UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

PURSUING AMERICA’S GREATNESS )

11300 Cantrell Road, Suite 301 )

Little Rock, AR 72212, ) Civil Case No. 

)

Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED 

) COMPLAINT FOR

v. ) DECLATORY AND 

) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

999 E Street, NW )

Washington, DC 20463, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

Plaintiff Pursuing America’s Greatness (“PAG”) brings this action for declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and complains as follows:

INTRODUCTION

This is a pre-enforcement, as-applied challenge to the Federal Election Commission’s (the 

“FEC”) interpretation in Advisory Opinion 2015-04 (Collective Action PAC) of the regulations

at 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.14(a) and (b), which implement a provision of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“FECA”), now codified 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e).

1. The FEC’s recent application of its regulations at 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.14(a) and (b), as 

reflected in Advisory Opinion 2015-04 (Collective Actions PAC), interprets and implements a 

provision of FECA in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of FECA and impermissibly 

infringes on PAG’s ability to engage in political activities that are constitutionally protected as 

set forth in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 

2218, 192 L. Ed. 2d 236 (2015), and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 21
2

2. This case challenges the FEC’s interpretation and application of a law that abridges the 

freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution. These challenges are brought as applied against 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and its

implementing regulations at 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.14(a) – (b), as interpreted and applied in Advisory 

Opinion 2015-04 (Collective Actions PAC) (collectively the “PAC Naming Prohibition”).

3. The First Amendment protects PAG’s right to make independent expenditures, engage 

in independent political activities, and otherwise exercise its First Amendment rights to free 

speech and association. Wishing to continue to exercise those rights, PAG would like to engage 

in certain speech with the advance knowledge that its activities comply with the requirements of 

FECA. 

4. An independent political committee’s independent expenditures are constitutionally 

protected under Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 

(2010), and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 

5. PAG filed Articles of Incorporation as a non-profit corporation in the State of Arkansas 

on March 5, 2015.

6. PAG registered with the FEC as an unauthorized, independent expenditure-only

political committee on March 11, 2015 by filing FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organization). PAG 

operates pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 527 as a “political organization” for federal 

tax purposes.

7. PAG maintains a website at www.pagpac.com.

8. Strategic Media 21, located in San Jose, California, is the owner of the website located 

at www.ilikemikehuckabee.com, and a Facebook page titled “I Like Mike Huckabee” which is 

located at www.facebook.com/ilikemikehuckabee. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 21
3

9. As of July 24, 2015, 181,679 persons had interacted with the “I Like Mike Huckabee” 

Facebook page and indicated that they “like” that page.

10. On or about July 9, 2015, PAG entered into a contract with Strategic Media 21 under 

which PAG controls the operation and maintenance, including the content, of the website 

www.ilikemikehuckabee.com and Facebook page “I Like Mike Huckabee,” as part of PAG’s 

independent efforts in support of Governor Mike Huckabee, who is a candidate for President of 

the United States. By operating and maintaining this website and Facebook page, PAG is able to 

communicate with large numbers of individual, grassroots supporters of Governor Mike 

Huckabee.

11. PAG began operating and maintaining the website and social media account on or 

about July 9, 2015.

12. PAG has not, and does not intend to, use the website www.ilikemikehuckabee.com or 

the Facebook page “I Like Mike Huckabee” to solicit contributions to PAG or otherwise engage 

in fundraising activities.

13. PAG intends to establish and operate a Twitter account utilizing a Twitter “handle”

that includes the name “Mike Huckabee” or “Huckabee” and that will be used to distribute 

content that is supportive of Governor Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President. A Twitter 

“handle” is the identifying name by which a Twitter account is known to the public. For 

example, the New York Times’ Twitter handle is “@nytimes” while President Obama uses 

“@POTUS” to distribute communications. 

14. Collective Actions PAC is an unauthorized, independent expenditure-only political 

committee whose goal is “to help Sen. Bernie Sanders in his bid to win the Democratic 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 3 of 21
4

nomination for President.” Advisory Opinion Request of Collective Actions PAC (June 3, 2015) 

at 1 (attached as Exhibit 1).

