

4. Notice- Initial Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement (approved August 2, 

2012) 

5. Letter from Gary Johnson to the Commission dated August 14, 2012 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 11 of 36

(Page 16 of Total)
JENSEN & ASSOCfATES, APe ~::G/·~ 

,. ...... 

l ' ~ .: 

14 June 2012 

Anthony Hennan, Esq., General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

999 "E" Stree~ N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Mr. Herman, 

650 Tow .. Ct:;.Ttlt OltiVI: • TwEL.I"l'~ F~ooo• • Cosu MUoA, c. 02626 

1·.· . i ..; '.li. :·~ 

·I 

1714) 662·5526 VO•Ct • 1714) 700·2!2.1 Fu 

Via FedEx #8564 3929 6133 

Further to my letter to you of May 8, 2012, please find enclosed a letter and certification in 

accordance with your regulations from my clients, Governor Gary Johnson, and Judge James 

Gray, the nominees of the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice-President. With 

that, and this letter, they apply for general election funding. 

26 U.S.C.§9004 (a)(2)(A) provides that, "[tJhe eligible candidates of a minor party in a 

presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an 

amount which bears the same ratio to the amount allowed under paragraph (1) for a major party 

as the number of popular votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such 

candidate, in the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular votes 

received by the candidates for President of the major parties in the preceding presidential 

election ... 

There is nothing in this subsection that imposes a 5% threshold; the next subsection is where that 

floor is imposed in order to receive funding. Likewise, the language of the next subsection, 

(a)(2)(B) refers to instances where the candidate was also a candidate for President in the 

preceding presidentiaJ election-thus additionally differentiating subsection (A) from subsection 

(B). Governor Johnson is an "eligible candidate" within the ambit of subsection (A) as that term 

is defined in §9002(4) and §9003(a) and (c). With regard to the term "candidate" in §9002(2), 

as opposed to ''eligible candidate" in §9002(4), we believe that tennis applicable only to §9004 

(a)(2)(R) and not relevant to (a)(2)(A). For the same reason, we aver that the defmition §9002 

(7) of 11minor party'' is only relevant to §9004 (a)(2)(B) and not relevant to (a)(2)(A). 

~a:IQ\MilQt \ r;----

&7 ·'·~ 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 12 of 36

(Page 17 of Total)
Anthony Herman, Esq. 

14June2012 

Page two 

In summation, we submit that the draftsmen of §9004(a)(2) intended the five percent threshold to 

apply to subsection (B) and cot subsection (A) and accordingly made this clear by the use of 

different language in the two provisions. Put differently, it would render subsection (A) utterly 

meaningless to apply the 5% threshold to its grant of funds, because subsection (B) governs all 

situations when the candidate received 5% or more in the preceding election. Ergo, subsection 

(A) only has meaning in circumstances when the minor party candidate received less than 5%; no 

other reading of subsection (A) allows it to have any applicability. Statutes must be read so as to 

give them effect, and interpretations that have the effect of vjtiating the effect of a statute are 

improper. Wau v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259,267 (1981 ); Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d. 485,492 (D.C. 

Cir. 1982). 

Accordingly, and based on the plain meaning of §9004(a)(2), The Johnson/Gray campaign is 

entitled to funding at this time. 

In 2008, the Democrat nominee received 69,498,215 votes; the Republican nominee received 

59,498,240; the Libertarian nominee received 523,713 votes. The average of the two major party 

votes is 64,498,228. The Libertarian nominee thus received 523,713/64,498,228, or .81% of the 

average vote of the major party candidates. 

This cycle, the major party candidates will each receive $92,241,400.00. Based on this, 

Governor Johnson's position is that he is entitled to receive .81% of that number, which is 

$747,115.34. The Governor, by this letter, hereby requests this amount be disbursed to his 

campaign forthwith for the reasons set forth above. 

Sincerely yours, .··· '· 

/··~.~ ........ ·:·' ;..' .... :· ... , . j· , .1 • t .' I .. .,.& .'J w' 1 [ ,· 1 , .r /,·- f.•r'_.f ,. f '--

<-. AUL ROLF JENSEN ( · 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 13 of 36

(Page 18 of Total)
June: J 1, 2012 

QlrolinD C. Hunter, Chaihnla 

Fedaal 

90~ .E. Sueet,. 

Elf:etioD 

N.W. 

~ 

Wash..inaton.. D.C. 20463 

Deav-~ Chain:Dal: 

p.1 

lu prcs:idtmial and vic~dead~ t:abdid* ~co~ elicible tO roceivc 

Prcsldeotial geDCl'll t~oa tcmds, J ce:mty 104 agrco 10 the t'ollowlng praYbio.a:s as pcaoribcd M 

I 1 CFR. ~9003.1 amd 11 CFR §9003.2. 

I. In ~ '9.itb ll CFR. 19003.1 (a)(l) 1IDd 11 CFR §900J.Z(b), r cottify lba:t 

we .-o seckina the DOmiaec:s mlbc Ubeltlriaa Party fbr dectian to dwJ Of5c:c of 

Presickm end Vl~Piesidcm. r~vd,y, lnd have q.Zitied. ~ appc:c on 1U 

baJlou for the acaeraJ cJcdica in a or mere s-.s, 8DCl baaby req&JC~& punu:a.trt 

to I J CPR.f9003.l(a)(l) tbal you extend l!le deadfJne fen CIUI subral.aiao orlhls 

n:q~at to the ckto you ~i\'e rhi1 JeU.of. 

ll 1D ~ wilh U CFR. fSIOOJ.I(bXl>.I ec~t:Dowkdp that J have the blwcS= 

of~ 1hat cUsbur.Mmems made by I'M, 11M anr ot my •whori2:ed ~mmittee(s) or l&l'll'IJ aro qualified~~ u defined zr 11 CFR 

§9003.5. 

