1 If this case proceeds further, the court presumes that with respect to any “official

capacity” claim, Michael B. Mukasey will be substituted for Alberto R. Gonzales. FED. R. CIV. P.

25(d). Likewise, David M. Mason will be substituted for Robert D. Lenhard as the FEC Chair in his

official capacity. To the extent that Gonzales and Lenhard are sued in their individual capacities,

each would remain a defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JACK and RENEE BEAM, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 07 C 1227

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, UNITED ) Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; and )

ROBERT LENHARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE )

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; and )

UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL )

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, in their )

individual and official capacities,1 )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiffs Jack and Renee Beam (the “Beams”) claim to have been targeted for investigation

based on their political activities and, specifically, their support for John Edwards in the 2004

presidential election. The Beams allege that the United States Attorney General, the Chair of the

Federal Election Commission (the “FEC” or “Commission”), and/or certain unknown Federal Bureau

of Investigation (“FBI”) agents (together the “Defendants”) raided the offices of a law firm with which

Mr. Beam is affiliated, raided the homes of certain of the law firm’s employees and associates, and

seized those employees’ and associates’ financial records directly from their financial institutions.

Plaintiffs have brought a five-count Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages, a writ of

mandamus, a declaratory judgment, and other relief to remedy this allegedly wrongful conduct.

Defendants move to dismiss. For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 1 of 22
2

BACKGROUND

The allegations of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint are presumed true and recounted in the

light most favorable to Plaintiffs. The Beams are both Illinois residents. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Mr.

Beam is of counsel at the Detroit, Michigan law firm of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney & Johnson (the

“Fieger law firm”), and Mrs. Beam is his wife. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Geoffrey N. Fieger is the President of

the Fieger law firm as well as a prominent Democrat and former Michigan gubernatorial candidate.

(Id. ¶ 8.) On November 30, 2005, Defendant Alberto R. Gonzales, then the United States Attorney

General, authorized a nighttime raid on the Fieger law firm’s offices; he also authorized

approximately 100 federal agents to simultaneously raid the homes of certain associates and

employees of the Fieger law firm. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiffs assert that these raids were conducted

because the Fieger law firm’s employees and associates–as well as the family members of those

individuals–made contributions to presidential candidate John Edwards in connection with the 2004

election. (Id. ¶ 10.)

While at the homes of these associates and employees, the federal agents conducting the

raid harassed the individuals by questioning them about which candidate they had voted for in the

2004 presidential election and about their financial support of John Edwards. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.)

The federal agents revealed that they had obtained access to the financial records of the

employees and associates directly from their financial institutions and that they had obtained payroll

records from the Fieger law firm’s financial institution. (Id. ¶ 11.) The government agents never

suggested to Plaintiffs or other Fieger law firm personnel that they had complied with federal

statutory procedures in obtaining financial records. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)

On March 2, 2007, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint in this

court. (Docket Entry No. 1.) The Complaint named Gonzales and Robert Lenhard (then the FEC

Chair), both in their official capacities. (Id.) On May 10, 2007, the Attorney General moved to

dismiss Count I, which sought a declaratory judgment that the Attorney General and the FEC had

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 2 of 22
2 Although Plaintiffs refer to the Federal Campaign Finance Act in their Complaint and

the Federal Election Campaign Act in their Amended Complaint, they cite to the same statutory

provisions. 

3

violated the Federal Campaign Finance Act. (Docket Entry No. 22.)2

 On the same date, the FEC

moved to dismiss all three counts of the Complaint: Count II invoked the Administrative Procedures

Act (“APA”), while Count III sought a writ of mandamus requiring the FEC to comply with the

Federal Campaign Finance Act. (Docket Entry No. 27.) On June 22, 2007, the court dismissed

Count I, noting that many factual matters Plaintiffs emphasized in opposing the motion did not

appear as allegations in the complaint. (Docket Entry No. 46.) The court reserved ruling on

whether Counts II and III stated a claim for relief.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 29, 2007, this time asserting five counts

against Gonzales, Lenhard, and certain unnamed FBI agents, all in their official and individual

capacities. (Am. Compl.) In Count I, Plaintiffs allege violations of the Right to Financial Privacy Act

(“RFPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq. In Count II, they allege retaliation for engaging in

constitutionally protected activity. In Count III, Plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (“FECA” or the “Act”), 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. In Count IV, they invoke the APA, 5

U.S.C. § 701 et seq. In Count V, Plaintiffs invoke the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. To

remedy the federal officers’ alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiffs seek (a) a declaration that Defendants’

conduct violates FECA, (b) a writ of mandamus compelling the FEC to comply with FECA, (c)

monetary damages as authorized by law, and (d) any other relief the court deems appropriate.

(Am. Compl. at 10-11.)