15. On or about June 3, 2015, Collective Actions PAC filed a written advisory opinion 

request with the FEC asking if the PAC’s inclusion of the word “Bernie” in the names and titles 

of certain websites and social media accounts it operates is permissible under the FECA and FEC

regulations. See Advisory Opinion Request of Collective Actions PAC. Specifically, Collective 

Actions PAC’s advisory opinion request inquired about its operation of the websites 

RunBernieRun.com, ProBernie.com, BelieveInBernie.com, the Facebook page “Run Bernie 

Run,” and the Twitter accounts “@Bernie_Run” and “@ProBernie.” Advisory Opinion Request 

of Collective Actions PAC at 1. Collective Actions PAC specified in its advisory opinion 

request that it did not wish to use these platforms to raise money or solicit contributions. Rather, 

the PAC “hope[d] to reach millions of voters and believe[d] being active online is the way to 

achieve our goal.” Advisory Opinion Request of Collective Actions PAC at 1. 

16. On July 16, 2015, the FEC issued Advisory Opinion 2015-04, which concludes that 

“[b]ecause the names of the Committee’s [Collective Actions PAC’s] websites and social media 

accounts that include Senator Sanders’s name do not clearly express opposition to him, those 

sites and accounts are impermissible under 11 C.F.R. § 102.14.” FEC Advisory Opinion 2015-

04 (Collective Actions PAC) at 4 (attached as Exhibit 2). As a result, the FEC has formally 

opined that its regulations do not permit Collective Actions PAC to operate websites with 

Universal Resource Locators (URLs) of www.RunBernieRun.com, www.ProBernie.com, 

www.BelieveInBernie.com, or a Facebook page titled “Run Bernie Run,” or Twitter accounts 

with the handles of “@Bernie_Run” and “@ProBernie” in any way that does not clearly express

opposition to Senator Bernie Sanders. The PAC Naming Prohibition does not permit Collective 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 4 of 21
5

Actions PAC to operate the aforementioned website URLs and social media accounts, regardless 

of whether they are used for fundraising, advocacy or any other purpose. Under Advisory 

Opinion 2015-04, it makes no difference how Collective Actions PAC utilizes these online 

assets; rather, because the PAC does not clearly express opposition to Senator Sanders, the 

titles/names of these webpages and social media accounts are deemed offensive by the 

government and are not permitted under FEC regulations.

17. All organizations similarly situated to Collective Actions PAC, including PAG, now 

face the prospect of potential civil and criminal penalties if they speak through websites,

Facebook pages, or other social media platforms that are materially indistinguishable from 

Collective Actions PAC’s without first seeking a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction.

18. On July 17, 2015, in order to comply with Advisory Opinion 2015-04, and while 

pursuing this litigation, PAG ceased any further work on updating, maintaining, promoting or 

changing these pages. However, these pages exist in the same form as they were left on July 17, 

2015, although PAG’s communications to supporters are no longer current.

19. Because of the FEC’s failure to faithfully apply the First Amendment, FECA, FEC 

regulations, and controlling judicial precedent, PAG intends to refrain from engaging in certain 

political speech and is halting further communications through www.ilikemikehuckabee.com and 

the Facebook page “I Like Mike Huckabee” due to fear of civil and criminal penalties which 

potentially and realistically may be levied against PAG for failure to comply with the FEC’s 

regulations, as reflected in Advisory Opinion 2015-04. PAG will further refrain from 

establishing or operating a Twitter account that utilizes a Twitter handle including the name 

“Mike Huckabee” or “Huckabee” for the purpose of distributing content that is supportive of 

Governor Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President.

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 5 of 21
6

20. PAG is presently stymied in its ability to speak with respect to significant, important 

national political policy issues of the day, including the upcoming Presidential election, while 

this matter remains unresolved.

21. The FEC’s action infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of PAG, an 

unauthorized, independent expenditure-only political committee similarly situated to Collective 

Actions PAC, causing injuries by forcing it to seek judicial relief before engaging in political 

speech which plaintiff reasonably believes is protected by the First Amendment.

