THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD,

PETER ACKERMAN,

GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, and

LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 1:15-CV-1397 (TSC)

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NONPROFIT LEADERS, SCHOLARS AND

PRACTITIONERS IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 18
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT OF INTEREST........................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................................................3

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5

I. CPD’s Informal Conflict-Of-Interest Policy Willfully Ignores Partisan Conduct

By Falling Woefully Short Of Basic Standards Of Governance Applicable to

Nonprofit Organizations. .............................................................................................................6

II. CPD’s Informal Conflict-Of-Interest Policy Is Incapable Of Preventing The

Appearance Of Partisanship.......................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 2 of 18
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Level the Playing Field v. Fed. Election Comm’n,

232 F. Supp. 3d 130 (D.D.C. 2017)...........................................................................................4

Statutes

15 U.S.C. § 7264..............................................................................................................................6

Other Authorities

BoardSource, Nonprofit Governance Index 2012 (Sept. 2012), available at

https://www.leadingagemn.org/assets/docs/NonProfit_Governance_Index_Re

port_2012.pdf (last accessed Sept. 14, 2017) ............................................................................6

BoardSource, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Implications for Nonprofit

Organizations (Jan. 2006), available at

https://www.centerfornonprofitexcellence.org/sites/default/files/SarbanesOxle

y.BoardSource.pdf (last accessed Sept. 14, 2017).....................................................................6

Conflicts of Interest Policies Under the Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013,

Guidance Document 2015-4 (April 2015) .................................................................................8

Conflict of Interest Policy, Comm’n on Presidential Debates.........................................................9

Independent Sector, Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice

(2015), available at https://www.independentsector.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Principles2015-Web-1.pdf (last accessed Sept. 13,

2017) ....................................................................................................................................7, 10

IRS Form 14114 (2009), Part 5, Questions 18a-c............................................................................9

IRS Form 990 (2016), Part VI, Section B, Questions 12a-c............................................................8

IRS, Governance and Related Topics - 501(c)(3) Organizations (Feb. 4, 2008),

available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/governance_practices.pdf (last

accessed Sept. 14, 2017) ............................................................................................................9

Leading with Intent, 2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Practices (2017),

available at https://leadingwithintent.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/LWI2017.pdf (last accessed Sept. 12, 2017)....................................7

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 3 of 18
iii

Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013, N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law § 715-A(A)-

(B) ..............................................................................................................................................8

Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, Strengthening Transparency Governance

Accountability of Charitable Organizations: A Final Report to Congress and

the Nonprofit Sector (2005), available at

http://www.kiplinger.com/members/taxlinks/071505/Nonprofit-Sectorreport.pdf (last accessed Sept. 13, 2017) ...................................................................................7

Pub. L. No. 107-204, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (2002) ........................................................................6

The Urban Institute, Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on

Performance and Accountability from the First National Representative Study

(2007), available at

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46516/411479-

Nonprofit-Governance-in-the-United-States.pdf (last accessed Sept. 14, 2017).......................6

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 4 of 18
STATEMENT OF INTEREST

The ten (10) individual amici jointly submitting this brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Summary Judgment represent a broad array of prominent leaders, scholars, and practitioners

with considerable experience in the nonprofit sector.1 All amici are dedicated to ensuring public

trust in the nonprofit organizations with which they are affiliated, or to the study or practice of

nonprofit law, and they therefore have a direct stake in the implications of this litigation for

public trust in the nonprofit community at large. Their backgrounds are set forth briefly below:2

 Norman R. Augustine is a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Board of

Directors. He served as chairman and principal officer of the American Red Cross

for nine years, and as chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, the

Aerospace Industries Association, and the Defense Science Board. Mr. Augustine is

a former president of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the

Boy Scouts of America.

 Admiral Dennis C. Blair is the former United States Director of National Intelligence

and a retired United States Navy admiral. He currently serves as the Chairman of the

Board and Distinguished Senior Fellow of Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA. He

also serves as a member of the Energy Security Leadership Council and is on the

boards of Freedom House, the National Bureau of Asian Research, the National

Committee on U.S.-China Relations, and the Atlantic Council.

 Scott Blackmun is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Olympic

Committee (“USOC”) and an ex-officio member of the USOC’s board of directors.

He is also a member of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport. Mr.

Blackmun was previously a partner with both Hogan & Hartson LLP and Holme

Roberts & Owen LLP, where his practice included advising nonprofit clients on

corporate governance matters.