Both the FEC and the Attorney General moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint

on August 23, 2007. First, they contend that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), because Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are not ripe. (AG Mem.

at 4-12.) The FEC and the Attorney General also argue that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 3 of 22
4

relief, and therefore that the claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (AG Mem. at

12-19; FEC Mem. at 5-17.) The court begins, as it must, by analyzing whether it has subject matter

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. For the reasons explained below, the court concludes it lacks

jurisdiction to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Attorney General, the FEC Chair,

or the unnamed FBI agents.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiffs’ Complaint

A. Pleading Requirements

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint must provide a “short and

plain statement of the claim” in order to give the defendant “fair notice of what the suit is about and

the grounds on which it rests.” Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527, 533 (7th

Cir. 2006). When determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction, the court accepts the

Amended Complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences

from those allegations in Plaintiffs’ favor. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. City of Carmel, 361 F.3d 998,

1001 (7th Cir. 2004). But a plaintiff’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level.” In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 953, 956 (N.D.

Ill. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007)). Moreover, federal

courts “presume that federal courts lack jurisdiction ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from

the record.’” Sprint, 361 F.3d at 1001 (quoting Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991) (internal

quotations marks and citations omitted)). As a result, it is the Plaintiffs’ “responsibility to clearly

allege facts that invoke federal court jurisdiction.” Id.; RWB Servs., LLC v. Rally Capital Servs.,

LLC, 502 F. Supp. 2d 787, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (“The burden of proof on a 12(b)(1) issue is on the

party asserting jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). 

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 4 of 22
5

B. Supplemental Materials

Plaintiffs have attached certain supplementary documents to their Response, prompting the

Attorney General to argue that these materials should not be considered on a motion to dismiss.

(AG Reply at 3-4.) In particular, Plaintiffs have attached an August 2007 indictment of Fieger and

Vernon Johnson, which arises from the investigation at issue in this case (Exhibit A); a May 2007

affidavit of Jill Simpson related to the investigation of one-time Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

(Exhibit B); an October 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Alabama dismissing with prejudice the indictment against Siegelman and Paul Harmick (Exhibit C);

a September 2007 New York Times article by Adam Nossiter regarding the prosecution of

Siegelman (Exhibit D); a February 2007 article by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan regarding

investigations conducted by George W. Bush’s Department of Justice (Exhibit E); and a September

2007 article by Scott Horton in Harper’s Magazine regarding politically-motivated investigations

allegedly conducted by the Bush Justice Department (Exhibit F). The court may take judicial notice

of matters in the public record, Palay v. United States, 349 F.3d 418, 425 n.5 (7th Cir. 2003), such

as the indictment. Thus, the court will consider Exhibit A.

As for Exhibits B through F, whether the court can consider this evidence depends on the

adequacy of the allegations in the Beams’ Amended Complaint. When a court analyzes a motion

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court treats the Rule 12(b)(1) motion like any

other motion to dismiss and assumes that the allegations of the complaint are true. United

Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003) (en banc). If those

allegations are adequate to establish subject matter jurisdiction, a party challenging the complaint

may offer supporting affidavits and other materials for the court’s consideration. Id. Here, the

Defendants challenge both the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint and the factual basis

for the Beams’ invocation of subject matter jurisdiction. United Phosphorus does not address

whether the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction may provide documentary evidence to

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 5 of 22
6

buttress the factual allegations of the complaint, but the court believes that the plaintiffs may do so

in this case. See Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993) (“The district court

may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence

has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.”).

In Capitol Leasing, the court noted that a subject matter jurisdiction challenge must always be

brought as a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment, because a court may

not consider the merits of an action if it lacks jurisdiction; thus, “jurisdiction is inappropriate for

summary judgment.” Id. In other words, a court could never evaluate documentary evidence when

determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction if it could not do so at the motion to dismiss

stage. To the extent the documentary evidence is useful, the court will therefore consider it when

analyzing the factual basis of the Beams’ attempt to invoke federal jurisdiction.

That said, information regarding other allegedly wrongful investigations conducted by the

Department of Justice cannot afford this court subject matter jurisdiction over the Beams’ Amended

Complaint. Thus, Exhibits B through F are not relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. The court will,

however, consider a September 2006 letter from then-FEC Chair Michael Toner to Jack Beam,

which Plaintiffs attached to their Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Because both the Plaintiffs and

Defendant FEC Chair discuss the contents of that letter during this briefing, it is useful to consider

the contents of the letter itself.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. Standing

The Beams, as the parties invoking federal jurisdiction, bear the burden of demonstrating

that they have standing. Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. Schober, 366 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir. 2004). To

do so, they must demonstrate “(i) an injury in fact, which is an invasion of a legally protected

interest that is concrete and particularized and, thus, actual or imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical; (ii) a causal relation between the injury and the challenged conduct, such that the

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 6 of 22
7

injury can be fairly traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and (iii) a likelihood that the

injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (quoting Reid L. v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 358

F.3d 511, 515 (7th Cir. 2004)) (additional citations omitted). The dispute in this case revolves

around the first element of standing: whether the Beams have suffered injury in fact. A litigant has

suffered an injury in fact if he or she “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some

direct injury.” Id. (citation omitted). In other words, the injury must be more than speculative. Id.