22. PAG seeks a declaratory judgment from this court: (a) finding the FEC’s recent 

interpretation of 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) (naming of a political committee) and 11 C.F.R. §§

102.14(a) and (b), as expressed in Advisory Opinion 2015-04 (the PAC Naming Prohibition), as 

applied to PAG’s current speech and proposed communications, is impermissible under the First 

Amendment; and (b) finding the FEC’s recent interpretation of 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.14(a) and (b)

inapplicable to PAG’s current speech and proposed communications under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, because such application would be arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law; and (c) preliminarily and permanently enjoining the 

FEC from enforcing the FECA against PAG for its use of website URLs, Twitter handles, or 

other social media accounts that include the name “Mike Huckabee” or other references to 

Governor Huckabee for purposes other than soliciting funds.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 as a 

challenge arising under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the judicial 

review provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702-706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 6 of 21
7

24. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(c) because Defendant is an 

entity of the United States Government, Plaintiff is organized and resides in Arkansas, and no 

real property is at issue.

PARTIES

25. PAG is a non-profit corporation organized in the State of Arkansas. PAG operates 

pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 527 as a “political organization.” PAG is registered 

with the FEC as an unauthorized, independent expenditure-only political committee pursuant to 

SpeechNow.org v. FEC. 

26. The FEC is the federal agency charged with civil enforcement of FECA and is located 

in Washington, D.C.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

27. PAG was founded in 2015 to independently advocate for the election of Mike 

Huckabee as President of the United States.

28. On or about June 3, 2015, Collective Actions PAC submitted an advisory opinion 

request, attached as Exhibit 2, to the FEC pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30108. This request asked if 

the PAC’s inclusion of the word “Bernie” in the names and titles of certain websites and social 

media accounts it operates (the websites www.RunBernieRun.com, www.ProBernie.com, 

www.BelieveInBernie.com, the Facebook page “Run Bernie Run,” and the Twitter accounts 

“@Bernie_Run” and “@ProBernie”) is permissible under the FECA and FEC regulations.

29. Pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 112.1, the FEC accepted the Advisory Opinion Request for 

review, designated the matter Advisory Opinion Request 2015-04, and posted it to the FEC’s 

website for public comment.

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 7 of 21
8

30. On July 13, 2015, the FEC’s Office of General Counsel issued a draft Advisory 

Opinion in response to Collective Actions PAC’s Advisory Opinion Request. The draft Advisory 

Opinion, labeled Draft A, concluded that Collective Actions PAC’s use of website URLs, a 

Facebook page, and Twitter handles that included the word “Bernie” violated Commission 

regulations. See Advisory Opinion 2015-04, Draft A, Agenda Document No. 15-39-A (attached 

as Exhibit 3).

31. On July 16, 2015, at an open meeting of the FEC, the Commission by a vote of 6 to 0

approved Advisory Opinion 2015-04, Draft A. (Audio of the FEC’s consideration of Advisory 

Opinion 2015-04, Draft A, is available at http://www.fec.gov/audio/2015/2015071604.mp3.) 

32. The effect of Advisory Opinion 2015-04 is to deprive PAG of the ability to rely on a 

legal defense available pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30108(c)(1)(B). Under that provision, if the FEC 

had concluded that Collective Actions PAC request was permissible, PAG could then have relied 

upon Collective Actions PAC’s Advisory Opinion as a “person involved in any specific 

transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or 

activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered.” 52 U.S.C. § 30108(c)(1)(B).

33. The Advisory Opinion in this matter is complete and deprives Plaintiff of a legal right 

– the ability to engage freely in constitutionally protected speech and association. See Unity08 v. 

FEC, 596 F.3d 861, 865 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“parties are commonly not required to violate an 

agency’s legal position and risk an enforcement proceeding before they may seek judicial 

review”).