UJ. Punwan 10 l 1 CFit §~3.1(b)(2), r IA4 my ~~s) wl\leamply 

~tit the documoedldioa ~ 1e1 fimtJ in J I CFR §9003.J. 

rv. Upou tbD n:qw:tl oflbr: ~ ( IIDd Jll)' l\ltfJ.oti%;ed commihce(s) wiJl 

supply m Qplaatioa oflbo Ci~ll ~ .ay cfiebanemoalll*le by nil! ar 

m:r ~ eommiae«•> IPd lbcc:ampetp u prescribed b:l 11 CfR 

§9003.1(b)('). 

v. bJ ~rdace wiUJ J 1 crR. §9003.1(bX4), J lftd ~ ~ ~~> 

aeree ~keep ad tunalsh 1o dle ~ .u ~Uidotl rclt.t:iac 1o ~ 

IDd d~ iDcludixlllll)' boob.~ (mc1ud1Jig bl4k ~ foraJl 

&.tmUnt~) Ill doc:umcatllian ~by IR, trdadiDg those required I() be 

ruaitcWaed UDder If CPR 9003.5 md otba la!vanadotl i1r1& diC Commbllon may 

rcqoc:st. 

r. UJ 

... 

, 

~, "' ..... 

... 

~ .... 

:(J .. ' 

) .. 

:· <r __ ._l~- .?~a __a__.. o~ • .. •.. 

;.;.tO-SGG-SOS 8601{.0 en £1 unr 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 14 of 36

(Page 19 of Total)
JUN-S~-~UI~ 1Ut UL:~1 rn Kl"ltL~UN ~VMYHNY wun •~ 1.: 11:·.:.sa \.tfWY rH~ NU. ~UlJbbtijJo 

&496502603 

t'. lit 

p.2 

VI. NJ ,Pa'O\'Ubl at l J CPR §9003.l('bX4).llrld my~ coa:uniUH(a) ...-c=1o 

U., 

and feCIOiptaloc~ 

ADd tunriabto lho 

Ill)'~~~ 

CommiasiulliJ~ 

(illdudlaa !.1111: 

rolarint., 

reerxdl 

~ 

lor .n aceo~~ a1J d~n:qnijl!ic!WW. JGCdm1 (intludia& lbo• zequired rtJ 

be maiznaloed uradclr J J CfR §9003.$}. •d Olblr ~ rhlr dlo 

Commbsf.aa m&yftlqUielt lfJ OflllJ~odzecl CGJDD~it~Do{l) •mtaJ OI'WCI 

«m\puterbed kdbrmldoD eoatlillJ"'IIlfJ of lise ...-.of daa lisSed ia l J 

0'1t §9003.i(t.), 1tae commitf~o;;;fi:PI povldc CDiftpuaaiud JDipdlc IQCidia..ucb 

as~ taprsar Dlllftldc ~' CIODtafnlna, tbo~ labmltion 

.c the timet specified In 11 CfJl G9007 .. 1(b)(l) dad II1Cd t11a ~of 1 I 

CFR f900J.6(b). tlpocuequecc,.~ expJatnt,. tile compiiCI!r.,atm's 

so4wue capabilidn lbaD be povfded 1Dd "PXh pe110D11el u 1nt NICCISIUY to 

apte 

in!olmldiat~ 

die opwadon 

~or 

of 

D1l.bualr.ed 

lise oompur«~'•IO:ftwaro 

tr, tbo comml~s) 

a 

lful1l 

lbc 

be~ 

~ 

tl'lllilabh. 

VlL As presen1aed •• II CFR §900l.l(bX5), (lad my~ tX.PIUDIUcc(IJ) will 

oblaila art 1\mish 110 lba Coznmi.llica upon ftiCJ'Ia'C an ~an rel.atine to 

twm received and dbb~ D*k OG my ball by Gtllcrpodtbl 

a:ammictea aocl Orpnizldcxas uaoci3Rd with me. 

VUL land my &Wlboli!l:l4 ~I) sbiU pczmiliD ~ &Dd muah:m!im pursuDn' 

CD l I arJt 19007 af.U ~ IDd dJ~ iochxtiaalbose ftlldeby ~ 

aiJ autharizecl co..Unco(s) aal ~ qar or J*'IOII &u:charized co mako 

a:pcl\~...,.. nor behllt or cm&lullr of • ~ commiltec(J). I uul nr;y 

~~·) sJWiaJmprovidc., mtaial requbed m~ 

\VftiL &B ..ur. l&M:Idpli<m, or eqmfudozl. J 8114 fltt t'#bodnd camml:cr.ec(s) 

lbaU fagilitarc \be audh by makiD8 IVIU&Wo mODe CtDtraiiOCIIiou. omco ~ 

an4 

recordsaad 

sball P111 

1\JCb 

aay 

~ 

11D0t.mU .rcqu5ted. 

u 11e aecasary 

to be repaid 

1o ccaducc 

urMb J 

1l1D 

1 CPK 

ndlt 

,.-t 

..t 

0007. 

~ 

IX. Pursula1 ~ J I CfR §9003.l(b)(7).1hc pcaon li.slad belaw is anitlod to ICCiive 

paOfUICl!l tan die timd GQJil)'~ whidl will br ~.., lht: u..d 

dapocitoly.11ttdclll haw ~p3~ • ., c.mplip ~ieoly. A1l1 ~ Ia 

me ~-roq'Ofled l'.f dUsi~ saa.u DO« be eaccti~ ..u wbaUir.Gd t.o 

1M Comm!aioD lA alcucr sipcd. by • ar dac Treasuzw otmy autbadl::l;d 

priacipaJ campaip MrtlmftiM. 