Plaintiffs assert that they are “the target[s] of a politically motivated investigation initiated by

Defendants because of Plaintiffs’ political activities and support of former presidential and vice

presidential candidate John Edwards.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) But even assuming they have been

targeted for investigation, Plaintiffs fail to identify any harm they have suffered, or are in immediate

danger of suffering, as a result of this investigation. Plaintiffs allege that the Attorney General

personally authorized a “nighttime raid” on the Fieger law firm’s offices and on the homes of Fieger

law firm “associates and employees.” (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) During this “nighttime raid,” Plaintiffs assert, the

federal agents conducting the raids “harassed the individuals.” (Id. ¶ 11.) The federal agents

allegedly told the individuals whose homes they raided that they had obtained “the Fieger law firm

employees’ and associates’ financial records. . . .” (Id. ¶ 11.) Significantly, however, Plaintiffs do

not allege that their own home was raided. Because the Beams’ home was apparently not raided

on the night in question, the Beams do not allege that they themselves were harassed by the

federal agents or told that their financial records had been seized. Nor do they allege that the

federal agents informed others, whose homes were in fact raided, that the Beams’ bank records

had been seized.

Nor, indeed, have Plaintiffs alleged that the government actually did seize their financial

records. Plaintiffs assert that the government obtained financial records of “over 100 individuals,”

(Am. Compl. ¶ 13), but they never specifically allege that the Attorney General, the FEC Chair, or

any other government agent seized their own bank records in particular. Instead, Plaintiffs simply

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 7 of 22
8

assume this to be true for purposes of the Amended Complaint. (See id. ¶ 15 (“In order to

determine how the government secretly obtained their financial records, Plaintiffs Jack and Renee

Beam asked their financial institution . . . .”); ¶ 24 (“The only other method by which Defendants

could have secretly obtained Plaintiffs’ financial records is. . . .”); ¶ 26 (“Defendants’ act of secretly

accessing Plaintiffs’ financial records . . . is a gross violation of federal law”); ¶ 31 (“. . . sometime

after Defendant[s]. . . secretly obtained Plaintiffs’ private banking records. . . .”).) Their assumption

that the government must have obtained their bank records is not enough to establish an injury in

fact. And without any affirmative allegation that the Beams themselves suffered an injury in fact,

Plaintiffs lack standing.

Even if these indirect assumptions were sufficient to suggest that government agents had

seen financial records, Defendants argue, there would still be no basis to conclude that the Beams

have standing, because the Beams have suffered no harm. (AG Mem. at 11-12.) In other words,

there is no factual basis for any allegations that Plaintiffs have been injured. (Id.) Where the factual

basis for plaintiff’s standing is challenged, the plaintiff must present “competent proof,” or a showing

by the preponderance of the evidence, of standing. Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 468 (7th

Cir. 2003). “‘Competent proof’ requires a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that

standing exists.” Perry v. Arlington Heights, 186 F.3d 826, 829 (7th Cir. 1999); see also McNutt v.

General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936) (“If his allegations of jurisdictional

facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by

competent proof. And where they are not so challenged the court may still insist that the

jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may

demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a preponderance of evidence.”).

Plaintiffs insist they have in fact been injured. Specifically, they believe that various White

House officials have been directing certain Department of Justice investigations, including

campaign finance investigations. (Pls.’ Resp. at 7-10.) According to Plaintiffs’ briefing, this is part

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 8 of 22
9

of a nationwide campaign to chill Democrats’ First Amendment expression. (Id.) The apparent

basis for Plaintiffs belief that they were drawn into this pattern of politically-motivated prosecutions

is a “threat letter” from the FEC. Plaintiffs explain:

During the course of its crusade, the DOJ revealed that they had secretly obtained

the bank records for dozens of individuals without a trace of a warrant or subpoena

or other document. Shortly thereafter, [then-]FEC Chairman Michael Toner (former

General Counsel of the Bush-Cheney team) sent a threat letter to Plaintiffs Jack and

Renee Beam accusing them of violating federal campaign finance laws. So how did

the FEC obtain information about political contributions made by Jack and Renee

Beam? How did the FEC obtain financial records about monies paid either to or

from the Beams from the Fieger law firm. [sic] The most likely answer is that the

DOJ illegally gathered such private financial records in violation of federal law and

then sent their illegal fruits to the FEC.

(Pls.’ Resp. at 2-3.) According to Plaintiffs, this threat letter “made clear that the FEC had in its

possession Plaintiffs’ bank records.” (Id. at 13.) Having reviewed the letter, the court disagrees.