 Mary McInnis Boies serves as counsel to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. She is a

member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and chairs its

Committee on Nominations and Governance. She is a former Second Circuit

representative to the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee of Federal

Judiciary.

1

Amici state that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no party or

person other than amici and contributed money toward the preparation or filing of this brief.

2

Amici include for the Court’s reference their current and former professional and personal

affiliations, but each amicus submits this brief in his or her personal capacity only.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 5 of 18
2

 W. Bowman Cutter is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Next American Economy

Project at the Roosevelt Institute. He is the immediate past chairman of CARE, a

global development organization, and has served as a board member for 18 years.

Mr. Cutter is also the chairman of MicroVest; the chairman of the Tunisian American

Enterprise Fund; a board member of SeaChange; a member of the Governing Council

of the IFMR Trust in India; a member of the executive committee and immediate past

co-chairman of the Committee for Economic Development; a board member and

immediate past chair of Resources for the Future; and a board member of the Russell

Sage Foundation.

 Dr. James J. Fishman is a professor at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace

University and has authored numerous books and articles on nonprofit tax law and

regulation. He is a co-author of New York Nonprofit Law and Practice: With Tax

Analysis and a leading law school casebook, Nonprofit Organizations: Cases and

Materials, now in its fifth edition. He previously served as the executive director of

the Council of New York Law Associates (now The Lawyers Alliance for New York)

and Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

 Carla A. Hills is the chairman and CEO of Hills & Company, International

Consultants, which advises companies on global trade and investment issues.

Ms. Hill serves as co-chair of the Inter-American Dialogue and the Advisory Board of

the Center for Strategic & International Studies, the chair of the National Committee

on U.S.-China Relations, and a member of the executive committees of both the

Trilateral Commission and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation. She also

serves on the board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

 Daniel L. Kurtz is a partner with Pryor Cashman and chairs the firm’s Nonprofit +

Tax-Exempt Organizations Group. Mr. Kurtz advises his clients on corporate and

governance issues, sponsorship and charitable fundraising opportunities, endowment

administration and investment, indemnification, charitable solicitation laws, and

exempt organization tax issues. He also represents nonprofit clients in litigation,

focusing on issues of governance and fiduciary responsibility. Mr. Kurtz serves on

the boards of numerous nonprofits of varying sizes and services, including the Jewish

Home and Hospital for the Aged; Fountain House; Simon’s Rock College of Bard;

The Packer Collegiate Institute; and Manhattan Youth Recreation and Resources. He

is the co-author of both “New York Nonprofit Law and Practice: With Tax Analysis”

and “Managing Conflicts of Interest.” Mr. Kurtz is the former assistant attorney

general-in-charge of the New York State Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, and he

is the Founding Executive Director of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.

 Dr. Vali R. Nasr is the Dean of the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of

Advanced International Studies and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings

Institution. He is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Nasr was

previously a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 6 of 18
3

Pakistan and a member of the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Policy

Board.

 Nancy E. Roman is the President and CEO of Partnership for a Healthier America

(“PHA”). Prior to joining PHA, she was the President and CEO of the Capital Area

Food Bank, an $80 million NGO addressing hunger and its companion problems of

obesity and diet-related disease. She has served on the leadership team of the United

Nation’s World Food Programme and as Vice President of the Council on Foreign

Relations. Ms. Roman currently serves on the board of Global Communities, a $125

million NGO working on global development issues in 25 countries, and on the board

of the Millennial Action Project, an NGO that seeks to engage and work with

millennials serving in government nationwide.

For decades, the individual amici have studied, developed, implemented and promoted

specific standards of governance and accountability within the nonprofit community, including

with respect to identification and management of apparent and actual conflicts of interests, to

strengthen public confidence in nonprofit organizations. Amici believe that an understanding of

these standards in the context of the prevailing policies and practices of the Commission on

Presidential Debates (“CPD”) will assist the Court’s resolution of this case.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs have demonstrated throughout the course of this litigation that the CPD is not,

as it claims to be, nonpartisan. See generally Dkt. No. 83-1, Plaintiffs Level the Playing Field,

Peter Ackerman, Green Party of the United States, and Libertarian National Committee Inc.’s

Mem. of Pts. and Auth. in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiffs’ Mot.”).