4SS fat SWb TsmpiQ 

~I dt gty. Utob H}Jl 

Gary Johnson 2012 

yyJ0-S66-SOS 

"''! ~ ,. •' .•• ·,. \ . '.4 ~"' .i.\:li.4.;. - -...--·-· 

~ u - ~ .!:t._,_. 

RSO 11.0 en E t unr 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 15 of 36

(Page 20 of Total)
JUN-Jc-~UJ~ JUt U!;j~ ~n KlNlt~ uun~HHY _,., ........... ._ ~,..,. 

~H~ NU HUJj~~Hjj~ 

9.4Sti502603 

X. 

~ 

r II8JTJe U.t J IDCI my~ CIOl'DIIIiuoe(t) sial I COIQPb' with lhe appliQblc; 

o£2 t1SC §431, d ~eq.: 2 USC §9001. et !IOC(..: ..s the 

c~·· Reet•Jwtlons • 11 CPR s-ts 101)..400 • .- ~t-9012.. 

XL f a,n:e tbllliDd my liColhzd ~f) d&all J1111 any civil pooallia 

iJdac!cd In a CODcUiadoc ~or CJt!la .-be impoSed~ 2 uec §437a 

agaiast me. or eitbcr l1f &at, my IISJtbori2#! coewt&itu(1). or any~ lbawf. 

Y. u~ 

p.3 

XIl ~10 ll Cf1l§900l.l(b)(l0),ay~oo~~or 

cfiseft~ by 111e Of 1111 I'Utboriad cammitll:lc(s) will be prepued in a GSIIIIa 

~ 

wbicb cmuaht tbe~rcW ~ CJf 11 ~edbyc:ta.d 

of1bo Oftl ~ otdlo commcrcia1 tD be~ ill lille 21 tJLtbo 

wnialf b~ iaten'll. or ilcap.bla oft.mg viewed by dedancl ~ 

imfaind lndMcfalls via.., companble ,.,.,..ttdiDDJo"' 10 line 21 ofrM 

ved!CGl b1~ flderval. . 

1 furfbtl ~. UDder~ ofpedury of the t.ws of the Unittd States. tbc nekhct 1, 

I'IDI' ray wthDrized commiuD£(s) '-IDcarred. aar WID tt ax:w. quetifbtiS curprl84 ..,.._ m ~ ofchD ~~to wbicb 1M dlglblc clddatet at a,.._ pat)' n Clllirled 

uniScr 11 CFR 9004.1. I aSao ao ccmt)rtbat. ao OCIIItn"budoas 10 ck:fiay quiU.ftecl «MMpai&ft 

~will bc~by motif my~ ~1). except ID dse~Ifcry. chiS 

~· qwrJI4cd aaus-ian ~ ~ ~ lh.t ..... ~e.&UI ra::.tiwd &y me :tmrn 

tlA: Fund UDder J l ao1t. 9004.2. 

I furthc:r ~ \IMQ- peaaJty at~ oftbe·II!Wa ore. (Juked Sla&w daat 1 win DOt 

Jaxrwi!111Y 

~ 

make SKpC*tih-a jtcm my penoaal taadl ar A-om die pcnoe.l AMCis or azlJ' 

~ 

.&.mily, m ea~n with my campeip & 1fte afllcc affra!dear fiDIJJt1t vice 

m aeew~sso.ooo.oo iDtbo ~ 

.,.,to-sss-sos eso:t..o ~l el unr 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 16 of 36

(Page 21 of Total)
-· _JUN-?.7-2012 WED 11:10 AM RTNIELSON COMPANY 

Jul'\2?1206;59a Gray 

Jvn Z? 12 07J09e Ka~• Prusaak 

Fodera! Blccdoza Commission 

999 B Stfect, NW 

Wl!biqtoo. DC 20463 

Dear CommiuSooc:n: 

FAX NO. 8013556335 

. 9496502603 

506-998•Dl4f4f 

Purwant to 26 U.S.C § SG03 a J I c.F.R. f 9003.1. thill.zta ~ =tifies 11\at as the nominea atlbe Ltbcrtlriaa Party tbr Ptaideut aad Vice PlesideGt, we ad our 

authorized committc:a (coUCdi~ly "'M:" or 'CUI") awee to CIC1!Dply 11Wth the following p~oas .sel forth io ll CF.R. § 9003.l(b): 

( 1) We bYe rt. bwdc:D of proviDe that ctls~ made by us e>r our apts ~ 

qualified etmpaip expaoses u defizled in J J c.F .It § 9002.11. 

(2) We will ccmpJy wldl tho~ requii'CIDIImll ~forth • 11 C.f.k. 

§ 9003,5. 

~ 

(3) We will pnvide an~ in addld<* ro ~ widt 1bc dnaunt#l!ion 

ofthc coanecdaa ~my ~tw naade by usiDUl the 

cvapeip if Rq~ by dlle Commi.s1ioa. 

(4) We will bep IDC1 l\lndlh to lbc Commil8icm aU doc:umeatlricm ~latiac to 

~ IDd disbUnr.meals iachldifte any boots. rrcDids (mcludiJJC boat fW.OJ'ds for 

alt ~), aU documeata.tiall rcquiml by d:ds ~ (mcltldiAaJ ~required 

tc 

~ 

be maimirmd Uddu 11 C.P.R. f 9003.S), 8nd odD iaformadcc 1bat tb8 

ma7 reqiJMl. If' we t!Wacai1 or usc COID'Pltc:ril)eld tDfixmatian ooqtalnJng 

my orlbc ~of dlta liswi!D ll C.P.R. § 9003.6(a), the cam~DJ~ will 

provkk ~ or opdcaJ media <aacai1Wl&1be computt.dzcd lutamuldon lblt 

meet~ 1M n:q'UircmallS of 11 C.F ..1t § 9003.&(b) IS me 'times .pecified iu l I C.F .R. § 

9007.J{b)(l). tJpoa requese. clocuucntadoa ~ 1hc: c:omplla'lf*m'l 

software apa},fUdec wiiJ be PIOvlded. ud such pen;lUUid as an: necc:swy 10 explain 

tbe operldon flftbe t:Omputct ~·s J()ftwan, Mdtt.lcompareriad illfonnation ~or~ b)' the oomau.i~ will abo bt mad~ avat!ablc. 