In the letter, dated September 26, 2006, Toner (notably not the FEC Chair named in his

individual capacity in this lawsuit) notifies Mr. Beam that on September 19 of that year the FEC had

learned that there is reason to believe Mr. Beam violated 2 U.S.C. § 441f. (Letter from M. Toner

to J. Beam of 9/26/06.) Section 441f of FECA makes it unlawful to make contributions in the name

of another person, or to knowingly accept such a contribution. Toner’s letter makes no mention of

Plaintiffs’ bank records; instead, the letter represented that “[t]his finding was based on information

ascertained by the Commission in the normal course of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities.”

(Id.) While the letter purports to attach a “Factual and Legal Analysis, which more fully explains the

Commission’s finding,” that Analysis is not before the court. (Id.) According to the statements in

the September 26 letter, however, the FEC came upon the information regarding Mr. Beam’s

alleged FECA violations while conducting its ordinary responsibilities. Plaintiffs offer no basis for

their assumption that the FEC could only have come upon this information by seizing the Beams’

bank records. And Plaintiffs themselves emphasize the investigation of Fieger’s or the Fieger law

firm’s financial records. The court assumes that the FEC could have uncovered information in

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 9 of 22
10

those records, or in the Edwards campaign’s public filings, that might have generated suspicion that

Mr. Beam violated § 441f. Plaintiffs thus offer no more than unsubstantiated speculation that the

FEC actually obtained their bank records illicitly. This falls far short of establishing injury in fact by

a preponderance of the evidence. The court concludes Plaintiffs have not met the requirements

of Article III standing.

B. Ripeness

The Attorney General also argues that the court lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs’ claims

are not ripe for review. Essentially, the Attorney General’s position is that Plaintiffs’ claims implicate

an ongoing federal investigation, and that the court should not interfere with an ongoing criminal

investigation or prosecution. “The ripeness doctrine is drawn both from Article III limitations on

judicial power and from prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction. . . .” Nat’l Park

Hospitality Ass’n v. DOI, 538 U.S. 803, 807 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) articulates what remains the governing ripeness

doctrine in areas of administrative review. “The problem is best seen in a twofold aspect, requiring

us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of

withholding court consideration.” Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149, cited in 13A Charles Alan Wright

et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3532.6, at 194 (2d ed. 1984); see also Nat’l Park, 538 U.S.

at 808. The Abbott court also noted that “injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies are

discretionary, and courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply them to administrative

determinations unless these arise in the context of a controversy ‘ripe’ for judicial resolution.”

Abbott, 387 U.S. at 148. This warning is particularly significant with regard to Counts III, IV, and

V of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, each of which seeks equitable relief. With this caution in mind,

the court considers the issues of fitness for judicial decision and hardship to the parties.

1. Fitness for Judicial Decision

In Abbott, the court found an issue fit for judicial review where the issue tendered was purely

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 10 of 22
11

legal, Abbott, 387 U.S. at 149; the court would be reviewing a final agency action, id.; and the

agency action had a direct and immediate impact on the petitioners, id. at 152. None of these

criteria is satisfied here. First, the issue before the court is not purely legal: there are many factual

disputes among the parties, including who initiated the investigation, why, how it was conducted,

and what its current status is. The thrust of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that the investigation

was motivated by a desire to retaliate against Plaintiffs for the support of John Edwards, and this

question of intent is clearly factual. Second, an investigation “is quintessentially non-final as a form

of agency action.” Univ. of Med. & Dentistry v. Corrigan, 347 F.3d 57, 69 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation

omitted); Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An agency’s

initiation of an investigation does not constitute final agency action.”). Instead, the decision to

investigate is preliminary and not subject to judicial review. Corrigan, 347 F.3d at 69. Thus, not

even Toner’s letter to Mr. Beam, notifying him that an investigation is underway, ripens the dispute.

Third, as discussed above, Plaintiffs lack standing precisely because they have failed to

demonstrate any direct and immediate impact that the alleged investigation has had on their rights

or interests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ allegations are not ripe, under the governing standard set forth

in Abbott.

Moreover, even where the Abbott criteria are satisfied, an action may not be not ripe for

judicial decision where “further factual development would ‘significantly advance our ability to deal

with the legal issues presented.’” Nat’l Park, 538 U.S. at 812 (quoting Duke Power Co. v. Carolina

Environ. Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 82 (1978)) (additional citations omitted). Here, further

factual development would undoubtedly illuminate the legal issues before the court. For example,

the court does not yet know what, if any, charges may be brought against the Beams. See In re

Stanford, 68 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1359 (N.D. Ga. 1999) (where one of the targets of a criminal

investigation sought an order disqualifying the United States Attorney’s office, the court observed:

“The issues in this matter are not yet ripe for judicial decision because this Court does not know the

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 11 of 22
12

nature of the charges that may be lodged against” targets of criminal investigation.). Because the

Attorney General and FEC have not yet made decisions about whether or how to enforce applicable

laws, the court cannot assess the impact of any agency misconduct on the Beams. 

