UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

PUBLIC CITIZEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 14-148 (RJL) 

 ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ANSWER 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) submits this answer 

to the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by plaintiffs Public Citizen, Craig 

Holman, Protectourelections.org, and Kevin Zeese. Any allegation not specifically responded to 

below is DENIED.1 

                                                           

1 This litigation is commenced against the Federal Election Commission (Commission) on 

the grounds that the Commission did not approve a recommendation of the Commission’s Office 

of General Counsel (OGC) to find “reason to believe” (RTB) that a violation of the FECA or of 

its regulations occurred in this case and that the file was consequently closed. 2 U.S.C. 

§ 437g(a)(8). The reason for the inaction of the Commission is because there were not four or 

more Commissioners’ votes to proceed on the RTB recommendation. Courts have held that, in 

order to properly review the inaction of the Commission, the court must be supplied with a 

“statement of reasons” of those Commissioners who voted against, or abstained from voting for, 

the OGC recommendation, who the court has called the “controlling group.” See Democratic 

Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987); FEC v. Nat’l 

Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F. 2d 1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“[W]hen the Commission 

deadlocks 3-3 and so dismisses a complaint, that complaint, like any other, is judicially 

reviewable under Section 437g(a)(8). . . . [T]o make judicial review a meaningful exercise, the 

three Commissioners who voted to dismiss must provide a statement of their reasons for so 

voting. Since those Commissioners constitute a controlling group for purposes of the decision, 

their rationale necessarily states the agency’s reasons for acting as it did.”); Common Cause v. 

FEC, 655 F. Supp. 619 (D.D.C. 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

The Commission has historically voted by a majority vote (pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(c) and 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 11
2

1. This paragraph summarizes plaintiffs’ complaint, the allegations of which speak 

for themselves. ADMIT that the Commission dismissed an administrative complaint filed by 

plaintiffs, in which Crossroads Grassroots Political Strategies (“Crossroads GPS”) was the 

respondent. 

 2. ADMIT that plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the Commission on 

October 14, 2010; the administrative complaint speaks for itself. The second sentence of this 

paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, the second sentence of this paragraph is DENIED. 

 3. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of unspecified judicial 

decisions and statutory provisions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is 

required, the Commission ADMITS the Supreme Court has found that certain disclosure and 

disclaimer laws further the important government interests referenced in the first sentence, and 

that democracy benefits from enforcement of FECA’s disclosure requirements, but the 

allegations in this paragraph are too vague to enable the Commission to generally admit or deny 

them due to, inter alia, the failure to specify which laws and the imprecision of terms like 

“health.” 

 4. ADMIT. 

 5. DENY. 

 6. DENY. 

 7. This paragraph summarizes plaintiffs’ complaint, which speaks for itself. 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

437d(a)(6)) to authorize the OGC’s appearance on behalf of the Commission in suits commenced 

pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8). Accordingly, the views of the Commissioners who voted to 

pursue enforcement are not defended by the OGC, although their statements of reasons are part 

of the administrative record and available for the Court’s consideration. Furthermore, the OGC’s 

representational role in this matter does not change OGC’s recommendation to find RTB or any 

of the reasons supporting it, which are part of the administrative record. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 11
3

 8. ADMIT that 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8) provides statutory jurisdiction and that 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides for federal question jurisdiction in the district court. 

9. ADMIT that 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8) provides for venue in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia. 

10. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the sixth sentence summarizes the complaint, that 

document speaks for itself. 

11. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

12. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

13. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in this paragraph. 

14. ADMIT. 

15. ADMIT that American Crossroads is organized under section 527 and registered 

with the Commission as an independent-expenditure-only political committee, that Crossroads 

GPS is a nonprofit organization that was established in June 2010, and that there is some overlap 

between the employees of the two organizations. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

16. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this 

paragraph — which purports to paraphrase 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) and unspecified IRS 

regulations, which speak for themselves — does not require a response. ADMIT that several 

letters challenging the classification of Crossroads GPS as a 501(c)(4) corporation have been 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 3 of 11
4

filed with the Internal Revenue Service. ADMIT the fourth sentence of this paragraph. The 

Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

17. This paragraph quotes a press report, which speaks for itself, and does not require 

a response; to the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the Politico article quoted in this 

paragraph contains the quoted text. 

