UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_________________________________________

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 V. 

) 

) 

) 

Civ. No. 1:11-cv-00766 (ABJ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

ANSWER 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

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

to the Complaint of plaintiff Chris Van Hollen. Any allegation not specifically responded to 

below is DENIED. 

1. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. DENY the remainder of the 

paragraph. 

2. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2), 

which speaks for itself. 

3. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2) and 

11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), which speak for themselves, but the Commission DENIES that 

11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) is “not authorized by law.” 

4. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2) and 

11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), which speak for themselves, but the Commission DENIES that it 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 1 of 6
2 

lacked statutory authority to promulgate the regulation and that 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) is 

contrary to law. 

5. DENY the first and third sentences of this paragraph. The second sentence of this 

paragraph contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. 

6. DENY the first sentence of this paragraph. DENY that the Commission has 

promulgated “faulty regulations.” ADMIT that some filings to the FEC by non-profit 

corporations that spent money on electioneering communications during the 2010 election 

campaign cycle did not disclose the names of those whose funds were used to finance the 

communications. DENY that these filings were, simply as a result of not including the names of 

all donors, “contrary to the statute and the intent of Congress.” The Commission notes that 

2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2) does not require the disclosure of information about all sources of funding 

for electioneering communications, but only about “contributors who contributed an aggregate 

amount of $1,000 or more” during the reporting period. The Commission is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining factual allegations in the third sentence 

of this paragraph. 

7. ADMIT. 

8. ADMIT. 

9. ADMIT the first two sentences in this paragraph. The Commission is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny whether Van Hollen is planning to run for 

re-election in 2012. 

10. ADMIT that Van Hollen is an elected Member of Congress, that he is a member 

of one or more political party entities, and that his campaign committee has been the recipient of 

campaign contributions. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 2 of 6
3 

admit or deny the remaining factual allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. DENY the 

second sentence of this paragraph. 

11. ADMIT that if Van Hollen is a future candidate for federal office, the Federal 

Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-57 (“FECA”), and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155 (“BCRA”), will apply to him and his campaign opponents. 

The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny whether Van 

Hollen or his campaign opponents will be “regulated” by 2 U.S.C. § 434(f). DENY the second 

sentence of this paragraph. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

admit or deny the third sentence of this paragraph. The last sentence of this paragraph contains a 

conclusion of law to which no response is required. 

12. ADMIT. 

13. ADMIT that FECA became law in 1972 and that the statute has been 

subsequently amended several times. 

14. ADMIT. 

15. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of BCRA, which speaks for 

itself. 

16. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of BCRA, which speaks for 

itself. 

17. This paragraph contains conclusion of law and plaintiff’s characterizations of 

judicial decisions, to which no response is necessary. 

18. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of a judicial decision, to 

which no response is necessary. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 3 of 6
4 

19. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of a judicial decision and an 

FEC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, to which no response is required. 

20. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. The remainder of this paragraph 

contains plaintiff’s characterizations of a Commission regulation, to which no response is 

required. 

21. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of an FEC Explanation and 

Justification, to which no response is required. 

22. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and plaintiff’s characterizations of an 

FEC Explanation and Justification, to which no response is required. 

23. This paragraph contains legal conclusions and plaintiff’s characterizations of an 

FEC Explanation and Justification, to which no response is required. 

24. DENY. 

25. DENY the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph 

contains plaintiff’s characterizations of an FEC Explanation and Justification, to which no 

response is required. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit 

or deny the factual allegations in the third sentence of this paragraph. 

26. DENY the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph 

contains legal conclusions and plaintiff’s characterizations of 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2), to which no 

response is required. 

27. DENY that the regulation is “irrational.” The remainder of the paragraph 

contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. 

28. DENY that the regulation is “unnecessary and irrational as applied to not-forprofit corporations.” ADMIT that non-profit corporations account for a significant portion of 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 4 of 6
5 

those making “electioneering communications.” The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny whether it is appropriate to presume that non-profit 

corporations only make electioneering communications that are consistent with their mission. 

DENY that it is “irrational” for the Commission to be concerned that donors to non-profit 

corporations might “not necessarily support the corporation’s electioneering communications.” 

29. DENY. 

30. ADMIT that filings with the FEC by persons making electioneering 

communications disclosed the sources of less than 10% of the $79.9 million in electioneering 

communications made in 2010, that the ten persons spending the most on electioneering 

communications during that period disclosed the sources of approximately 5% of the funds used 

for their electioneering communications, and that only three of those ten persons disclosed the 

sources of at least some of the funds they spent on electioneering communications. 

31. ADMIT that filings with the FEC from many non-profits making electioneering 

communications in 2010 include limited disclosure of the source of funding for those 

electioneering communications. ADMIT that the corporations listed in the second sentence of 

this paragraph reported making electioneering communications in the amounts listed and that 

they did not disclose information as to those whose funds financed those communications. 

ADMIT that 15 additional corporations did not disclose the sources of the funds they used to 

make electioneering communications during the 2010 election cycle. The Commission notes 

that 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(2) does not require the disclosure of information about all sources of 

funding for electioneering communications, but only “contributors who contributed an aggregate 

amount of $1,000 or more” during the reporting period. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 5 of 6
6 

32. ADMIT that the U.S. Chamber of Commerse reported spending more than any 

other person on electioneering communications in 2010 and that the cited article reports that the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce intends to continue not to disclose the identity of its donors. 

33. DENY. 

34. DENY. 

35. DENY. 

36. This paragraph is a description of plaintiff’s request for relief, to which no 

response is required. 

REQUESTED RELIEF

 No response is required, but the relief requested by plaintiff should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Phillip Christopher Hughey 

Acting General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558)

Associate General Counsel 

Harry Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

Holly J. Baker 

Attorney 

/s/ Seth Nesin 

Seth Nesin 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

June 21, 2011 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 16 Filed 06/21/11 Page 6 of 6