UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY 

 ) JUDGMENT MEMORANDUM 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S SUPPLEMENTAL 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated May 5, 2009, Defendant Federal Election 

Commission (“Commission”) respectfully submits this supplemental memorandum in support of 

the Commission’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 56).1

 A supplemented Statement 

of Material Facts (“FEC SMF”) follows this memorandum. 

 This memorandum addresses only those issues of fact and law about which the discovery 

conducted pursuant to the Court’s May 5 Order produced new, relevant evidence. That evidence 

demonstrates that Plaintiffs currently give their donors more preferential access to federal 

candidates and officeholders than Plaintiffs have heretofore conceded, and that the Republican 

National Committee (“RNC”) has no concrete plans to prevent soft-money donors from 

exploiting their unlimited contributions to gain similar access and even greater influence. The 

evidence also demonstrates that some of the RNC’s litigation allegations regarding the activities 

 

1

 The Commission’s other filings in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for 

summary judgment are its Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“FEC S.J. Opp.”) (Docket No. 39); 

Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“FEC S.J. Mem.”) (Docket No. 56); and Reply Mem. in 

Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“FEC S.J. Reply”) (Docket No. 63). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 44
2

that it wishes to fund with soft money are inconsistent with the plans and intentions of the RNC’s 

Chairman.2

I. NEWLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PLAINTIFFS WOULD 

PROVIDE SOFT-MONEY DONORS WITH PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO 

FEDERAL OFFICEHOLDERS 

 Under Plaintiffs’ theory of their case, political parties must be permitted to solicit and 

spend soft money if they promise, inter alia, not to provide soft-money donors with preferential 

access to federal candidates or officeholders “beyond that currently afforded to contributors of 

federal funds.” (See Pls.’ SMF ¶ 24; Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 22-27 (Docket 

No. 21).) The Commission has previously shown that — even if it were legally possible for an 

unverifiable, self-imposed limitation to serve as the basis for a constitutional exemption — no 

such exemption would be warranted by Plaintiffs’ proposal, given that Plaintiffs still intend to 

bring federal officials and soft-money donors together in situations where the officials would 

know that the donors had provided massive financial support to their party. (FEC S.J. Mem. 7-

11; FEC SMF ¶¶ 13-18;3 see also FEC SMF ¶ 17 (citing Steele Dep.).) The recently obtained 

evidence further demonstrates the extent of such party-organized access to elected officeholders, 

and it shows that the RNC has no plans to prevent its soft-money donors from exploiting that 

access. 

 

2

 Although the evidence demonstrates the lack of any factual basis for Plaintiffs’ claims in 

this suit, the primary fatal legal flaw with such claims is that, under McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 

93 (2003), the proper constitutional analysis of a political party contribution limit asks whether 

the limit prevents corruption or the appearance thereof. (See FEC S.J. Opp. 7-13.) Plaintiffs’ 

allegations regarding how they would ultimately spend their soft money are, therefore, irrelevant. 

(Id.; see also Def. FEC’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 25-29 (Docket No. 20).) 

3

 Citations herein to the Commission’s Statement of Material Facts refer to the 

supplemented Statement that follows this memorandum. For the convenience of the Court, a 

version of the supplemented Statement with the new material therein highlighted is being filed as 

an additional attachment. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 44
3

A. Plaintiffs Provide Their Donors Meaningful Access to Federal Officeholders 

 New documentary evidence demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ donor events, regularly attended 

by federal officeholders, are far more intimate affairs than the large, impersonal events that 

Plaintiffs have acknowledged organizing. (See Pls.’ Mem. in Opp. to Def. FEC.’s Mot. for 

Summ. J. 6 (Docket No. 61).) Although the RNC has produced its guest lists for only a small 

subset of its donor events (FEC SMF ¶ 7), those few lists provide a meaningful glimpse into 

party-facilitated interaction between high-level donors and federal officeholders. For example, 

at one event, the President of the United States, six U.S. Senators, and one U.S. Representative 

attended a dinner with just forty-nine donors — a ratio of only six donors to each officeholder. 