(S) We wW obrain _....lbnabh eo the Covw'askm upon~ •ll ~tatioo 

~to 1\Qds I'O:ICim md ~.-leon orrr bebal!by odJcr polidea.J 

COIIDDiteecs and Ol'poizadOIII usociat.cd wi1JJ Ul, 

(6) We Will permU .n awttt aDd cxamJrtadall pur.ant co 11 C.F.Il. pm 9007 of dJ 

receipts uu1 ~ iacludina choc made by us aDd my epa! or pcnoll 

audulriud"' m.llu: ~ on out bcba1£ We will 6.lci1i.1ato abc audit 'by makiDa avalla~e in one cmtnlllocation. offtce SJ*C, recards aJid IUCh pertODllid liS 1111 

P. 01/03 

p.2 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 17 of 36

(Page 22 of Total)
JUN-27-2012 ~ED 11:11 AH RTHIELSON COMPANY .JUn L f I' V\;f;IJVi ~ray 

~WI I '-I .1 '- U f 0 U.,.J. 

FAX NO. 8013556335 

949650'2603 "'"'"' ...... v ..... ~.., 

necessary to conduct 1be audit and cx:aaUaatioa, ancl wU1 pey my liiDOWtS ~cd 

wuJcr II C.P.R. pMt 9007. 

{7) Punuanl to II C.F.R. pat 103 aad II C.f.R. § 900S.2 abe penoo ~~below is 

entitled to rea:ive prymcats from tbe Fund oa our bcbalf. 

Name 

MaUU., Address 

City, S..te, ZD' 

Such f\Juds wiU be dq)ositcd intD chb Ustcd depoeitory: 

BaakNama 

BaJt Addrt=a 

City. State. Zip 

(8) We wiU c.omply with tb.e applicable~ of2 U.S.C. 431 et seq., 26 

U.S.C. 9001 et ~t~q-.-.1 dleCommissioQ's~ at J I C:FJl p11rts 100..)00, 

me! 9001-9012. 

(9) We will pey flti'J civil per..hitt W:luded iu a emci!iadoll ~or othcrNise 

UJ:JpoiCC! UIICicr 2 u.s.c. § 4l7a. 

( 1 0) w~ Jl8teC tt.aa ey televisiar:l c:ommtzciaJ f.I'CIIIItd Qr' dlstriblttld by Ul will 

contain dosed captioDia& of the oral c:.cnu~ oftbe -=um~i.a to be broadcalt ID liae 

2 t of' the-~ blankiDa inlawJ. or be capebJe of beiDa viewed by cb! and 

Iarina impa:ilecllndivWU&ls * my r:Dmpruable success« toebbotogy co Jfne 21 of 

the w:rtical b~ !ntavaJ. 

Addilior:laUy, purw:Wto 26 U.S.C. § 9003 ad 11 c..F.IL § 9003.1, and uadc:rpautlty of 

per;tury. we certify: 

{ l) That we btlve DOt iDcum:d aDd 'Will uo& u--:urq\lilli&d campnip expaasc& lD 

exoca oldie ap:repse ~to wbkh 1M cfi,p"lf: oand~r.s of a~ party are 

catided undrz 11 C.F ..R. § 9004.1. 

(2) Thac: no coatri1Ntio35 1D ~y quli&d umpa.i~~ have bcea or wm be 

IICCeptecl by us. ~to 1hc Cdr:DC: tha the quallti.cd ~KD ~ iDcuDcd ~c:eed 1ba agcesatz p&)'lUtlOts we reteived from the Pt:md IJQr.l.ar II Cf'.R. § 9004.2. 

0) Tblrt ~ Presidential aJ1d Vice Presldeulial IIOm.incca will 1101 ~ make 

Qpcadibm::& from QU1' pasonas ftm&'Ss or 1M pcaoul fUds of o• ~--Dmny. 

ia coanec:.tioD wf1h Olll' campisn for the aftioc of Ptelida:lt ad Viele ~ of the 

Unital StieS in c~ of$50,000 •u 1bc asgreptc. 

P. 02/03 

p.3 ,..~ 

·;.,r,~·r."' ;u., . ~. """'- .... . .. ·::-::.r, --~ " _... 3 .. .. ·.".u .............. ,. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 18 of 36

(Page 23 of Total)
JUN-27-2012 WED II :11 AM RTNfELSON COMPANY FAX NO. 8013556335 P. 03/03 

Jun '2712 08:59a Guw 9496502603 p,, 

.lun 2? 1.2 o~.aa. , • 1 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 19 of 36

(Page 24 of Total)
jENSEN & AssoCIATEs, APe .XJ~ 

650 To...,,.. Ct;~o~ntll DIIIYt: • Twr:U"''" F'1...0011 • CosTA Mts.a., CA 94!620 

1714} 662·!5!528 Vou:c: • (714) 708·2;J21 F'.u 

R May 2012 

Anthony Herman, Esq., General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

999 "E" Str~, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Mr. Hennan, 

Via FedEx #874768666937 

C) ........, "Tl c:=:» ..., ..... , .-~ 

nr:, :""• _, -. ~~-· 

- -

:::: 

-.. • .• .'"1 r·· cr. J am counsel to fanner New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and write to you on his behalf. As 

you are aware, the Governor last Saturday became the nominee of the Libertarian Party for the 

office of President of the United States. 