In fact, as a general rule, authorities note that “courts should not intrude during the

investigative stage” of an adjudicatory proceeding. 13A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice

& Procedure § 3532.6, at 199 (2d ed. 1984). For the courts to interfere in an ongoing agency

investigation “might hopelessly entangle the courts in areas that would prove to be unmanageable

and would certainly throw great amounts of sand into the gears of the administrative process.”

Corrigan, 347 F.3d at 64 (citation omitted); see also Jobs, Training & Servs. v. East Tex. Council

of Gov’ts, 50 F.3d 1318, 1325 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that, where a federal agency is engaged in

a continuing factual investigation, judicial intervention may hinder effective administration of the

agency’s duties). This reflects a broad understanding that “the decision to prosecute is particularly

ill-suited to judicial review.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985).

In response, Plaintiffs note that the grand jury returned an indictment against Fieger and

Vernon Johnson –also a partner in the Fieger law firm. (Indictment in United States v. Fieger, Case

No. 2:07-cr-20414, Ex. A to Pls.’ Resp.) The counts against Fieger and Johnson include

conspiracy, making and causing conduit campaign contributions, causing false statements, and

obstruction of justice. (Id.) Now that an indictment is pending, but Plaintiffs themselves have not

been named, Plaintiffs suggest that the court need not abstain from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims. (Pls.’

Resp. at 2.) Plaintiffs cite Steffel v. Thompson, where the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen no state

criminal proceeding is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed, federal intervention does

not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system. . . .”

Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462 (1974). Steffel–a case about state criminal proceedings–is

not on point here, as the fact that no federal criminal proceedings have been initiated against the

Beams does not establish that the government’s investigation is complete. The question before

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 12 of 22
3 The FEC has also moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that

sovereign immunity bars the Plaintiffs’ claims against the government agents. Because that issue

will not alter the outcome of the court’s decision, the court declines to address it here.

13

the court is whether to intervene in an ongoing federal criminal investigation, an issue Steffel does

not address. Plaintiffs also urge out that it cannot be that the government may violate individual

rights with impunity so long as it declines to indict the targets of its investigations. (Pls.’ Resp. at

17.) But Abbott does not establish a rule that provides the government impunity; it merely dictates

that an individual must wait until his or her claims are ripe to pursue a legal remedy. Whether or

not the Plaintiffs have suffered an injury the courts are empowered to remedy is not yet a question

ripe for adjudication. 

2. Hardship for the Beams

The Beams have identified no hardship they would suffer, were the court to delay

adjudication of their claims. The only potential hardship is that the investigation of their campaign

contributions would presumably continue. But “[c]ourts have almost never found that an ongoing

criminal investigation imposes a sufficient hardship to the person investigated to warrant judicial

review prior to his or her indictment.” North v. Walsh, 656 F. Supp. 414, 420 (D.D.C. 1987).

Indeed, “[t]he criminal justice system is structured to provide the criminal defendant ample

opportunity to vindicate his rights after he is indicted.” Id. at 421 (citing FED. R. CRIM.P. 12(b)). The

Beams will not be forced to endure hardship simply because the dispute is deemed not ripe for

adjudication. According, the issue is not ripe for judicial review.3

III. Legal Relief for Alleged FECA Violations

A. Relevant Law

The FEC previously moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ declaratory, APA, and mandamus claims

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Docket Entries No. 27 & 28 at 14-19.) In open court on June 22, 2007,

the FEC’s and Attorney General’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ declaratory action was granted, but

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 13 of 22
14

the court deferred ruling on whether Plaintiffs had stated valid claims for relief under the APA or the

mandamus statute. In assessing that question, a brief review of the relevant statutes is useful.

First, the APA provides that “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or

adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is

entitled to judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. This remedy extends to “final agency action.”

5 U.S.C. § 704. The reviewing court is empowered to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld

or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The reviewing court may also “hold unlawful and set

aside agency action, findings, and conclusions” under certain circumstances. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

Similarly, the mandamus statute empowers the district courts with jurisdiction over “any action in

the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency

thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. This is, however, an

“extraordinary remedy . . . traditionally available to compel a ministerial duty owed by the agency

and then only when the statute defining that duty is clear and free from doubt.” Banks v. Sec’y of

Ind. Family & Social Servs. Admin., 997 F.2d 231, 244 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal citation and

quotation marks omitted). To invoke mandamus jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a clear right

in the plaintiff to the relief sought; (2) a plainly defined and peremptory duty on the part of the

defendant to do the act in question; (3) no other adequate remedy available.” Id. at 244-45; see

also Iddir v. INS, 301 F.3d 492, 499 (7th Cir. 2002). For jurisdictional purposes, a plaintiff must

show a “plausible” claim for relief. Ahmed v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 328 F.3d 383, 386-87 (7th

Cir. 2003). Invoking both the APA and mandamus statute, Plaintiffs urge the court to require the

Commission to comply with FECA.