Indeed, the CPD leaders and many of its board members have been extensively involved in

highly partisan activities for both the Republican and Democratic parties, including participating

in events for presidential and vice-presidential candidates from both such parties. The Executive

Director of the CPD claims that an “informal” conflict-of-interest policy, allegedly supplemented

by a terse “Political Activities Policy” that has not even been produced by the CPD and, at most,

merely “intend[s] to deter,” rather than prohibit, partisan activities, prevents the CPD board

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 7 of 18
4

members from serving in an “official” capacity in a political campaign.3This “policy,” even if

supplemented with some portion in writing (which remains in doubt), remains wholly inadequate

to prevent actual conflicts of interest, much less the appearance thereof. The amici would still

consider the CPD to be, improperly, operating under an informal, unwritten conflict-of-interest

policy.

Worryingly, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) has “ignored” a “mountain of

submitted evidence” that is probative of the CPD board members’ partisan conduct.4Such

conduct likely stems from the absence of proper governance at the CPD. The FEC’s willingness

to find that an “informal policy” suffices “to prevent . . . the potential for an erroneous

appearance of partisanship”5is insupportable when considered in the context of established best

practices for conflict-of-interest policies in the nonprofit sector.6 By eschewing formal conflictof-interest policies that are explicit, in writing, accessible, and, importantly, appropriately

monitored for compliance, the CPD has contravened an essential tenet of responsible governance

for a nonprofit organization, thereby condoning and even encouraging the partisan activities of

its board members without safeguarding its nonpartisan tax-exempt purposes. Even ignoring the

notion that the integrity of the nation’s presidential and vice-presidential debates rests on

informal and unenforceable conflict-of-interest policies, such policies by their own terms would

3 AR7221-22 (emphasis added).

4

Level the Playing Field v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 232 F. Supp. 3d 130, 142-43 (D.D.C. 2017).

5 AR7222.

6 Many of the undersigned amici have had working relationships with and greatly respect the

Commissioners of the FEC and the Directors of the CPD, and this brief is not intended to

criticize their personal integrity. Rather, amici question the rules and regulations under which

the FEC and CPD operate, which require and/or allow the FEC Commissioners and CPD Board

of Directors to have partisan affiliations.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 8 of 18
5

permit CPD board members to consult “unofficially” with political campaigns, contribute to

fundraising efforts, and even endorse candidates.

The inadequacy of the CPD’s conflict-of-interest policy invites the CPD board members

to endorse, support, or oppose political candidates and indulge in other overtly partisan conduct,

and renders the FEC’s post-remand decisions holding otherwise arbitrary and capricious. See,

e.g., Plaintiffs’ Mot. at 21-26.

ARGUMENT

The CPD offers no evidence of having a formal, written conflict-of-interest policy that is

enforceable and monitored for compliance to govern its board members’ partisan political

activities.7 One of the two alleged policies, according to the very description provided by the

CPD, is “informal” and unwritten. Though the CPD claims to have another policy that is

written, that policy was never produced and thus cannot be meaningfully evaluated.8 Moreover,

the CPD admits that this policy does not even prohibit partisan conduct, and at most is “intended

to deter” certain types of conduct. Because nothing is prohibited by this alleged policy, and no

aspect of the policy is or could be enforced, the alleged written policy is, in reality, no policy at

all. Consequently, even when these two components are considered together, the CPD’s

conflict-of-interest policy is entirely informal, unenforceable, and unmonitored, which renders it

meaningless. The policy rests on formalistic and unrealistic distinctions between “official” and

“personal” participation in political campaigns,9and it tries to create a distinction that does not

and cannot exist, at an organization whose purpose is to host the presidential debates in a

7

See AR7041 n.2.

8 AR7103-04.

9 AR7220-22.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 9 of 18
6

nonpartisan way, regarding partisan activities undertaken in an individual capacity as opposed to

an organizational capacity.

I. CPD’s Informal Conflict-Of-Interest Policy Willfully Ignores Partisan Conduct By

Falling Woefully Short Of Basic Standards Of Governance Applicable to Nonprofit

Organizations.

The CPD’s failure to establish a formal, written conflict-of-interest policy to safeguard its

impartiality contravenes the basic standards and practices of good governance that are

fundamental in the nonprofit community. Such failure directly inhibits the CPD’s ability to

ensure that its board members perform their duties in a nonpartisan manner and, pursuant to their

fiduciary duties as board members, in the best interest of the CPD in furthering its mission.