(Id.) The RNC has organized even smaller Presidential appearances in private homes — events 

at which the President has been joined by as few as thirty-nine donors. (Id.) And the RNC has 

arranged similar interactions with executive branch officials: Senior White House official Karl 

Rove had breakfast with twenty-eight donors, and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and 

a sitting Member of Congress had lunch with thirty-seven donors. (Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 29, 34 

(noting evidence regarding other Plaintiffs’ donor events with federal candidates and 

officeholders).) Such intimate meals and receptions cannot be dismissed as merely perfunctory; 

they are events arranged by the RNC at which those who contribute the most to the party receive 

their reward in the form of time to interact with the officials who wield the levers of power. 

Thus, even if it were true that the RNC would provide soft-money donors with the same 

access to federal officeholders as it currently provides hard-money donors, that access — 

coupled with the fact that the officeholders would know who the biggest soft-money donors are 

(FEC SMF ¶¶ 13-18) — would create a significant appearance of corruption and the opportunity 

for actual corruption. Because this was one of the primary rationales for the Supreme Court’s 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 44
4

upholding of the soft-money ban in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), and it applies here 

with equal force, Plaintiffs’ acknowledgement that they would give million-dollar donors prized 

access to federal officials is fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims. (See FEC S.J. Mem. 7-11.) 

B. The RNC and Chairman Steele Have No Concrete Plans to Prevent the RNC 

from Providing Soft-Money Donors with Preferential Access to Federal 

Officials 

 Not only would the RNC, even under its own allegations, provide its soft-money donors 

with significant preferential access, but the RNC’s claim that it would abide by its hypothetical, 

self-imposed policies regarding such access is itself belied by the supplemented factual record. 

Most importantly, as both the RNC and Chairman Steele have acknowledged, the RNC has no 

written policy whatsoever against the RNC’s providing its donors with preferential access. (FEC 

SMF ¶ 11.) In fact, Chairman Steele initially testified at his deposition that he was not aware of 

any policy, written or unwritten, against arranging for meetings between officeholders and 

candidates. (See Steele Dep. 52:15-53:1 (“I’m not aware of any policy of the RNC.”).) Upon his 

counsel’s later suggestion that such a policy exists (id. at 111:12-13), Chairman Steele stated that 

there was a “preexisting policy” when he took office (id. at 111:16-17), but that he has taken no 

steps to disseminate or further that policy (id. at 112:14-22), which he has never seen in writing 

(id. at 113:5-17). 

To the extent that the RNC claims to have an unwritten policy against arranging 

individualized meetings between officeholders and donors, it is the same policy that was in effect 

before McConnell (FEC SMF ¶ 11) — a policy about which Chairman Steele, despite having 

been a member of the RNC and its executive committee at the time, admits he was unaware. 

(Id.) Even as Chairman, Steele has taken no steps to ensure that RNC staff is aware of the 

alleged unwritten policy on facilitation of meetings, relying instead on the employees to 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 44
5

“intuitively know[ ]” the appropriate procedures. (Id. (quoting Steele Dep. 109:20-110:3).) 

Crucially, Chairman Steele does not intend to develop any more overt or formal policy against 

providing donors access to federal candidates and officeholders until this lawsuit is concluded, 

and he does not know what that future policy might permit or prohibit. (Id.) 

In sum, the RNC’s constitutional claim relies on a self-imposed policy regarding some 

forms of donor access to federal officials, while its Chairman reserves the right to determine the 

contents of that policy after this Court rules.4

 This claim is legally and factually untenable. As a 

legal matter, there is no precedent supporting the RNC’s argument that the meaning of the First 

Amendment — or a limitation on the power of Congress — can be dependent on a private 

party’s unverifiable pledge to comport itself in accordance with a code of conduct that it will 

determine for itself at some point in the future. (See FEC S.J. Opp. 27-32.) And, as a matter of 

fact, such circular and amorphous allegations devoid of concrete support in the record 

demonstrate that Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief. 

II. NEW TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE RNC’S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING 

ITS PLANNED ACTIVITIES LACK ANY BASIS IN FACT 

The RNC seeks a constitutional exemption to the soft-money ban as applied to the party’s 

intended spending on certain activities. In addition to the reasons discussed in the Commission’s 

prior briefs as to why this claim fails on its face (FEC S.J. Opp. 10-13; see also Def. FEC’s 

Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 25-29 (Docket No. 20)), Chairman Steele’s testimony makes 

clear that the activities at issue are defined so vaguely that, if the RNC were to prevail, it would 

 

4

 Although the contours of the RNC’s eventual anti-access policy are undefined, Chairman 

Steele’s understanding of the activity that would be covered by such a policy is extremely 

narrow: “Typically access is some — some secret cabal. You’re getting some special 

favor . . . .” (Steele Dep. 50:13-20.) Thus, according to the Chairman, arranging for federal 

candidates and officeholders to meet with donors does not constitute providing those donors with 

“access” to the candidates and officeholders unless a “special favor” is received. (See id.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 5 of 44
6

retain nearly unfettered authority to decide for itself which activities constitute permissible uses 

of its soft money. 