The court reviews relevant provisions of that Act, as well. By enacting FECA, Congress

established and defined the FEC. 2 U.S.C. § 437c(a)(1). Congress entrusted the Commission with

exclusive jurisdiction with respect to civil enforcement of FECA. 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1). In fact, the

FEC’s power to initiate civil actions is “the exclusive civil remedy for the enforcement of the

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 14 of 22
15

provisions of this Act.” 2 U.S.C. § 437d(e). To aid the FEC in this task, Congress entrusted the

Commission with, among others, the powers to subpoena witness testimony and document

production; to order deposition testimony; to initiate, defend, and appeal civil actions to enforce

FECA; to render advisory opinions; to conduct investigations and hearings; and to report apparent

violations of the act to law enforcement authorities. 2 U.S.C. § 437d(a). The Commission may also

seek judicial enforcement of its orders in federal district court. 2 U.S.C. § 437d(b).

In addition, FECA sets forth a procedure by which civil enforcement shall occur. There are

two ways to trigger an FEC investigation. First, any person may file a written complaint with the

FEC, alleging a violation of FECA. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1). Alternatively, the Commission may

initiate an investigation of its own accord, based on “information ascertained in the normal course

of carrying out its supervisory responsibilities.” 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). In either case, the

Commission must determine by an affirmative vote of four of its six voting members “that it has

reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of” FECA. Id. If

the members make this determination, the FEC “shall” notify the person of the alleged violation and

“shall make an investigation of such alleged violation.” Id. That investigation may include a field

investigation or audit. Id. Then, if the FEC’s general counsel recommends that the FEC proceed

to a vote on whether there exists probable cause to believe that a violation of FECA has occurred

or will occur, the general counsel “shall” notify the respondent and send the respondent a statement

of the general counsel’s position on the legal and factual issues of the case. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(3).

The respondent has fifteen days to respond to this brief. Id.

The FEC’s next task is to determine whether there is, in fact, probable cause to believe that

a violation has occurred or is about to occur. If the FEC makes such a determination, based on the

investigation and the briefs, the FEC “shall” attempt to correct or prevent that violation through

informal methods. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(A)(i). The FEC will use these informal methods–including

conference, conciliation, and persuasion–to pursue a conciliation agreement. Id. If the parties

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 15 of 22
16

cannot reach a conciliation agreement, the FEC may file a civil enforcement suit in federal district

court. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)(A). Finally, if the FEC determines by an affirmative vote of four of its

members that there is probable cause to believe that a “knowing and willful” violation of FECA has

occurred or is about to occur, it “may” refer this violation to the Attorney General. 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g(a)(5)(C). FECA assures persons being investigated that “[a]ny notification or investigation

made under this section shall not be made public by the Commission or by any person without the

written consent of the person receiving such notification or the person with respect to whom such

investigation is made.” 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12)(A). 

Here, Plaintiffs accuse the agencies of violating three FECA requirements. First, Plaintiffs

argue that the FEC and the Attorney General violated, and routinely violate, the FECA provision that

permits the Commission to refer violations of the Act it has probable cause to believe were knowing

and willful to the Attorney General. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-45.) In addition, they contend that the FEC

has disregarded the investigation requirement contained in 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(2). (See Am. Compl.

¶¶ 48-49.) Finally, the assert that the Commission has violated FECA’s confidentiality provision by

disclosing details concerning its investigative effort to the Attorney General. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-45.)

As a result, the Beams request that the court order the FEC to comply with these FECA

requirements. In at least two cases, other district courts have considered whether alleged violations

of the Act provide a basis for relief under the APA or mandamus statute. Neither of these decisions

are controlling, but the court finds them persuasive and thus presents their analysis in detail below.

 B. Related Litigation

1. Referral Provision

On February 5, 2007, Fieger, Nancy Fisher (office manager of the Fieger law firm), and the

Fieger law firm brought a three-count complaint against the Attorney General and FEC Chair, based

on the same investigation at issue in this litigation. Application for Writ of Mandamus and

Complaint, Fieger v. Gonzales, Case 2:07-cv-10533 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2007). The plaintiffs in that

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 16 of 22
17

action sought a declaratory judgment that defendants were violating the investigation and referral

provisions of FECA, id. ¶¶ 18-24, as well as relief under the APA and mandamus statute, id. ¶¶ 25-

31. As here, the Attorney General and the FEC moved to dismiss. In considering their motions,

Judge Zatkoff began by addressing whether the referral provision permits the Attorney General to

initiate a criminal investigation absent the affirmative vote of four FEC members. In Fieger, the

plaintiffs alleged that the Attorney General cannot investigate possible criminal violations of FECA

absent a referral pursuant to § 437g(a)(5)(C), which permits the FEC to refer knowing and willful

violations of the FEC to the Attorney General once it has found probable cause to believe that such

a violation has occurred. Fieger v. Gonzalez, 07-CV-10533-DT, 2007 WL 2351006, at *2 (E.D.

Mich. Aug. 15, 2007). Based on the plain language of the statute, which vests the Commission with

exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the act, Judge Zatkoff found any arguments that the

Attorney General is without authority to investigate criminal violations “without merit on their face.”