In one location, your website states that no third party candidate this cycle will qualify for federal 

general election public funding, because during the 2008 cycle, no third party candidate received 

5% of the vote in the general election. Notwithstanding this statement, it is our position that 

Governor Johnson IS entitled to public funding, for the reasons 1 will now outline. 

26 U.S.C.§9004 (a)(2XA) provides that, "[t]he eligible candidates of a minor party in a 

presidential election shall be entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an 

amount which bears the same ratio to the amount allowed under paragraph ( 1) for a major party 

as the number of popular votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such 

candidate, in the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular votes 

received by the candidates for President of the major panies in the preceding presidential 

election.'' 

There is nothing in this subsection that imposes a 5% threshold; the next subsection is where that 

floor is imposed in order to receive funding. Likewise, the language of the next subsection, 

(a)(2)(B) refers to instances where the candidate was also a candidate for President in the 

preceding presidential election-thus additionally differentiating subsection (A) from subsection 

(B). Governor Johnson is an ••eligible candidate" within the ambit of subsection (A} as that tenn 

is defined in §9002(4) and §9003(a} and (c). With regard to the term ucandidate" in §9002(2), 

as opposed to "eligible candidate'' in §9002(4}, we believe that ~enn is applicable only to §9004 

(a)(2)(8) and not relevant to (a)(2)(A). For the same reason, we aver that the definition §9002 

(7) of\•minor party'' is only relevant to §9004 (a)(2)(B) and not relevant to (a)(2}(A}. 

., 

r·r 

···.;· 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 20 of 36

(Page 25 of Total)
Anthony Hennan, Esq. 

8 May 2012 

Page two 

In summation, we submit that the draftsmen of §9004(a)(2) intended the five percent threshold to 

apply to subsection (B) and not subsection (A) and accordingly made this clear by the use of 

different language in the two provisions. Put differently, it would render subsection (A) utterly 

meaningless to apply the 5% threshold to its grant of funds, because subsection (B) governs all 

situations when the candidate received 5% or more in the preceding election. Ergo, subsection 

(A) only has meaning in circumstances when the minor party candidate received less than 5%; no 

other reading of subsection (A) allows it to have any applicability. Statutes must be read so as to 

give them effect, and interpretations that have the effect of vitiating the effect of a statute are 

improper. Wall v. Alaska, 45 I U.S. 259, 267 {l 981 ); Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d. 485, 492 (D.C. 

Cir. 1982). 

Accordingly, and based on the plain meaning of §9004(a)(2), Governor Johnson is entitled to 

funding at this time. 

In 2008, the Democrat nominee received 69,498,215 votes; the Republican nominee received 

59,498,240; the Libertarian nominee received 523.713 votes. The average of the two major party 

votes is 64,498,228. The Libertarian nominee thus received 523,713/64,498,228, or .81% of the 

average vote of the major party candidates. 

This cycle, the major party candidates will each receive $92,241,400.00. Based on this, 

Governor Johnson's position is that he is entitled to receive .81% of that number, which is 

$747,115.34. The Governor, by this letter, hereby requests this amount be disbursed to his 

campaign forthwith for the reasons set forth above. 

Please be so kind as to contact the undersigned immediately to discuss this request. 

. '\ J1.4' :·. ~ .. ~-~--'"' .. -· . ·. ~- -:., '2... \ •• 

-:"lo/1 • - ?e" 1'!.IJ -·~~.~ -~ 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 21 of 36

(Page 26 of Total)
FF.DERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOf\! 

\V,\SIIIl'l:f;ToN. I><'. 204(d 

VIA ELECTRONIC & CERTIFIED MAIL 

Paul Rolf Jensen 

Jensen & Associates. APC 

650 Town Center Drive, Twelfth Floor 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

August 6, 2012 

Re: Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray (LRA 905) 

Dear Mr. Jensen: 

The Commission has considered the application for general election public funds, 

including a letter of a!:,rreements and certifications ("9003 letter") and cover letter 

submitted on behalf of your clients, Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, the 

nominees of the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice President. On 

August 2, 2012. the Commission granted Governor Johnson's and Judge Gray's request 

for an extension of time to submit the 9003 Letter. The Commission also detennincd that 

taken together, the two 9003 letters submitted by Governor Johnson and Judge Gray meet 

the procedural conditions of II C.F.R. §§ 9003.1 and 9003.2. 

However, the Commission at the same time made an initial detennination that 

Governor Johnson and Judge Gray do not meet all applicable conditions for eligibility to 

receive payments under 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2, and therefore are not entitled to receive any 

pre-election payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. 

Enclosed is a Notice- Initial Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement that 

sets forth the legal and factual basis for the Commission's determination. You may 

submit, within 15 days after the Commission's initial ddennination, written legal or 

t:1ctual materials to demonstrate that the candidates have met all applicable conditions for 

eligibility to receive payments under 11 C.F.R. §9004.2, and are entitled to receivt! preelt!ction payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 l.I.S.C. 

§ 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. The Commission will consider any written legal or 

factual materials timely submitted in making its final determination. The final 

determination will be accompanied by a written statement of reasons explaining the legal 

and factual basis underlying the Commission's detem1ination. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 22 of 36

(Page 27 of Total)
Lener to P;IUJ RoJ flensen 

Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray {UV\ 905) Page 2 of2 

Enclosure 

) 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 23 of 36

(Page 28 of Total)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Governor Gary Johnson and 

Judge James Gray 

) 

) 

) 

NOTICE 

LRA # 905 

INITIAL DETERMINATION ON ELIGIBILITY AND ENTITLEMENT 

I. SUMMARY OF INITIAL DETERMI~ATION 

The Federal Election Commission ('~Commission") made an initial determination 

on August 2, 2012, that Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, the nominees of 

the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, are not 

entitled to receive any pre-election payments of public funds for the general election 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a) and 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2. See 11 C.F.R. § 9005.1 (b)(l ). 