 The RNC’s primary source for its description of the activities it wishes to finance with 

soft money is the affidavit of Richard Beeson, who was the RNC’s political director at the time 

he submitted his testimony. (See Beeson Aff. (Pls.’ SMF Exh. 1).) Chairman Steele, however, 

has since hired a new political director (Steele Dep. 21:20-22:6), and Beeson no longer has any 

authority at the RNC (see id. at 23:16-24:8). Indeed, Chairman Steele repeatedly testified that he 

was not even familiar enough with what Mr. Beeson’s intentions had been to compare them to 

the RNC’s current plans. (See id. at 50:1-6, 58:10-19, 85:20-86:1.) Thus, none of the allegations 

in the Beeson affidavit provide evidence as to the RNC’s actual intended spending, and the 

record is devoid of any other factual showings as to what the RNC now considers to be within 

the scope of the activities that it would like to finance with unlimited and corporate donations. 

 Nonetheless, Chairman Steele’s testimony belies any suggestion that the RNC’s desired 

relief would encompass only limited, well-defined categories of conduct. For example, the RNC 

alleges that it would spend soft money to finance “grassroots lobbying,” but Chairman Steele 

acknowledges that he cannot determine which types of advertising or which specific ads would 

constitute “grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s own definition of that term. (FEC SMF ¶ 63.) 

Similarly, although the RNC has alleged that it would use soft money in the 2009 New Jersey 

elections for activities such as “communications expressly advocating the election and defeat of 

state candidates, contributions to . . . state candidates, and contributions to the political parties 

involved” (Am. Compl. ¶ 16), Chairman Steele does not necessarily intend to limit the RNC’s 

spending to those activities; in fact, he will not decide how to direct soft money to be spent in the 

New Jersey election until this court action is concluded. (FEC SMF ¶ 59.1; see also id. ¶ 61 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 6 of 44
7

(noting that RNC has not considered imposing restrictions on use of soft money transferred to 

state candidates, such as preventing it from being used for federal purposes).)5 

Likewise, the Chairman has not decided — or even considered — any of the issues 

regarding how he would go about raising soft money if he were permitted to do so. (Id. ¶ 38.1 

(quoting Steele Dep. 66:7-11 (“I have not thought about how I would raise the money.”)).) Thus, 

there is no concrete evidence in the record as to what either the RNC’s soft-money fundraising or 

spending actually would entail during Chairman Steele’s regime, nor does the RNC’s primary 

decisionmaker intend to decide such questions until the soft money has already begun flowing in. 

Many of the assertions in the RNC’s Complaint and Plaintiffs’ briefs thus appear to be 

unsupported by any relevant evidence. In short, granting the RNC’s request for relief “as 

applied” to ill-defined categories of spending would allow the RNC to write the rules governing 

its own conduct — a result unwarranted by McConnell or any other pertinent authority. (FEC 

S.J. Opp. 27-32 (discussing Supreme Court’s inclination towards bright-line rules in campaign 

finance context).) 

III. NEW TESTIMONY CONFIRMS OTHER KEY ASPECTS OF THE 

UNDISPUTED FACTUAL RECORD 

 Chairman Steele’s testimony provides further factual support for several additional 

aspects of the Commission’s motion for summary judgment. 

First, because the statutory soft-money restriction in no way limits how the RNC spends 

its funds or how much money the RNC can spend (see FEC S.J. Opp. 7-10; FEC S.J. Reply 5 

n.4), the RNC’s choice not to spend its hard money on state campaigns or other activities at issue 

 

5

 The RNC’s Chairman has ultimate authority over the party’s spending decisions. (Steele 

Dep. 68:22-69:6.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 7 of 44
8

here — as confirmed by Chairman Steele — is attributable solely to the RNC’s strategic 

decisions regarding how to allocate its resources. (FEC SMF ¶ 53.) 