That a nonprofit organization must have written and enforceable conflict-of-interest

policies is hardly controversial.10 In a comprehensive report issued by the Panel on the

10 The nonprofit community has been heavily influenced by the rigorous conflict-of-interest

guidelines that govern publicly traded corporations and large accounting firms. The enactment

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (2002) (“SOX”),

brought about renewed scrutiny of the governance of nonprofit organizations. See BoardSource,

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Implications for Nonprofit Organizations 2, 10 (Jan. 2006),

available at

https://www.centerfornonprofitexcellence.org/sites/default/files/SarbanesOxley.BoardSource.pdf

(last accessed Sept. 14, 2017). Specifically, SOX introduced a provision pertaining to the

adoption and disclosure of a formal “code of ethics” for certain officers of a reportable company

“to promote . . . the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal

and professional relationships.” 15 U.S.C. § 7264. Although not formally extended to nonprofit

organizations, the corporate governance standards under SOX have permanently altered

expectations of governance practices for nonprofit organizations. Accordingly, adoption of

written conflict-of-interest policies has increased significantly in the nonprofit community during

the past decade. In 2007, the Urban Institute reported that only half of the respondents in its

national survey of nonprofit organizations had a written conflict-of-interest policy. See The

Urban Institute, Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on Performance and

Accountability from the First National Representative Study 9 (2007), available at

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46516/411479-Nonprofit-Governance-inthe-United-States.pdf (last accessed Sept. 14, 2017). By contrast, only five years thereafter, the

Nonprofit Governance Index 2012, compiled by BoardSource, found that 96% of nonprofit

organizations surveyed had adopted a written conflict-of-interest policy. BoardSource, Nonprofit

Governance Index 2012, at 15 (Sept. 2012), available at

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 10 of 18
7

Nonprofit Sector—which consisted of several leaders of the nonprofit community convened by

the nonprofit coalition Independent Sector, at the encouragement of the leaders of the Finance

Committee of the United States Senate—the nonprofit community emphasized that “charitable

organizations should adopt and enforce a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with its state laws

and organizational needs.”11 The report, which reflected the input of “thousands of people

representing diverse organizations from every part of the country,” id., instructs nonprofits to:

[a]dopt and enforce a conflict of interest policy consistent with the

laws of its state and tailored to its specific organizational needs and

characteristics. This policy should define conflict of interest,

identify the classes of individuals within the organization covered

by the policy, facilitate disclosure of information that may help

identify conflicts of interest, and specify procedures to be followed

in managing conflicts of interest.12

Independent Sector has since issued two additional reports, in 2007 and 2015, explicating

its principles for good governance for nonprofit organizations.13 Both reports counsel nonprofits

to adopt and implement “policies and procedures to ensure that all conflicts of interest (real and

potential), or the appearance thereof, within the organization and the governing board are

appropriately managed through disclosure, recusal, or other means.”14 The reports specifically

https://www.leadingagemn.org/assets/docs/NonProfit_Governance_Index_Report_2012.pdf (last

accessed Sept. 14, 2017). In a more recent survey, out of 1,378 responding organizations, 94%

had adopted a written conflict-of-interest policy. See Leading with Intent, 2017 National Index

of Nonprofit Board Practices 6, 52 (2017), available at https://leadingwithintent.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/LWI2017.pdf (last accessed Sept. 12, 2017).

11 Panel on the Nonprofit Sector, Strengthening Transparency Governance Accountability of

Charitable Organizations: A Final Report to Congress and the Nonprofit Sector, 8 (2005),

available at http://www.kiplinger.com/members/taxlinks/071505/Nonprofit-Sector-report.pdf

(last accessed Sept. 13, 2017).

12 Id. at 81.

13 Independent Sector, Principles for Good Governance and Ethical Practice 5-6 (2015),

available at https://www.independentsector.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Principles2015-

Web-1.pdf (last accessed Sept. 13, 2017).