The candidates do not meet the requirements for pre·e1ection payments of public funds 

because neither the Libertarian Party nor these individual candidates received 5% or more 

of the vote in the previous presidential general election. See 26 U .S.C. § 9004(a)(2), 

9002(7) and (8); ll C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. This Notice sets forth the legal 

and factual basis for the Commission's initial detennination. 

II. BACKGROUND 

On June 15, 2012, Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray, (the 

"candidates"), the nominees of the Libertarian Party for the offices of President and Vice 

President, respectively, submitted a letter of candidate and committee agreements and 

certifications ("9003 letter") applying for public funds for the general election. 

Attachment 1. In a letter dated June 14, 20 I 2 accompanying the candidates' 9003 letter, 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 24 of 36

(Page 29 of Total)
Govemor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 2 

counsel argues that rhe candidates are entitled to receive public funds under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) in the amount of $747, 115.34.' Attaclunent I. 

Commission staff infonned counsel that the 9003 letter was deficient in several 

respects, and provided a draft letter for the candidates to complete and submit. The 

candidates submitted an amended 9003 letter dated June 27, 2012, which was received on 

July 5, 2012. Attachment 2. 

The amended 9003 letter omitted information identifying the person entitled to 

receive payments and the campaign's designated depository, which had been included in 

the original 9003 letter, The Commission concludes that, taken together, the 9003 letters 

are sufficient and the candidates have met all applicable conditions for eligibility to 

receive pa;ments under 1 1 C.F.R. § 9003.1 and 9003.2. As set forth below, however, the 

candidates have not met all applicable requirements of 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2 and are 

therefore not eligible to receive pre-election payments of public funds. 

The Libertarian Party's fonner presidential candidate, Bob Barr, received less 

than 5% of the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election. Specifically, Mr. Barr 

received 523,713 votes, or 0.40% of the popular vote in the 2008 election. See Federal 

Election Commission, Federal Elections 2008 at 5 (Jul. 2009). Governor Gary Johnson 

and Judge James Gray did not run in the 2008 presidential election. 

Prior to submitting the:! 9003 letter, counsel contacted the Commtssion by letter dated May 8, 2012, 

which set forth the same arguments. Attachment 3. Counsel subsequently informed Commission staff that 

his Jetter was not an advisory opinion request, but was intended to be a precursor to an application for 

public funds, and that he expected that staff would contact him to infonn him ofwhat was required in an 

application. Staff contacted him and referred him to 11 C.F.R. part 9003. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 25 of 36

(Page 30 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 3 

III. INITIAL DETERMINATION- CANDIDATES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO 

PRE .. ELECTION PUBLIC FUNDS 

The Commission determines that Governor Johnson and Judge Gray, the 

Libertarian Party nominees for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, 

are not entitled to receive any pre-election payments of public funds for the general 

election in 2012 because neither the Libertarian Party nor these individual candidates 

received 5% or more of the vote in the 2008 presidential general eJection, See 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2), 9002(7) and (8); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. The Libertarian 

Party is not a ·•minor party" because its candidate did not receive 5% or more of the vote 

in the previous presidential general election, and these individual candidates did not run 

in the previous presidential general election. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 9004(a)(2), 9002(7) and 

(8)~ 11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. § 9001 et. seq. ("the 

Fund Act") provides two ways that a candidate of a non~major party may be entitled to 

receive pre-election payments of public funds for the general election based on: ( 1) the 

perfonnance of the candidate's party in the last presidential election, 26 U.S.C. 

9 9004(a)(2)(A); and (2) the pcrfonnance of the current presidential candidate, 

personally, in the last presidential election, 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). Sec also 

11 C.F.R. §§ 9004.2, 9002.7, 9002.8. Neither criteria is satisfied here. 

First, the Fund Act provides that the eligible candidate of a minor party whose 

candidate in the previous presidential election received 5% or more of the popular vote is 

entitled to pre-election payments of public funds. 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 9004.2. The Fund Act, at section 9002(7), defines the term 11minor party" as a 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 26 of 36

(Page 31 of Total)
Govemor Gary Jo}Ulson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 4 

'"political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential 

election received, as the candidate of such party, 5 percent or more but less than 25 

percent of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office." 

26 U.S.C. § 9002(7); see 11 C.P.R.§ 9002.7. 

party: 

Section 9004(a)(2)(A) of the Fund Act applies only to candidates of a minor 

The eligible candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be 

entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an 

amount which bears the same ratio to the amount allowed under paragraph 

( 1) for a major party as the number of popular votes received by the 

candidate for President of the minor party, as such candidate, in the 

preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular 

votes received by the candidates for President of the major parties in the 

preceding presidential election. 

26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). See also 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(b). Pursuant 

to this provision, a minor party's nominees are entitled to at least 5% and up to nearly 

25% of the amount of public funds that major party candidates would receive. The 

Commission has stated that "[n]on-major party candidates who were not candidates for 

President in the preceding election, and who wish to qualify for pre-election funding in 

the next following presidential election, can become eligible only a~ candidates of a 

minor party." See Advisory Opinion ("AO") AO 2002-01 (Fulani) (Entitlement to preelection funding as a minor party under section 9004(a)(2)(A) may only be determined by 

the vote totals received by that party in the previous presidential election), AO 1996-22 

(Perot). 