34. PAG operates and maintains a webpage (www.ilikemikehuckabee.com) and Facebook 

page (“I Like Mike Huckabee”) that are materially indistinguishable as a legal matter from those 

that Collective Actions PAC sought permission to use, albeit in support of a different candidate. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 8 of 21
9

35. As soon as possible, PAG wishes to obtain a determination of its legal obligations 

with respect to the use of this website and Facebook page so that it is able to plan and implement

its constitutionally-protected political speech efforts over the coming months. 

36. If PAG chooses to engage in speech that is materially indistinguishable from the 

speech at issue in the Advisory Opinion 2015-04, PAG is potentially subject to civil and criminal 

penalties, as well as the costs of enduring a government investigation, as a consequence of 

engaging in activities it believes are wholly permissible and protected.

37. Specific examples of PAG’s intended communications are attached as Exhibit 4.

38. The website www.ilikemikehuckabee.com and Facebook page “I Like Mike 

Huckabee” exist presently and are accessible in the same condition as they were on July 17, 

2015, when PAG ceased updating those pages. 

39. In the absence of a declaratory judgment, PAG would be forced to curtail its political 

speech.

40. Without an immediate ruling from this court, PAG will not have the necessary time to 

plan and carry out its activities, given that the Presidential primary season is well underway, and 

the first votes will be cast in less than six months.

41. PAG faces a credible threat of prosecution if it engages in speech that the FEC has 

concluded, in a materially indistinguishable context, is impermissible, even though PAG believes 

the FEC’s speech restrictions violate the First Amendment and FECA.

42. PAG is chilled from proceeding with its planned activities because it reasonably 

believes that it will be subject to a FEC investigation (and potentially a U.S. Department of 

Justice investigation) and possible enforcement action that could result in civil and criminal 

penalties based on the FEC’s Advisory Opinion concluding that certain types of political 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 9 of 21
10

committees are prohibited from utilizing website URLs, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts

that include the name of a federal candidate that do not include fundraising appeals unless the 

website, Facebook page, or Twitter account content clearly opposes the candidate.

43. The chilled speech of PAG constitutes irreparable harm because it is the loss of First 

Amendment rights. There is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT 1

As applied to an independent expenditure-only committee that is not engaged in 

fundraising activities, the PAC Naming Prohibition is an unreasonable interpretation of 

FECA and implementing regulations insofar as it prohibits the use of certain words in 

website URLs and social media accounts

44. There is no dispute that PAG may engage in unlimited independent expenditures in 

support of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President of the United States. See Buckley v. Valeo, 

424 U.S. 1 (1976), Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 

599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

45. FECA provides that “[i]n the case of any political committee which is not an 

authorized committee, such political committee shall not include the name of any candidate in its 

name.” 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4). By regulation, the FEC extended this prohibition from the 

actual name of the political committee to also include “any name under which a committee 

conducts activities, such as solicitations or other communications, including a special project 

name or other designation.” 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a). The FEC also adopted limited exceptions to 

this rule, including that “[a]n unauthorized political committee may include the name of a 

candidate in the title of a special project name or other communication if the title clearly and 

unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.” 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(b)(3). Through 

advisory opinions, the FEC determined that “a special project name or other designation” 

includes website URLs, the titles of Facebook pages, and Twitter account handles. See Federal 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 10 of 21
11

Election Commission Advisory Opinions 1995-09 (NewtWatch PAC) and 2015-04 (Collective 

Actions PAC).

46. PAG may, among other activities, produce and distribute television advertisements

that include the words “I Like Mike Huckabee” in text across the top of the screen for the 

duration of the advertisement, produce and distribute radio advertisements that include the 

message “I Like Mike Huckabee”, and send mailers that say “I Like Mike Huckabee” across the 

front – subject to the FEC’s reporting and disclaimer requirements.

47. However, the FEC determined in Advisory Opinion 2015-04 that Collective Actions 

PAC may not operate websites with URLs of www.RunBernieRun.com, www.ProBernie.com, 

www.BelieveInBernie.com, or a Facebook page titled “Run Bernie Run,” or Twitter accounts 

with the handles of “@Bernie_Run” and “@ProBernie.” Because PAG’s pro-Huckabee website 

and Facebook page are materially indistinguishable from those that were the subject of Advisory 

Opinion 2015-04, the FEC would conclude that PAG may not maintain a website at the URL 

www.ilikemikehuckabee.com or a Facebook page titled “I Like Mike Huckabee.” 