Similarly, because there is no legal barrier to Chairman Steele’s raising soft money for 

state parties and candidates in his individual capacity — or raising hard money for them in his 

official capacity — his admitted choice not to raise funds for state parties and candidates is 

attributable solely to his own decisions regarding fundraising strategy. (FEC SMF ¶ 38.) 

Third, Chairman Steele acknowledges that the redistricting process following the next 

census will determine “[t]he composition of the House of Representatives for the next 10 to 12 

years or maybe even beyond that.” (FEC SMF ¶ 68 (quoting Steele Dep. 76:13-17).)6

 This is 

consistent with the other Plaintiffs’ prior acknowledgements regarding the effect of redistricting 

activity on federal elections. (Id. ¶ 69.) 

Fourth, although the RNC has claimed that “the explosion of internet fundraising” has 

placed the RNC at a “fundraising disadvantage” necessitating the party’s receipt of soft money 

(see Pls.’ SMF ¶ 26), Chairman Steele was unable to state any reason why the RNC will not be 

able to raise as much as the Democratic Party through email and internet fundraising in the 

future. (FEC SMF ¶ 50 (quoting Steele Dep. 92:20-94:8 (“I don’t know what the future holds for 

fundraising on the Internet.”)). Plaintiffs’ assertions of fundraising disadvantages are in any 

event contradicted by the factual record, and, regardless, one political party’s lack of proficiency 

at a particular fundraising method cannot state a claim under the First Amendment. (FEC S.J. 

Mem. at 5-6.) 

 

6

 The RNC has already commenced its redistricting activities. (See Steele Dep. 24:20-

25:9, 89:4-9.) These activities presumably are being funded with hard money, and — because 

the RNC did not produce during discovery any documents relating to redistricting — there is no 

evidence in the record showing why the RNC would be constitutionally burdened by having to 

use hard money to continue them. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 8 of 44
9

Finally, Chairman Steele provides additional confirmation of the “special relationship 

and unity of interest” between the national parties and federal candidates and officeholders, 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 145. Specifically, he notes the RNC’s and his own frequent provision of 

strategic advice regarding congressional races, their assistance to Members of Congress in 

transmitting “message points” to the party’s “base,” and other frequent communications between 

the party and its federal elected officials. (FEC SMF ¶¶ 1, 6 (quoting Steele Dep.); see also id. 

¶ 21 (noting Steele’s testimony regarding close relationship between RNC and state parties).) 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 The new evidence discussed above confirms that the Commission is entitled to summary 

judgment. For those reasons and the reasons set forth in the Commission’s prior memoranda, the 

Commission respectfully requests that the Court grant the Commission’s motion for summary 

judgment and deny Plaintiffs’ motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

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

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: June 18, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 9 of 44
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S SUPPLEMENTED 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN GENUINE DISPUTE 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 10 of 44
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS WOULD CREATE AN 

APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION AND POSE A DANGER OF ACTUAL 

CORRUPTION ...................................................................................................................1

A. The Republican National Committee Is in a Unique Position Between Donors 

and Federal Candidates and Officeholders ..............................................................1 

B. The Republican National Committee Facilitates Its Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders .....................................3 

C. Federal Candidates and Officeholders Know the Identity of Their Parties’ 

Large Donors, Regardless of Who Solicits the Donations ......................................7 

D. State and Local Political Parties Are Inextricably Intertwined with National 

Parties, Federal Candidates, and Federal Officeholders ........................................11 

E. State and Local Political Parties Facilitate Their Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders ...................................13 

F. A National Party Official Acting as an Agent of His Party Raises the Same 

Actual and Apparent Corruption Concerns as the National Party Itself................16 

II. PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES HAVE RAISED 

SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WITHIN THE FEDERAL 

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ...............................................................................................17 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................21 

A. Plaintiffs Are Demonstrably Willing and Able to Finance Their Activities 

with Federal Funds.................................................................................................21 

B. The RNC’s Ability to Support State and Local Candidates Is Unlimited, 

and Such Activity Has the Potential to Affect Federal Elections ..........................22 

C. The RNC’s “Grassroots Lobbying” Is Sham Issue Advertising............................24 

D. Redistricting Affects Federal Elections .................................................................26 

E. Plaintiffs’ Litigation Affects Who Obtains Federal Office....................................27 

F. Get-Out-The-Vote Activity Affects All Elections on the Ballot ...........................28 

G. Voter Registration Affects Federal Elections ........................................................29 

H. Advertising that Mentions State Ballot Measures and Promotes, Attacks, 

Supports, or Opposes Federal Candidates Affects Federal Elections....................30 

I. Plaintiffs’ Other Federal Election Activity Affects Federal Elections ..................31 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 11 of 44
Pursuant to LCvR 7(h) and 56.1, Defendant Federal Election Commission 

(“Commission”) submits in support of its motion for summary judgment the following statement 

of material facts not in genuine dispute. 

I. UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS WOULD CREATE AN 

APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION AND POSE A DANGER OF ACTUAL 

CORRUPTION 

A. The Republican National Committee Is in a Unique Position Between Donors 

and Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

1. Plaintiff Republican National Committee (“RNC”) is a “political arm of 

Republicans either seeking office or in office,” and representatives of the RNC are in 

communication with candidates and officeholders on a frequent, ongoing basis. (Josefiak Dep. 

197:1-18 (FEC Exh. 1); see also Steele Dep. 26:16-27:10 (FEC Exh. 42).)1

2. National political parties are “‘inextricably intertwined with federal officeholders 

and candidates.’” McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 155 (2003) (quoting 148 Cong. Rec. H409 

(Feb. 13, 2002)).2

3. “‘[T]here is no meaningful separation between the national party committees and 

the public officials who control them.’” Id. (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 

468-69 (D.D.C. 2003) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)). 

 

1

 FEC Exhibits 1-25 were appended to the Commission’s memorandum in opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39); FEC Exhibits 26-41 were appended 

to the Commission’s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 

56); FEC Exhibits 42-51 are appended to the instant memorandum. 

2

 Once resolved by an appellate court, issues of legislative fact need not be relitigated in 

lower courts each time they arise. See A Woman’s Choice—E. Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman,

305 F.3d 684, 689 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, as to any fact that the Supreme Court resolved in 

McConnell, this Court may simply adopt the relevant finding from that case. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 12 of 44
2

4. The “national parties” are in a “unique position” to serve as “‘agents for spending 

on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders.’” Id. at 145 (quoting FEC v. 

Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 452 (2001)). 

5. “The President typically controls his party’s national committee, and once a 

favorite has emerged for the presidential nomination of the other party, that candidate and his 

party’s national committee typically work closely together.” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 697 

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.). When the President of the United States is a Republican, the President 

nominates the chairperson of the RNC, and there is regular strategic coordination between the 

party and the White House. (See Josefiak Dep. 193:2-194:20 (FEC Exh. 1).) 

6. The RNC works with federal candidates each election cycle to develop “victory 

plans,” which are joint, comprehensive, election-specific strategies. (See Josefiak Dep. 198:13-

199:8 (FEC Exh. 1); see also McConnell, 540 U.S. at 159-60 (rejecting RNC’s Title I challenge 

in relation to victory plans); Victory Dream Team, CONGRESS DAILY, July 29, 2008, 2008 

WLNR 14131041 (FEC Exh. 26) (noting victory plans’ use in federal and “down-ballot” 

elections); 

 

 The RNC provides advice regarding 

the competitiveness and makeup of specific congressional districts (Steele Dep. 53:7-21 (FEC 

Exh. 42)), and it assists Members of Congress by distributing their “message point[s]” to the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 13 of 44
3

party’s “base” (see id. at 29:3-22). The RNC also sells voter preference data to campaigns (see 

Josefiak Dep. 200:10-12 (FEC Exh. 1)) and, on occasion, exchanges donor lists with them (see 

id. 98:8-14). 

B. The Republican National Committee Facilitates Its Largest Donors’ Access 

to and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

7. To facilitate its donors’ access to federal candidates and officeholders, the RNC 

organizes private receptions, dinners, and other events at which individuals who have made large 

contributions (i.e., $15,000 or more) to the RNC have an opportunity to meet, dine, and speak 

with federal candidates and officeholders. (See Josefiak Dep. 58:18-61:5 (FEC Exh. 1).) These 

opportunities are “not offered to the public at large.” (Pl. RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 7 (FEC 

Exh. 4).) Many of the events are quite intimate: For example, at one event, the President of the 

United States, six U.S. Senators, and one U.S. Representative attended a dinner with just fortynine donors — a ratio of only six donors to each officeholder. (See RNC 000830-32 (FEC Exh. 

43; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 43A).) The RNC has organized even 

smaller Presidential appearances in private homes — events at which the President has been 

joined by as few as thirty-nine donors. (See RNC 000821-22 (FEC Exh. 44; unredacted version 

filed under seal as FEC Exh. 44A) (thirty-nine attendees); RNC 000846-47 (FEC Exh. 45; 

unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 45A) (forty-one attendees); RNC000843-45 

(FEC Exh. 46; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 46A) (fifty-two attendees).) And 

the RNC has arranged similar interactions with executive branch officials: Senior White House 

official Karl Rove had breakfast with twenty-eight donors (RNC 000883-887 (FEC Exh. 47; 

unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 47A)), and White House Chief of Staff Joshua 

Bolten and a sitting Member of Congress had lunch with thirty-seven donors (RNC 000896-97 

(FEC Exh. 48; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 48A)). These examples are 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 14 of 44
4

drawn only from events for which the RNC has produced guest lists, which is a small subset of 

the total number of RNC donor events. (See RNC000058-371 (FEC Exh. 8) (invitations to donor 

events).) 

8. The RNC has created tiers of donors with specified benefits: For example, donors 

who give $15,000 receive “intimate luncheons, dinners, and meetings with key policymakers”; 

donors who give $30,400 “enjoy exclusive private functions with elected Republican leaders”; 

and donors who commit to raising $60,800 receive “at least one . . . exclusive event during the 

year,” as well as other “intimate events with key GOP policymakers.” (RNC 000130 (FEC Exh. 

7).) All of these benefits involve the privilege of attending events with federal candidates and 

officeholders, from candidates for the U.S. House to the sitting President of the United States. 

(See generally RNC 000058-000371 (FEC Exh. 8) (invitations to donor events with federal 

candidates and officeholders).) At these events, an attending donor has an opportunity to inform 

the federal candidate or officeholder about the donor’s opinion on legislation or other issues, and 

the candidate or officeholder is aware that the person expressing that opinion is a major donor. 

(See Josefiak Dep. 76:14-77:11 (FEC Exh. 1); see also Draft letter from Jim Nicholson to 

Deimer True, RNC 0302806 [DEV 102]3 (explaining that donor who buys only one ticket to 

event is unlikely to sit with U.S. Senator because “sponsors, major donors, and table buyers are 

given first choice” of “VIP” assigned to their table).) 

9. The RNC sets its highest donation tier to correspond to the legal contribution 

limit; when the contribution limits rise, the RNC increases the size of the donation required to 

 

3

 “DEV” and “Tab” citations refer to the McConnell Defendants’ Exhibit Volumes. A 

DVD copy of the non-confidential DEVs and a CD containing the confidential DEVs were filed 

in the instant action (see Docket No. 39-23), and courtesy copies were delivered to Chambers 

contemporaneously with the filing of the Commission’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 15 of 44
5

reach the top tier. (Josefiak Dep. 102:19-103:6 (FEC Exh. 1).) Prior to BCRA, when there was 

no legal limit on soft-money contributions, the RNC’s donor tiers were substantially higher than 

they are now: The “Team 100” threshold (currently $30,400) was $100,000, and the “Regents” 

threshold (currently $60,800 divided between the donor and his/her spouse) was $250,000 from 

one person during a single election cycle. (See Shea Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14(f)-(g), McConnell v. FEC, 

Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 4, 2002) (FEC Exh. 27).) 

10. In McConnell, the plaintiffs’ own expert testified that, assuming money does buy 

access to or influence over federal officeholders, soft money is more likely to buy access or 

influence “simply by virtue of the numbers.” Primo Cross Tr. (Oct. 23, 2002) at 162, McConnell 

v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.), Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003); accord Krasno & Sorauf 

Expert Rep. at 15 [DEV 1-Tab 2] (“[T]he much greater size of the [soft money] individual 

donations at issue here pose a proportionately larger risk of influencing their beneficiaries than 

do contributions of hard money.”); Andrews Decl. ¶ 18 [DEV 6-Tab 1]; Wirthlin Cross Tr. (Oct. 

21, 2002) at 57, McConnell, Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003). 

11. The RNC has no written policy — and gives no written guidance to its employees 

— against providing donors with preferential access to federal candidates and officeholders. 