The candidates in this case do not meet the requirements to receive pre-election 

payments under section 9004(a)(2)(A) because the Libertarian Party is not a minor party. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 27 of 36

(Page 32 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 5 

Rather, the Libertarian Party is a "new party, because its presidential candidate in 2008 

received only 0.40% of the popular vote, so it is neither a major party nor a minor party. 

See 26 U.S.C. § 9002(7) and (8); 11 C.F.R. § 9002.7, 9002.8. Unless the presidential 

candidate of a new party qualifies for pre-election funding under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(B), see infra, a new party's ticket can qualify only for post-election funding, 

and then only if that ticket receives at least 5% of the total votes in the current 

presidential election. 26 lJ .S.C. § 9004(a)(J). 

Second, a candidate may receive pre-election payments of public funds based on 

his or her individual performance in the preceding presidential election. If the individual 

who is the nominee of a minor or new party in the current presidential election was also a 

presidential candidate of any party, or no party, in the previous presidential general 

election, and received 5% or more but less than 25% of the total popular votes received 

by all candidates, then that candidate and his or her running mate are entitled to preelection payments. See 26 U.S.C. ~ 9004(a)(2)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(a) and (c); see 

also AO 1996-22 (Perot) (Because Perot received over 5% of the popular vote in 1992, 

he would be eligible for pre-election funding in 1996 if he obtained the nomination of 

any non-major party and met the other conditions for eligibility.) 

The candidates here do not meet the requirements to receive pre-election 

payments under section 9004(a)(2)(B) because Governor Johnson was not a candidate in 

the 2008 presidential general election, and thus, could not and did not receive 5% or more 

of the vote. 

Counsel does not dispute that the candidates are ineligible for funding under 

section 9004(a)(2)(B), based on the candidates' individual past performance. Instead, 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 28 of 36

(Page 33 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 6 

counsel argues that the candidates are entitled to receive public funds under 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) in the amount of $747,115.34, which is .81 o/o of the $92,241,400 a major 

party candidate would receive, because the Libertarian nominee in 2008 received ".81% 

of the average vote of the major party candidates.'' Attachment 1 at 2. Counsel contends 

that nothing in section 9004{a)(2)(A) "imposes a 5% threshold" and that the 5% threshold 

only applies to section 9004(a)(2)(B). !d. Moreover, counsel contends that the 

definitions of "candidate" and "minor party" in 26 U .S.C. § 9002(2) and (7) are only 

applicable to 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2){8) and are "not relevant to" 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A). !d. Counsel asserts that the different language in the two subsections 

indicates that the "draftsmen of§ 9004(a)(2) intended the five percent threshold to apply 

to section (B) and not subsection (A)." /d. Counsel further argues that 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A) only has meaning when the minor party candidate received less than 5% 

of the vote, and ~'subsection (B) governs all situations when the candidate received 5% or 

more in the preceding election." !d. 

In essence, counsel argues that Congress did not intend for the tenn "minor 

party," as used in section 9004(a)(2){A), to incorporate the meaning of the tenn "minor 

party" as defined in ~ection 9002(7). Counsel appear~ to be arguing that because section 

9004(a)(2)(8) already accounts for the situation where the party's nominee ''received 5 

percent or more but less than 25 percent of the total number of popular votes" in the last 

election, applying the statutory definition of"minor party" to section 9004(a)(2){A) 

would render the two subparagraphs redundant. But this argument misunderstands the 

di ffcrence between the two subparagraphs. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 29 of 36

(Page 34 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 7 

Subparab,rraph {A) turns on the party's previous nominee's performance in the last 

election, no matter who that nominee was. The entitlement belongs to uthe eligible 

candidates of a minor party in a presidential election," 26 U.S. C. 9004(a)(2){A), with 

status as a minor party dependent, as defined in section 9002(7), on the party's past 

performance. Subparagraph (13) turns on the current nominee's individual performance 

in the past election. The entitlement belongs to "the candidate of one or more political 

parties (not including a major party) for the office of President" if the candidate uwas a 

candidate for such office in the preceding presidential election" and "received 5 percent 

or more but less than 25 percent of the" popular vote. This entitlement can be held by the 

nominee of either a minor or a new party, but not the nominee of a major party. 26 

U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). Rather than being redundant, subparagraph (B) expressly 

contemplates a scenario where an eligible candidate of a "minor party" may qualify for 

funding twice- based both on the minor party's perfmmance and the candidate's 

personal perfom1ance in the prior presidential election- and adjusts the formula for 

funding accordingly. 

The Commission's regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2 further clarify the statutory 

requirements for pre-election funding. Section 9004.2(b), applying 26 U.S.C. 

§ 9004(a)(2)(A), provides that the eligible candidate of a "minor party whose candidate 

for the office of President in the preceding election received at least 5% but less than 

25% of the vote is eligible to receive pre-election payments." 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2(b) 

(emphasis added). Section 9004.2(c), applying 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a){2)(8), provides that 

the nominee of a new party is entitled to funds only uif he or she received at least 5% but 

less than 25% of the total popular vote in the preceding election" (emphasis added). 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 30 of 36

(Page 35 of Total)
Governor Gary Jo!UJson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 8 

Moreover, the Commission has interpreted the section 9004(a)(2)(8) entitlement as 

determined by the candidate's personal past perfonnance in the prior presidential 

election. See AO 1996-22 (Determining that Ross Perot would be entitled to pre-election 

payments of public funds in the 1996 general election based on his performance as an 

independent candidate in the 1992 general election, assuming other eligibility 

requirements were met). The Commission's long-standing interpretation is far more 

consistent with the statutory text than counsel's interpretation, which would read out of 

the statute a defined term where it makes a practical and significant difference. 