48. Until 1992, the FEC took the position that the PAC naming restriction at 2 U.S.C. § 

30102(e)(4) meant what it said: “In the case of any political committee which is not an 

authorized committee, such political committee shall not include the name of any candidate in its 

name.” That is, the provision prohibited an unauthorized political committee from including a 

federal candidate’s name in the unauthorized political committee’s name. (In 2012, for example, 

an unauthorized political committee could not register itself with the FEC as “Americans for 

Obama PAC” or “United for Romney PAC.”) See FEC Final Rule on Special Fundraising 

Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,267 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 11 of 21
12

(April 12, 1994) (“Prior to the 1992 revision, the Commission had construed this prohibition as 

applying only to the name under which a committee registers with the Commission.”).

49. In 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the 

FEC’s original, pre-1992 view against a challenge brought by Common Cause, which argued 

that the provision must be read to extend beyond the PAC’s formal name and also include “any 

title under which such a committee holds itself out to the public for solicitation or 

propagandizing purposes.” Common Cause v. FEC, 842 F.2d 436, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The 

D.C. Circuit determined that Common Cause’s preferred construction was “not a totally 

implausible interpretation of the statute’s language,” but after extensively reviewing the 

legislative history of the relevant statutory provision, ultimately concluded that “[i]t seems 

downright unlikely that Congress would have enacted so broad a reform affecting the projects of 

unauthorized committees without a single word of explanation or debate,” and the FEC’s

interpretation “is the better interpretation.” Id. at 444, 448.

50. In 1992, the FEC conducted a rulemaking and adopted the position it litigated against 

in Common Cause v. FEC, despite having been told by the D.C. Circuit in 1988 that the 

agency’s longstanding interpretation of the PAC naming provision was “the better 

interpretation,” and that Common Cause’s preferred interpretation was merely “not a totally 

implausible interpretation.” See FEC Final Rule on Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use 

of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 57 Fed. Reg. 31,424 (July 15, 1992). The 

FEC’s 1992 rule added new language to 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, indicating that “’name’ for the 

purpose of the 2 U.S.C. 432(e)(4) [now 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4)] prohibition [] include[s] any 

name under which a committee conducts activities, such as solicitations or other 

communications, including a special project name or other designation.” Id. at 31,425. The 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 12 of 21
13

Commission asserted that its new rule was “narrowly designed to further the legitimate 

governmental interest in minimizing the possibility of fraud and abuse in this situation.” Id. 

While the Commission’s rule extended beyond fundraising appeals, virtually every rationale 

presented in the Final Rule involved potential fundraising fraud and confusion.

51. In 1994, the FEC reconsidered its regulation and adopted the exemption now found at 

11 C.F.R. § 102.14(b)(3), which allows an unauthorized committee to “include the name of a 

candidate in the title of a special project name or other communication if the title clearly and 

unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.” See FEC Final Rule on Special 

Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 59 Fed. 

Reg. 17,267 (April 12, 1994). The “opposition” exemption was adopted after the FEC received a 

Petition for Rulemaking from “Citizens Against David Duke,” a proposed project of the 

American Ideas Foundation. Id. at 17,267. The FEC was responsive to this request and 

“acceded to the petitioner’s main concern, amending the rules to permit the American Ideas 

Foundation to use the names of federal candidates in titles that clearly indicate opposition to such 

candidates.” Id. at 17,269. The FEC “recognize[d] that the potential for fraud and abuse is

significantly reduced in the case of such titles.” Id. 