18. ADMIT that Crossroads GPS has spent tens of millions of dollars on independent 

expenditures since 2010, more as an absolute amount than many of the thousands of super PACs 

registered with the Commission. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph, in part because of the 

vagueness of the allegations. 

19. ADMIT that in 2010, Crossroads GPS spent millions of dollars on independent 

expenditures, electioneering communications, and other communications. To the extent this 

paragraph alleges that certain specified and unspecified activities constitute “federal campaign 

activity,” that allegation is a legal conclusion and does not require a response. The second 

sentence of this paragraph characterizes the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, 

which speaks for itself, and does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, 

DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel made any factual or legal “findings” in 

this or any other matter. 

20. ADMIT that during the 2011-2012 election cycle, Crossroads GPS reported 

spending at least $71 million on independent expenditures and electioneering communications. 

To the extent this paragraph alleges that certain other unspecified activities constitute “federal 

campaign activity,” that allegation is a legal conclusion and does not require a response. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 4 of 11
5

21. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny 

the allegations in the first and fourth sentences of this paragraph. The second sentence is a legal 

conclusion and does not require a response. ADMIT that Crossroads GPS has sought tax-exempt 

status under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, and ADMIT that Crossroads GPS 

contends that it is not a political committee under FECA and that Crossroads GPS has not 

registered with the Commission and reported as a political committee. To the extent the 

allegations in this paragraph purport to paraphrase the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) and 

2 U.S.C. § 434, those provisions speak for themselves and no response is required; to the extent a 

response is required, DENY that this paragraph completely and accurately describes the content 

and requirements of the referenced statutory provisions. 

22. ADMIT that FECA contains provisions requiring groups that meet the definition 

of “political committee” to comply with certain organizational, registration, and disclosure 

requirements. 

23. This paragraph purports to quote certain provisions of FECA, which speak for 

themselves and require no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the 

quoted language in this paragraph appears in the statutory definitions of the terms “political 

committee,” “contribution,” and “expenditure,” respectively, but DENY that this paragraph sets 

forth the complete statutory definitions or judicial interpretations of any of those terms. 

24. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of judicial decisions, to 

which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the cited cases 

contain the quoted text. 

25. This paragraph purports to characterize the requirements for determining whether 

a group is a political committee under 2 U.S.C. § 431(4)(A) and the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 5 of 11
6

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), to which no response is required. To the extent a response 

is required, ADMIT that 2 U.S.C. § 431(4)(A) sets forth part of the statutory definition of 

“political committee” and that Buckley contains the quoted language regarding an organization’s 

“major purpose.” 

26. ADMIT that the Commission determines groups’ “major purpose” on a case-bycase basis. The remainder of this paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of judicial 

decisions, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that 

the decisions cited in this paragraph upheld the Commission’s case-by-case approach to 

determining a group’s major purpose. 

27. ADMIT that the Commission issued its Political Committee Status Supplemental 

Explanation and Justification, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007) (“Political Committee Status 

Supplemental E&J”), in 2007. The remainder of this paragraph purports to paraphrase the 

Political Committee Status Supplemental E&J, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the Political Committee Status Supplemental 

E&J provides guidance about how the Commission determines an organization’s major purpose, 

and DENY that this paragraph sets forth the complete explanation and justification set forth in 

the Political Committee Status Supplemental E&J. 

28. ADMIT that on October 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a sworn administrative 

complaint that was designated by the Commission as MUR 6396. The remainder of this 

paragraph describes the administrative complaint, which speaks for itself, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that plaintiffs’ administrative complaint 

alleged that Crossroads GPS violated certain provisions of FECA. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 6 of 11
7

29-31. ADMIT that these paragraphs and the subparagraphs therein generally describe 

allegations contained in plaintiffs’ administrative complaint. 

32. ADMIT. 

33. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the first sentence of this paragraph paraphrases a statement in the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report and DENY the second sentence of this paragraph. 

34. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel made any factual or legal 

“findings” in this or any other matter, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s 

Report contained the quoted language — but not the bracketed alterations — in this paragraph, 

and ADMIT that this paragraph otherwise generally describes portions of the Commission’s First 

General Counsel’s Report. 

35. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contained the quoted 

language — but not the bracketed alterations — in this paragraph, and ADMIT that this 

paragraph generally describes statements in the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. 

36. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, DENY that this paragraph accurately describes the cited portions of the Commission’s 

First General Counsel’s Report. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 7 of 11
8

37. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel made any factual or legal 

“findings” in this or any other matter, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s 

Report contained the quoted language, but not the added emphasis, in this paragraph, and 

ADMIT that this paragraph generally describes portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report. 

38. This paragraph purports to describe a portion of the Response that Crossroads 

GPS filed with the Commission in MUR 6396, as that Response was described in the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. Both Crossroads GPS’s Response and the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report speak for themselves and require no response. To 

the extent a response is required, ADMIT that Crossroads GPS’s Response and the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contained the cited spending amounts, and 

ADMIT that this paragraph generally describes statements in the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report. 

 39. This paragraph purports to paraphrase portions of the Commission’s First General 

Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contained the quoted 

language and included as an attachment the text of ten advertisements, and ADMIT that this 

paragraph describes portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, except DENY 

that the page citation in the last sentence of this paragraph is accurate. 

40. This paragraph characterizes and purports to paraphrase and quote portions of the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 8 of 11
9

To the extent a response is required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel or 

its First General Counsel’s Report made any factual or legal “findings” in this or any other 

matter, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contained the quoted 

language — but not the bracketed alterations — in this paragraph, and ADMIT that this 

paragraph otherwise generally describes portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s 

Report. 

41. This paragraph characterizes and purports to paraphrase portions of the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel 

made any factual or legal “findings” in this or any other matter, and ADMIT that this paragraph 

otherwise generally describes portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. 

42. This paragraph characterizes and purports to paraphrase portions of the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel 

made any factual or legal “findings” in this or any other matter, and ADMIT that this paragraph 

otherwise generally describes portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. 

43. This paragraph characterizes and purports to paraphrase and quote portions of the 

Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, DENY that the Commission’s Office of General Counsel 

made any factual or legal “findings” in this or any other matter, ADMIT that the Commission’s 

First General Counsel’s Report contained the quoted language — but not the bracketed 

alterations — in this paragraph, and ADMIT that this paragraph otherwise generally describes 

portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 9 of 11
10

44. This paragraph purports to paraphrase and quote portions of the Commission’s 

First General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent 

a response is required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contained 

the quoted language in this paragraph, and ADMIT that this paragraph generally describes 

portions of the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report. 

45. ADMIT that on December 3, 2013, the Commission failed by a vote of 3 to 3 to 

find reason to believe that Crossroads GPS violated 2 U.S.C. §§ 432, 433, and 434 and closed its 

file, thereby dismissing the administrative complaint. DENY the remainder of this paragraph to 

the extent it characterizes the Office of General Counsel’s recommendation or the Commission’s 

vote on that recommendation. 

46. ADMIT. 

47. ADMIT that the Commission publicly released the Statement of Reasons of 

Chairman Lee E. Goodman and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in 

MUR 6396 on January 8, 2014, and ADMIT that these three Commissioners voted against 

finding reason to believe that Crossroads GPS violated FECA as alleged in the administrative 

complaint; DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

48. ADMIT. 

49. ADMIT that Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel, Commissioner Steven T. Walther, and 

Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub voted to find reason to believe and initiate an investigation in 

MUR 6396, that the Statement of Reasons issued by those Commissioners contains the quoted 

language — but not the bracketed alterations — in the first two sentences of this paragraph, and 

that this paragraph otherwise generally describes portions of the Statement of Reasons of Vice 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 10 of 11
11

Chair Ann M. Ravel, Commissioner Steven T. Walther, and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub 

in MUR 6396. 

50. ADMIT that the Statement of Reasons of Chairman Lee E. Goodman and 

Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in MUR 6396 concludes that 

Crossroads GPS did not have the major purpose of nominating or electing federal candidates; 

DENY the remainder of this paragraph and the subparagraphs therein. 

51. DENY. 

52. DENY. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

The Court should deny plaintiffs’ requested relief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) 

Deputy General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

 

Erin Chlopak (D.C. Bar No. 496370) 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

/s/ Greg J. Mueller 

 Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) 

Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) 

Attorneys 

 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

 999 E Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20463 

April 8, 2014 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:14-cv-00148-RJL Document 13 Filed 04/08/14 Page 11 of 11