Id. at *5. 

He noted that this reading of the statute’s language comports with the Attorney General’s

statutory authority to conduct litigation on behalf of the government, absent a “clear and

unambiguous” Congressional directive restricting it. Fieger, 2007 WL 2351006, at *5 (quoting

United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 282 (1911)). The only clear and unambiguous directive

contained in FECA relates to jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Act. Id. The Act makes no

mention of criminal enforcement and, thus, in no way “infringes on the Attorney General’s plenary

power to enforce criminal violations of the Act.” Id. Judge Zatkoff buttressed his conclusion by

reviewing the Act’s legislative history. One sponsor of FECA made clear that: “The bill would grant

the exclusive civil enforcement of the act to the Commission to avoid confusion and overlapping

with the Department of Justice, but at the same time, retain the jurisdiction of the Department of

Justice for the criminal prosecution of any violations of this act.” Id. at *6 (citation omitted). Finally,

Judge Zatkoff observed “numerous courts over the last 30 years have concluded that criminal

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 17 of 22
18

enforcement may either originate with the Attorney General or stem from a referral by the

Commission to the Attorney General.” Id. at *7 (collecting FECA cases). Accordingly, he found no

violation of the referral provision, under the very same circumstances currently before the court. 

Likewise, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado considered and dismissed claims brought by Barry Bialek–a medical doctor who provided

consulting services to the Fieger law firm and was allegedly investigated. Bialek v. Gonzales, Civil

Action No. 07-cv-00321-WYDPAC, 2007 WL 1879989 (D. Colo. June 28, 2007). Bialek brought

a one-count declaratory action against the Attorney General and FEC Chair, alleging that both

agencies had violated the Act’s referral provision. Complaint, Bialek v. Gonzales, Civil Action No.

07-cv-00321-WYDPAC, 2007 WL 1879989 (D. Colo. Feb. 14, 2007). Granting a motion to dismiss,

Judge Daniel found that the referral provision of the FEC mandates the FEC’s referral process but

does not limit the Attorney General “in any way.” Id. at *3. Because “conduct of federal criminal

litigation ... is an executive function within the exclusive prerogative of the Attorney General,” there

is a presumption against congressional intention to limit the Attorney General’s power to prosecute

criminal offenses. Id. (quoting United States v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 701, 638 F.2d

1161, 1162 (9th Cir.1979)). Like Judge Zatkoff, Judge Daniel found in FECA no clear and

unambiguous intent to restrict the Attorney General’s enforcement authority. Id. As a result, Judge

Daniel concluded “that neither the plain language of the statute nor the legislative history supports

a conclusion that Congress intended to limit the Attorney General’s authority to prosecute criminal

violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act” and dismissed Bialek’s claims. Id. at *5.

The court agrees with its sister courts that Plaintiffs have not pleaded a violation of FECA’s

referral provision. Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs’ claims for relief pursuant to the APA and

mandamus statute depend on the referral provision, they are dismissed.

2. Investigation Requirement

The plaintiffs in the case before Judge Zatkoff also raised claims related to FECA’s

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 18 of 22
19

investigation requirement. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought an order requiring the FEC to

investigate their alleged activities. Fieger, 2007 WL 2351006 at *8. Judge Zatkoff found that

judicial review of an agency’s action is limited to “discrete” actions that are “legally required.”

Fieger, 2007 WL 2351006, at *8 (citing Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 63

(2004) (“the only agency action that can be compelled under the APA is action legally required.”)

(emphasis in original)). Judge Zatkoff found that the FEC has discretion regarding its

investigations, and therefore that an investigation pursuant to FECA will not be the sort of “precise,

definite act . . . about which [the Commission] has no discretion whatever.” Id. at *9 (citing Norton,

542 U.S. at 63 (internal quotations and citations omitted)). He noted that FECA does not delineate

particular acts the FEC must take when conducting an investigation or state what information the

FEC must seek in its investigation and does not establish a time limit for completing any

investigative action. Id. at *9. In fact, the Act vests the FEC with broad authority to use its

investigative tools of choice, in whatever sequence and time frame it chooses. Id. And “the law is

clear that an agency authorized to conduct investigations has broad authority to control the conduct

and timing of its investigation.” Id. (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 828 (1985); FEC v.

Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1091 (D.C. Cir.1984); FEC v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1984);

Durkin for U.S. Senate Comm. v. FEC, 2 Fed. Election Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH) ¶ 9147 at 51,113

(D.N.H.1980)). FECA specifies no “‘discrete action’ the FEC is ‘required’ to take within any

particular timeframe, such that it could be subject to judicial review under the APA.” Id. at *10

(citing Norton, 542 U.S. at 63).