(Josefiak Dep. 128:2-5, 184:10-21 (FEC Exh. 1); Steele Dep. 109:20-110:5, 112:10-22, 113:5-17 

(FEC Exh. 42) (also noting that Chairman relies on RNC’s staff to “intuitively know[ ] what they 

can and can’t do”).) Chairman Steele does not plan to develop such a policy until after this 

lawsuit is resolved, and he does not know what the content of that policy will be. (Steele Dep. 

59:13-19, 106:11-17 (FEC Exh. 42).) To the extent the RNC has an unwritten policy on this 

issue, it is the same policy that was in effect prior to BCRA. (Id. 129:18-21.) That policy, 

according to the RNC in McConnell, was to “not offer to arrange personal meetings between 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 16 of 44
6

donors — no matter how large — and federal officeholders or candidates for office.” (Shea 

Decl. ¶ 44 (FEC Exh. 27); see also Shea Dep. 79:22-81:11, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 

(D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 28) (discussing policy).) When a donor requested such access as a condition 

of making a donation, the RNC asserted that it “rejected the donation and denied the request.” 

(Shea Decl. ¶ 44 (FEC Exh. 27).) When an existing donor requested a meeting with an 

officeholder, the RNC’s stated policy was to “pass the request along to the officeholder’s staff 

without inquiring into the purpose of the proposed meeting, but neither to advocate a meeting nor 

ascertain whether a meeting has been arranged.” (Id. ¶ 46.) In spite of this policy, trading of soft 

money for access to federal officeholders was rampant. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 150-52 

(“The record in the present case[] is replete with . . . examples of national party committees 

peddling access to federal candidates and officeholders in exchange for large soft-money 

donations. . . . [T]he RNC holds out the prospect of access to officeholders to attract soft-money 

donations and encourages officeholders to meet with large soft-money donors.”) (citing 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 500-03 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 860-61 (Leon, J.)); see also Steele 

Dep. 33:13-34:13 (FEC Exh. 42) (noting that, although Steele was RNC member from 2000-

2002, he was never instructed at the time “not [to] provide a donor to the RNC access to a federal 

officeholder”). 

12. Many donors make large contributions at the suggestion of professional lobbyists 

as part of a broader plan to obtain influence. As one lobbyist explained, 

I advise my clients as to which federal office-holders (or candidates) they 

should contribute and in what amounts, in order to best use the resources 

they are able to allocate to such efforts to advance their legislative agenda. 

Such plans also would include soft money contributions to political parties 

and interest groups associated with political issues.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 17 of 44
7

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 495 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (citation omitted, emphasis added); see 

also id. (“‘To have true political clout, the giving and raising of campaign money for candidates 

and political parties is often critically important.’”) (quoting different lobbyist). Through 

lobbyists and others, “national parties have actively exploited the belief that contributions 

purchase influence or protection to pressure donors into making contributions.” McConnell, 540 

U.S. at 148 n.47. As the CEO of a major corporate donor explained, if a corporation had given a 

lot of money to one party, “the other side,” i.e., the opposing national party committee, might 

have “a friendly lobbyist call and indicate that someone with interests before a certain committee 

has had their contributions to the other side noticed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

C. Federal Candidates and Officeholders Know the Identity of Their Parties’ 

Large Donors, Regardless of Who Solicits the Donations 

13. It is not only “contributions made at the express behest of” a candidate that raise 

corruption concerns, McConnell, 540 U.S. at 152, but also other contributions, because “[e]lected 

officials know exactly who the big party contributors are.” Rudman Decl. ¶ 12 [DEV 8-Tab 34]; 

accord Simpson Decl. ¶ 5 [DEV 9-Tab 38]; Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 [DEV 6-Tab 16]. Donation 

patterns are well-known or easily ascertainable by party officials, officeholders, staff, and 

opposing lobbyists, through FEC reports or other means. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 148 n.47; 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 488 (Kollar-Kotelly, J) (“‘[T]here is communication among 

Members about who has made soft money donations and at what level they have given, and this 

is widely known and understood by the Members and their staff.’”) (quoting CEO Wade 

Randlett); id. at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 853-54 (Leon, J.) (“‘[Y]ou cannot be a good 

Democratic or a good Republican Member and not be aware of who gave money to the party.’”) 