52. In the span of a few years, the FEC’s rule on the use of candidate names by 

unauthorized political committees morphed from (1) a rule that barred the use of a candidate’s 

name in the PAC’s registered name, to (2) a rule that also barred the use of a candidate’s name in 

a “special project name or other designation,” to (3) a rule that also barred the use of a 

candidate’s name in a “special project name or other designation,” except when the political 

committee expressed opposition to that candidate. Subsequently, the FEC determined that a 

“special project name or other designation” includes a website URL and social media account 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 13 of 21
14

titles. See FEC Advisory Opinions 1995-09 (NewtWatch PAC) and Advisory Opinion 2015-04 

(Collective Actions PAC). In other words, in 1991, an unauthorized political committee simply 

had to choose a PAC name that didn’t include a federal candidate’s name, while today, an 

organization such as PAG may not communicate with supporters through a Facebook page with 

the heading “I Like Mike Huckabee,” although “I Don’t Like Mike Huckabee” would be 

perfectly acceptable. 

53. The FEC claimed in 1994 that this regulatory scheme was “narrowly designed to 

further the legitimate governmental interest in minimizing the possibility of fraud and abuse.” 

FEC Final Rule on Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by 

Unauthorized Committees, 59 Fed. Reg. at 17,268.

54. The PAC Naming Prohibition is inconsistent with 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4), as applied 

to website URLs and social media accounts that do not include fundraising solicitations. It is 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551-706).

COUNT 2

Application of the PAC Naming Prohibition to Website URLs and Social Media Accounts

Operated by Unauthorized Political Committees Constitutes a Prior Restraint and is 

Prohibited by the First Amendment 

55. All of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 54 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

56. A FEC regulation that prohibits independent speakers from using certain words – the 

names of candidates for public office unless in opposition – in their website URLs and in titles of 

social media webpages and accounts is a prior restraint on speech that violates the First 

Amendment.

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 14 of 21
15

57. Advisory Opinion 2015-04 prohibits PAG from speaking through a website located at 

www.ilikemikehuckabee.com and a Facebook page titled “I Like Mike Huckabee,” regardless of 

whether PAG intends to solicit any contributions on these platforms, and regardless of whether 

there is any risk or evidence of “fraud or abuse.”

58. As the Supreme Court explained, “[t]he term ‘prior restraint’ is used ‘to describe 

administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of 

the time that such communications are to occur.’ M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Freedom of Speech 

§ 4.03, p. 4-14 (1984) (emphasis added). Temporary restraining orders and permanent 

injunctions - i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities -- are classic examples of 

prior restraints. See id., § 4.03, at 4-16.” Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993). 

“Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its 

constitutional validity.” Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).

59. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court discussed prior restraints in the context of 

campaign finance regulation. The Court wrote, “These onerous restrictions thus function as the 

equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented 

in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First 

Amendment was drawn to prohibit. . . . When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit 

speech, ‘[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of 

vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from 

protected speech--harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an 

uninhibited marketplace of ideas.’” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 335 (2010) (internal 

citations omitted).

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 15 of 21
16

60. PAG is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its use of website URLs, Facebook 

page titles, and Twitter accounts that include the name of a candidate, but which do not express 

opposition to that candidate, and are not used to engage in solicitations or fundraising, do not 

violate FECA and are protected by the First Amendment.

61. If the PAC Naming Prohibition is applied in a manner that prohibits the use of certain

words (i.e., candidate names) in website URLs, Facebook page titles, and Twitter accounts in 

communications that do not include a solicitation of funds, the application of that interpretation 

violates the First Amendment and must be enjoined.

COUNT 3

The PAC Naming Prohibition, as Applied to the Use of Website URLs, Facebook Page 

Titles, and Twitter Accounts by Unauthorized Political Committees, Constitutes an 

Impermissible Content-Based Regulation of Speech in Violation of the First Amendment’s 

Protections

62. All of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 61 above are re-alleged and 

incorporated herein by reference.

63. FECA provides that “[i]n the case of any political committee which is not an 

authorized committee, such political committee shall not include the name of any candidate in its 

name.” 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4). By regulation, the FEC extended this prohibition from the 

actual name of the political committee to also include “any name under which a committee 

conducts activities, such as solicitations or other communications, including a special project 

name or other designation.” 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a). The FEC also adopted limited exceptions to 

this rule, including that “[a]n unauthorized political committee may include the name of a 

candidate in the title of a special project name or other communication if the title clearly and 

unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.” 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(b)(3). Through 

advisory opinions, the FEC determined that “a special project name or other designation” 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 16 of 21
17

includes website URLs, the titles of Facebook pages, and Twitter account handles. See FEC 

Advisory Opinions 1995-09 (NewtWatch PAC) and 2015-04 (Collective Actions PAC). 