14 Id. at 12 (emphasis added).

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 11 of 18
8

contemplate a “written conflict-of-interest policy,” with periodic monitoring for compliance, to

avoid or manage any financial or non-financial “conflict[] of interest that could affect the

decisions of board members, staff leaders, and other employees.”15

In many jurisdictions, such best practices for written conflict-of-interest policies is

reflected in legislation and administrative guidance applicable to nonprofit organizations. For

example, New York requires nonprofit organizations to adopt a conflict-of-interest policy that

defines the circumstances constituting a conflict of interest, provides procedures for disclosing

such a conflict, and describes the actions that should be taken after a conflict has been

identified.16 New York law recognizes that “to ensure that [the nonprofit organization’s]

directors, officers, and key employees act in [such organization’s] best interest,” a conflict-ofinterest policy may be required to cover “types of conflicts that may exist even though there is no

financial interest at stake.”17

The federal government, and in particular the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), also

recognizes the importance for nonprofit organizations of implementing written conflict-ofinterest policies to manage all actual and potential conflicts, including non-financial conflicts. In

addition to routinely gathering information about the written policies of nonprofit organizations

through the applicable annual information return18 and audit procedures,19 the IRS emphasizes

that board members of a nonprofit organization should:

15 Id. (emphasis added).

16 See Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013, N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law § 715-A(A)-(B).

17 Conflicts of Interest Policies Under the Nonprofit Revitalization Act of 2013, Guidance

Document 2015-4, at 2-3 (April 2015) (emphasis added).

18 In 2007, the IRS redesigned the annual information return for tax-exempt organizations (IRS

Form 990) to enumerate several types of written policies and procedures that such organizations

are expected to adopt, including a written conflict-of-interest policy and regular monitoring of

such policy. See IRS Form 990 (2016), Part VI, Section B, Questions 12a-c.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 12 of 18
9

adopt and regularly evaluate a written conflict of interest policy

that requires directors and staff to act solely in the interests of the

charity without regard for personal interests; include[] written

procedures for determining whether a relationship, financial

interest, or business affiliation results in a conflict of interest; and

prescribe[] a course of action in the event a conflict of interest is

identified.20

The CPD’s only existing formal policy is explicitly limited to “financial conflicts of

interest that could arise as a result of outside employment” and does not prevent the appearance

of conflicts-of-interest by the CPD board members.21 Prohibiting financial conflicts may remove

only one possible source of actual conflicts of interest; it does nothing to address non-financial

conflicts or the appearance of conflicts. Moreover, although the informal conflict-of-interest

policy purports to “reflect[] the CPD’s view that a debate staging organization better serves the

public when it . . . adopts and adheres to balanced policies designed to prevent even the potential

for an erroneous appearance of partisanship based on political activities undertaken by CPDaffiliated persons (including Board members) in a personal capacity,”22 the policy is silent as to

any specific mechanism for disclosure and management of situations that give rise to a realized

or potential conflict.

19 For each audit of a tax-exempt organization, the IRS has directed its agents to gather

information about the governance practices of such organization so that the IRS can determine

whether the organization has a written conflict-of-interest policy and, if so, whether such policy

addresses recusals and requires annual written disclosures of any conflicts. See IRS Form 14114

(2009), Part 5, Questions 18a-c.

20 IRS, Governance and Related Topics - 501(c)(3) Organizations (Feb. 4, 2008), at § 4(B)

(emphasis added), available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/governance_practices.pdf (last

accessed Sept. 14, 2017).

21 AR7222; see Conflict of Interest Policy, Comm’n on Presidential Debates, ¶¶ 4-5.

22 AR7221-22.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 13 of 18
10

It is unrealistic to expect that the CPD can “operate[] completely independently of any

party or political campaign,”23 while governed by an unwritten and unmonitored conflict-ofinterest policy with no formal procedure for disclosing actual or potential non-financial conflicts.

Beyond the CPD’s self-serving claim that the unwritten policy prohibits the CPD board members

from “serving in any official capacity with a political campaign,”24 there is no indication as to

whether the CPD has procedures to follow for enforcing the informal policy, whether the

informal policy includes any reporting or monitoring requirements, or if there are consequences

for violating the informal policy. Indeed, there is no suggestion that CPD enforces the informal

policy at all. The failure of the CPD’s informal policy to conform to basic principles of

nonprofit governance all but guarantees the prevalence of partisan conduct within the

organization.

II. CPD’s Informal Conflict-Of-Interest Policy Is Incapable Of Preventing The

Appearance Of Partisanship.

It is similarly uncontroversial both within and outside the nonprofit community, that

organizations charged with the public trust, such as the CPD, must prevent not only actual

conflicts of interest, but also the appearance of such conflicts. In addition to instructing

organizations to adopt written policies, Independent Sector counsels that “[a] charitable

organization should adopt and implement policies and procedures to ensure that all conflicts of

interest (real and potential), or the appearance thereof, within the organization and the governing

board are appropriately managed through disclosure, recusal, or other means.”25 The CPD itself

23 AR7103.

24 Id.

25 Independent Sector, Principles for Good Governance, supra, at 12 (emphasis added).

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 14 of 18
11

recognizes that avoiding the appearance of conflicts must be part of its mandate.26 But the

CPD’s conflict-of-interest policy, such as it is, falls short of eliminating the appearance of

conflicts.