Consequently, because the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee in the 2008 

general election received less than 5% of the total popular vote in that election, the 

Libertarian Party is a '"new party," and its nominees in the 2012 presidential election have 

no pre-election entitlement to public funds under 26 U.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(A). Moreover, 

because Governor Gary Johnson was not a candidate for President in the 2008 general 

election, neither he nor his running mate. Judge James Gray, have any pre-election 

entitlement to public funds under 26 C.S.C. § 9004(a)(2)(B). 

IV. CONCLL'SION 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes, first, that the candidates have 

met all applicable conditions for eligibility to receive payments under 11 C.F.R. § 9003.1 

and 9003.2. Second, the Commission has made an initial detennination that Governor 

Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray do not meet all applicable conditions for eligibility 

to receive payments under 11 C.F.R. § 9004.2, and are not entitled to receive any preelection payments of public funds for the general election pursuant to 26 U .S.C. 

§ 9004(a) and ll C.F.R. § 9004.2. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 31 of 36

(Page 36 of Total)
Governor Gary Johnson and Judge James Gray 

LRA 905 

Page 9 

Attachments 

1 . 9003 Letter with cover letter dated June 14, 2012 submitted by Governor Gary 

Johnson and Judge James Gray 

2 Amended 9003 Letter 

3. Letter from Paul Rolf Jensen to Anthony Hennan dated May 8, 2012. 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 32 of 36

(Page 37 of Total)
Page I of I 

Your phone call to me regarding the preliminary determination of Governor Johnson and 

Judge Gray's request for pre-election funding 

.:· ............. .; 

Paul R. Jensen 

to: 

dpainter@fec.gov 

08116/2012 02:03PM 

Hide Details 

From: "Paul R. Jensen" <prj@jensenlawyers.com> 

To: "dpainter@fec.gov" <dpainter@fec.gov>, 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

1 Attachment 

.... 

j.. 

FAX _20120816_1345 138566_326.pdf 

I was out of the office last week when you phoned me, and I am sorry not to return your call until 

now. In response to your inquiry, please find attached a letter to the Commission signed by 

Governor Johnson. I will have Judge Gray's signature by the end of the day today and will forward 

that to you as well, but with the attached in hand you will be able to anticipate receipt of Judge 

Gray's signature and take such action as you deem appropriate. 

PAUL ROLF JENSEN 

Paul Rolf Jensen 

Jensen & Associates, APC, Tnal Lawyers 

650 Town Center Drive, 12th Floor 

Costa Mesa, California 92626 

(714) 662-5528 voice 

www.iensenlawyers.com 

file://C:\Users\dpainter\AppData\LocaJ\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web8194.htm 

. ·:.· '·'t.•'l······· .. ; ..\,· •• . :· ' ,I 5 .,._ ................... ......___. ...... .,..~ .... . 

,"'1 ) . ':) J-.1 .. . - -· ---r.1. - :_j. • . 

8/27/2012 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 33 of 36

(Page 38 of Total)
14 August 2012 

l'ederal El~ction Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington. D.C. 20463 

RE: LRA #905 

Dear Commissioners: 

This will acknowledge and respond to the lclter under date of AugHst 6, 2012 signed by 

Lawrence L. CuJvett, Associatl.! General Counsel, sent to o·ur tltlorn.ey Paul Rolf Jensen, in 

respnn.se h.l our application for genen1l ~lection public funds. 

We; disagree with your initial dcctl)iun f(lr the reasons stated in our auomcy·~ letter, howevct. we 

have nothing further to submit and rc4.ue:st thnt you immediately is:me your linal determination. 

·ian Party Nominee for President of the Unitt:d Stntes 

James P. Gray, l..ibcrtarian Pru-ty Nominee for Vice Pre~ident of the l ;nitcd States 

6GSc6V9L!8: "ON X~~ OJNIM/d~O) 3lS/SGO~d S3I~~: WO~~ 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 34 of 36

(Page 39 of Total)
... 

""C .. , 

·-......... 

Supplemental to my email yesterday 

Paul R. Jensen 

to: 

dpainter@fec.gov 

08117/2012 02:59PM 

Hide Details 

From: "Paul R. Jensen" <prj@jensenlawyers.com> 

To: "dpainter@fec.gov" <dpainter@fec.gov>, 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

1 Attachment 

£111 .. 

ScanOO ~ I .PDF 

Page 1 of 1 

Yesterday I emailed you a document signed by my client, Governor Gary Johnson. Attached hereto is the same 

document, signed by my client and his running mate, Judge Gray. 

By these documents we are asking for the immediate issuance of the final determination. 

Paul Rolf Jensen 

Jensen & Associates, APC, Trial Lawyers 

650 Town Center Drive, 12th Floor 

Costa Mesa, California 92626 

(714) 662-5528 voice 

www.jensenlawyers.com 

file://C:\Users\dpainter\AppData\Local\Temp\notesFCBCEE\-web7042.htm 8/27/2012 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 35 of 36

(Page 40 of Total)
Ar.Jg. 16. 2012 6:2iPM Eugene hiltH 

14 August2012 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

RE: LRA #90S 

Dear Commhsioners: 

Nc. 5321 P. 1 

This will acknowledge and mpond to the letter under date of Augu:U 6. 2012 signed by 

Lawteoce L. Calvert, Associ aU: General Counsel, sent to our attorney Paul Ro{f Jensen, in 

response to our appHcation for general el~tion public funds. 

We disagree with your Initial d~ision for the reasons stated in our attomey's letter, however I we 

hnve nothing further to submit and request that you immediately issue your final determination. 

Gary Johnsonf Libertarian Party Nominee for President of the Uruted States 

inee for Vice President of the United States 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400149 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 36 of 36

(Page 41 of Total)