This court concurs with Judge Zatkoff that the judiciary has no power to dictate the timing

or nature of an FEC investigation. In response, Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he FEC is not conducting

any investigation.” (Docket Entry No. 34 at 7 (emphasis in original).) In other words, Plaintiffs

suggest, even if the court may not dictate the course of an investigation, the court can and should

order the FEC to conduct some investigation (presumably to supplant the Attorney General’s

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 19 of 22
20

activities). The Fieger plaintiffs made the same argument, and Judge Zatkoff rejected it. Fieger,

2007 WL 2351006, at *9. Here, as in Fieger, the facts before the court belie the Beams’

representation that the Commission has failed to initiate any investigation. As discussed above,

Toner notified Beam that the FEC found, on September 19, 2006, that there is reason to believe

Beam violated FECA. (Letter from M. Toner to J. Beam of 9/26/06.) Toner also purported to attach

a Factual and Legal Analysis, to more fully explain the FEC’s finding. (Id.) He invited Mr. Beam

to submit any relevant factual or legal materials within fifteen days of receiving his letter, and

warned that a finding of probable cause might be entered against Mr. Beam if he failed to do so.

(Id.) Twice, the letter refers to an investigation. (Id.) As this court reads his letter, Toner made

clear that an investigation was in fact underway. 

Judge Zatkoff also focused on Congressional intent to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction

to review the FEC’s handling of administrative complaints. Fieger, 2007 WL 2351006, at *10. As

explained above, the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over civil enforcement of the Act. In fact, the

Act entrusts the FEC with the exclusive power to investigate alleged violations of the Act and sets

forth a specific process the FEC must follow when doing so. This “provides a strong basis for

scrupulously respecting the grant by Congress of ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ to the FEC.” Stockman v.

FEC, 138 F.3d 144, 152 (5th Cir. 1998). Indeed, “Congress could not have spoken more plainly

in limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to adjudicate claims under [the Campaign Act.]” Id. at

153 (quoting Perot v. FEC, 97 F.3d 553, 559 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). Neither of the two enumerated

exceptions–courts may enforce FEC subpoenas, at the request of the FEC, and an administrative

complainant may bring civil actions against the FEC in the United States Court for the District of

Columbia if the FEC dismissed his or her complaint or fails to act on it within 120 days–was

applicable either in the case before Judge Zatkoff, nor is either exception applicable here. Fieger,

2007 WL 2351006, at *10 (citing, inter alia, 2 U.S.C. § 437d(b) & 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)). In other

words, courts are not empowered to award the relief Plaintiffs seek.

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 20 of 22
21

Moreover, the only FECA provision empowering private parties to seek judicial review

extends to administrative complainants. “As the Act specifically provides that ‘administrative

complainants’ are authorized to petition for judicial review of the Commission’s alleged failure to

act in an enforcement investigation, the Court must assume Congress intended to deny anyone

other than an administrative complainant (including administrative respondents, such as Plaintiffs)

the right to petition for judicial review.” Fieger, 2007 WL 2351006, at *10. Even if such a suit were

proper, FECA would require that it be brought in the United States District Court for the District of

Columbia. Id. (citing 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A)). This, Judge Zatkoff noted, plainly precludes a

private litigant from maintaining a cause of action in other district courts. Id.

This court agrees that there is no discrete, non-discretionary action to compel in this case.

Consequently, the court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims, insofar as they allege a violation of the Act’s

investigation requirement.

3. Confidentiality Provision

This case also implicates FECA’s confidentiality provision, a matter not considered by either

Judge Zatkoff or Judge Daniel. Although the Beams themselves made public that they are under

investigation, they contend that the FEC violated the confidentiality provision by sharing information

about the investigation with the Attorney General. The Act’s confidentiality provision, taken together

with the overall scheme of FECA, “create a strong confidentiality interest analogous to that

protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(6). In both contexts, secrecy is vital to protect

[an] innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under

investigation.” In re Sealed Case 00-5116, 237 F.3d 657, 667 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted). Rule 6(e)(2), in turn, is intended “to protect both persons who may

be unjustly suspected of crime and the safety of those who provide information. . . .” In re Krynicki,

983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1992). But Rule 6(e) explicitly provides for inter-agency sharing of

information, by permitting a government attorney to disclose grand-jury matters involving foreign

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 21 of 22
22

intelligence, counter-intelligence, or foreign intelligence information to federal law enforcement,

intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials under certain

circumstances. FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(3)(D). Based on this, it is unclear that sharing information

with another government agency would violate FECA’s confidentiality provision, as it may not rise

to the level of making the investigation or findings “public.” The FEC has urged as much but,

without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue, the court leaves that question for another

day.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Writ of Mandamus (9) is hereby denied. The

Attorney General’s Motion to Dismiss (50) and the FEC’s Motion to Dismiss (53) are granted.

Plaintiffs have leave, if they can cure the deficiencies identified here, to file a Second Amended

Complaint on or before March 28, 2008. 

ENTER:

Dated: March 7, 2008

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER

United States District Judge

Case 1:07-cv-01227 Document 90 Filed 03/07/2008 Page 22 of 22