UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

COMBAT VETERANS FOR CONGRESS ) 

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and ) 

DAVID H. WIGGS, TREASURER ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Case No. 1:11-cv-02168 CKK 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

____________________________________________ 

CONSENT MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT 

____________________________________________ 

Plaintiffs, Combat Veterans for Congress PAC and its current treasurer, David H. Wiggs, 

(collectively CVFC PAC) hereby move this Court with the written consent of Defendant Federal 

Election Commission (FEC) for an order permitting the Plaintiffs to file the attached Amended 

Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2), and in support thereof state as follows: 

1. On May 4, 2012, the FEC filed its Administrative Record with the Court that included 

Certifications by its Secretary and Clerk of the vote tally of the Commissioners in this 

proceeding as well as a copy of a blank notation ballot used by the Commissioners for 

casting their respective votes during various stages of the proceedings of the three 

administrative fines imposed for the late filings of the three reports at issue. 

2. In particular, the FEC certified that the votes were: 1) 6-0 for finding reason to believe 

that CVFC PAC violated 2 U.S.C. 434(a) for all three late reports, AF#2199 (Dec. 15, 

Case 1:11-cv-02168-CKK Document 19 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 4
2010); AF#2312 (March 11, 2011), and AF#2355 (March 25, 2011); 2) 6-0 for making a 

consolidated final determination in all three proceedings that CVFC PAC violated the law 

and imposing fines totally $8,690.00 (Oct. 26, 2011); and 3) 6-0 approving 

recommendation denying reconsideration of Final Determination (Dec. 6, 2011). 

3. In the course of preparing their Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs requested 

copies of the actual signed notation ballots cast by the individual Commissioners since 

those completed ballots were not made part of the Administrative Record filed by the 

FEC. 

4. Plaintiffs received copies of the requested ballots on June 5, 2012 from the FEC which 

showed that instead of a vote of 6-0 for finding reason to believe, the signed ballots for 

the “Do Not Object” to the staff recommending a finding of reason to believe was 3-0 in 

AF#2199; 2-0 in AF#2312; and 3-0 in AF#2355. The ballots for “I approve the 

recommendation” were 6-0 as well as 6-0 for approving the recommendation to deny 

reconsideration. 

5. Two days after receiving copies of the signed ballots, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for 

Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities on June 7, 2012 and 

also submitted a Declaration by Dan Backer, counsel for Plaintiffs, attaching copies of 

the actual notation ballots he received from the FEC. Plaintiffs argued in their 

Memorandum , inter alia, that the enforcement proceedings in all three cases were 

defective to find reason to believe as required by 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. 

111.32, and further argued that in any event, the votes cast did not affirmatively find 

reason to believe or make a final determination. 

Case 1:11-cv-02168-CKK Document 19 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 4
6. Because the Plaintiffs did not have access to these ballots when it first filed its original 

Complaint on December 7, 2011, and assumed the votes were all 6-0 as stated in the FEC 

Certifications, Plaintiffs did not include a claim or argument in that Complaint that the 

administrative proceedings were procedurally defective because the Commissioners 

failed to cast the minimum “four affirmative votes” required by 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2) and 

11 C.F.R. 111.37(a). 

7. Counsel further indicated in his Declaration that an Amended Complaint would be 

forthcoming and that he did not anticipate that such amendment would affect the current 

amended briefing schedule which requires the FEC to file its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 

July 9, 2012. 

8. Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted FEC counsel who indicated on June 15, 2012 that it 

consented to the filing of an Amended Complaint; that it would want the allotted time to 

file its Answer to the Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) [ “[u]nless the court 

orders otherwise . . . within 14 days after service of the amended pleading”]; and that it 

was likely that it would be able to address the voting issue in its forthcoming filing due 

on July 9, 2012. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the attached Amended Complaint be filed. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated June 19, 2012 _________/s/_______________________ 

Dan Backer (D.C. Bar No. 996641) 

DB Capitol Strategies PLLC 

209 Pennsylvania Avenue SE 

Suite 2109 

Case 1:11-cv-02168-CKK Document 19 Filed 06/20/12 Page 3 of 4
Washington, DC 20003 

(202) 210-5431 

dbacker@dbcapitolstrategies.com 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Of Counsel: 

Paul D. Kamenar (D.C. Bar No. 914200) 

3523 Woodbine Street 

Chevy Chase, MD 20815 

(202) 603-5397 

paul.kamenar@gmail.com

Case 1:11-cv-02168-CKK Document 19 Filed 06/20/12 Page 4 of 4