64. The FEC’s interpretation and application of the PAC Naming Prohibition in Advisory 

Opinion 2015-04, imposes more stringent restrictions on the supportive use of federal candidate 

names in an unauthorized political committee’s “special project name or other designation” than 

it does on the same committee’s use of candidate names in a manner that conveys opposition. 

That is, an unauthorized political committee, such as PAG, may not use the name of a federal 

candidate it supports in a “special project name or other designation,” while another 

unauthorized political committee could use that very same federal candidate’s name in a “special 

project name or other designation” in a manner that conveys opposition. Thus, PAG’s Facebook 

page with the heading “I Like Mike Huckabee” is impermissible under FEC regulations, but a 

Facebook page with the heading “I Don’t Like Mike Huckabee” would be permitted.

65. These speech restrictions are impermissibly content-based. “Government regulation 

of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or 

the idea or message expressed.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2227 (2015). 

As applied by the FEC, an unauthorized political committee is restricted in its ability to 

communicate with respect to federal candidates it supports, while the exact same unauthorized 

political committee is free to use the name of a federal candidate it opposes. The restrictions that 

apply to any given use of a candidate’s name in a special project name or other designation 

“depend entirely on the communicative content of the” use. Id. The FEC’s regulation is, on its 

face, a content-based speech restriction.

66. The Supreme Court recently invalidated a similar regulatory scheme. The Court 

explained, “[t]he [Gilbert, AZ, Land Development] Code imposes more stringent restrictions on 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 17 of 21
18

these signs than it does on signs conveying other messages. We hold that these provisions are 

content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at

2224.

67. The government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, 

its subject matters, or its content.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2226 citing Police Dep’t of Chicago v. 

Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). The regulation at issue here is “a regulation of speech ‘on its 

face’ [that] draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys.” Id. at 2227. 

68. “Content-based laws – those that target speech based on its communicative content –

are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they 

are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2226. The FEC’s 

Final Rules of 1992 and 1994 indicate the Commission identified only a “legitimate

governmental interest” when considering the regulation at issue.

69. PAG is entitled to a declaratory judgment that its use of website URLs, Facebook 

pages, and Twitter handles that include the name of a candidate without expressing opposition to 

that candidate do not violate the First Amendment or the FECA.

70. If the PAC Naming Prohibition is applied in a manner that prohibits the use of certain 

words (i.e., candidate names) in website URLs, Facebook page titles, and Twitter accounts

because those uses demonstrate electoral support rather than opposition, such application violates 

the First Amendment and must be enjoined.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 18 of 21
19

1. A declaratory judgment that FEC Advisory Opinion 2015-04 interpreting and applying

52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 to Pursuing America’s Greatness’s proposed 

communications is void under 5 U.S.C. § 706 and unconstitutional under the First Amendment; 

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant FEC from enforcing 52

U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and any applicable rules and regulations regarding those provisions, against 

Pursuing America’s Greatness and its intended activities; 

3. An award of nominal damages of $1 for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

4. Costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to any applicable statute or authority;

5. Any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jason Torchinsky

Jason Torchinsky (D.C. Bar No. 976033)

J. Michael Bayes (D.C. Bar No. 501845)

Shawn Sheehy

HOLTZMAN VOGEL JOSEFIAK PLLC

 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100

Warrenton, VA 20186

Phone: (540) 341-8808

Fax: (540) 341-8809

jtorchinsky@hvjlaw.com

mbayes@hvjlaw.com

ssheehy@hvjlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Pursuing America’s Greatness

Dated: July 27, 2015 

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 19 of 21
20

VERIFICATION

Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:15-cv-01217 Document 1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 21 of 21