As described by the CPD Executive Director, the CPD’s informal policy prohibits board

members only from serving in an “official” capacity on a political campaign or with a political

party, without any clarification as to the meaning of “official.”27 The CPD’s policy already lacks

any enforcement mechanism, given that it is both unwritten and informal; and the CPD

extinguishes what remains of the policy’s viability by expressly recognizing a loophole

permitting board members, who make decisions about the selection of presidential and vicepresidential debate participants, to be actively involved in partisan political activities on behalf of

those very same debate participants or their parties.

The CPD compounds the problem by also recognizing a distinction between partisan

political activities undertaken by the board members in their “personal capacit[ies],” as opposed

to their “official capacit[ies].”28 For purposes of complying with a meaningful conflict-ofinterest policy that should be drafted to help ensure that the CPD is engaging in its activities in a

nonpartisan manner, as required pursuant to its tax-exempt status and by its specific mission of

hosting the presidential and vice-presidential debates, this distinction between board members’

individual and official partisan activities is entirely unrealistic.

Even if a clear line could be drawn between individual and official partisan activities, the

CPD ignores that even individual partisan conduct by CPD board members can taint the

26 See AR7104 (recognizing “the potential for an erroneous appearance of partisanship based

on political activities undertaken by CPD-affiliated persons (including Board members) in a

personal capacity” (emphasis added)).

27 AR7103.

28 AR7103-04.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 15 of 18
12

organization itself, specifically in light of the mission of the CPD. At a minimum, such conduct

would create the appearance of a conflict of interest; the public reasonably would interpret any

overtly partisan statement by a board member as an expression of the views of the organization

itself. Carried to its logical conclusion, the CPD would permit openly partisan conduct, so long

as it is done in board members’ ill-defined “personal capacit[ies].”

The alleged written “policy” is no more effective than the unwritten “informal policy” at

avoiding the appearance of conflict. As noted above, the CPD failed to disclose this policy,

making it impossible to confirm that it would actually avoid the appearance of conflict. And the

CPD’s own description confirms it would not, because it only “intends to deter” partisan

activities, instead of prohibiting them. Thus, the CPD’s leadership may continue to, and

apparently does, actively support and oppose partisan causes, notwithstanding any supposed

“deterrence” from the alleged written policy.

CONCLUSION

Having a conflict-of-interest policy that is merely informal and unwritten is tantamount to

having no policy at all. It is readily apparent that the CPD’s current provision of informal and

incomplete conflict-of-interest policies fails to meet the basic standard of governance adopted by

the nonprofit community at large. CPD board members have engaged in the endorsement of

(and opposition to) political campaigns and other partisan conduct, while at the same time

bearing responsibility for ensuring that the CPD conducts its activities in a nonpartisan way in

accordance with its tax-exempt purposes. For an organization like the CPD that is charged with

safeguarding the integrity of the nation’s presidential and vice-presidential debates, more should

and must be demanded by the FEC. Accordingly, the amici respectfully request that this Court

grant summary judgment for the Plaintiffs.

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 16 of 18
13

Dated: September 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Robert A. DeRise

Robert A. DeRise (D.C. Bar Number 1005355)

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

Tel.: (202) 942-5000

robert.derise@apks.com

Of Counsel:

Emily Newhouse Dillingham (IL Bar No. 6290333)

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

70 West Madison Street

Chicago, IL 60602-4231

Tel: (312) 583.2300

emily.dillingham@apks.com

Zeno Houston (NY Bar No. 5360177)

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

250 West 55th Street

New York, NY 10019-9710

Tel: (212) 836-8000

zeno.houston@apks.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae Nonprofit Leaders,

Scholars and Practitioners

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 17 of 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 22, 2017, the foregoing brief was filed using the Court’s

CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served

electronically via that system.

Dated: September 22, 2017

By: /s/ Robert A. DeRise

Robert A. DeRise

D.C. Bar No. 1005355

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

601 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20001-3743

Tel.: (202) 942-5000

robert.derise@apks.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae Nonprofit Leaders,

Scholars and Practitioners

Case 1:15-cv-01397-TSC Document 88 Filed 10/05/17 Page 18 of 18