(quoting Senator Bumpers); id. at 487-88 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (“‘Legislators of 

both parties often know who the large soft money contributors to their party are.’”) (quoting 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 18 of 44
8

Senator McCain); id. at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (donor’s “‘lobbyist informs the 

Senator that a large donation was just made’”) (quoting Senator Boren). Congressional staffers 

also know the identities of the big soft-money donors. See id. at 482 (“‘Staffers who work for 

Members know who the big donors are, and those people always get their phone calls returned 

first and are allowed to see the Member when others are not.’”) (quoting Senator Simpson). 

14. In McConnell, the RNC asserted that it was “exceedingly rare for [Members of 

Congress] to solicit funds through telephone calls or personal meetings.” (Shea Decl. ¶ 17 (FEC 

Exh. 27); Josefiak Dep. 105:6-7, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Sept. 28, 2002) 

(FEC Exh. 29) (“I am not aware of Members of Congress being asked to solicit soft money on 

behalf of the RNC.”); id. at 119:15-121-3 (testifying that RNC staff and existing donors 

conducted most major-donor solicitations for RNC, and “it’s certainly not a program that we 

have in place to ask Members of Congress to solicit soft money. I'm not aware of that at all.”); 

 In fact, however, before the 

passage of BCRA, some soft-money solicitations were made by employees or officers of the 

national parties, and some were made by officeholders. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 125 (“[S]oftCase 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 19 of 44
9

money contributions . . . were in many cases solicited by the candidates themselves.”); id. at 147 

(discussing fundraising in which federal candidates were not involved). 

15. “Even when not participating directly in the fundraising, federal officeholders 

were well aware of the identities of the donors: National party committees would distribute lists 

of potential or actual donors, or donors themselves would report their generosity to 

officeholders.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 147 (emphasis added). “‘[F]or a member not to know 

the identities of these donors, he or she must actively avoid such knowledge as it is provided by 

the national political parties and the donors themselves.’” Id. (quoting McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 

2d at 487-88) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (emphasis added); see also id. (citing McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 

2d at 853-55 (Leon, J.)). 

16. In light of the foregoing, even if Plaintiffs were to exclude federal officeholders 

from the soft-money solicitation process, soft-money donors “know that elected officials would 

become aware of who has given significant amounts” (Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 (FEC Exh. 30) 

(former CEO of soft-money donor)): As a lobbyist and former congressional aide explains, 

“Members will find out who made large contributions from their staffs, other Members, or 

through ‘thank you’ type events run by the party.” (Rozen Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 31).) Indeed, 

“fundraising does not always involve a solicitation directly from a Member. . . . Sophisticated 

donors would understand that elected officials of the party would be aware and appreciative of 

the amounts contributed even if an officeholder had not personally solicited the funds 

contributed.” (Id.) 

17. Thus, “the pernicious effects of the soft money system . . . will result whether or 

not Members of Congress themselves directly solicit the contributions.” (Rozen Decl. ¶ 3 (FEC 

Exh. 31).) “Even if entrance to [donor] events were tied to hard money contributions rather than 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 20 of 44
10

soft money, such events would provide opportunities for people who had also given additional 

soft money amounts to interact with elected officials.” (Id.) For example, fundraising events for 

hard-money donors would inevitably include donors who had also made soft-money donations. 

At such events, “the officeholders would often know which of the attendees had made the large 

soft money donations, [and] they would naturally feel gratitude towards those donors 

commensurate with the amount of the donation.” (Id.; see also Ornstein Decl. ¶ 16 (Exh 3 to 

Van Hollen S. J. Opp. (Docket No. 41)) (“If the parties could now return to creating and 

managing events to solicit unlimited soft money contributions . . . with officeholders present, 

where they would interact with large donors and could be told by the parties who the large 

donors are, and would likely be told by the donors themselves, . . . it would require a huge 

suspension of disbelief to imagine that the officeholders would not pay close attention to who 

they are, and would lavish attention on them.”).) “The same willful suspension of disbelief is 

required to imagine that a busy lawmaker with a long list of phone calls to return or limited time 

to see people would ignore the call or appointment from a soft money donor who may have 

given six- or seven-figure contributions to his or her party.” (Ornstein Decl. ¶ 16; see also

Rozen Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 31) (“The dangers of the soft money system . . . will still be present. 

Members will find out who made large contributions . . . , and they will naturally be more 

responsive to those donors due to the amount of help the donors have provided to the Member’s 

party.”); see also Steele Dep. 61:4-63:20 (FEC Exh. 42) (acknowledging that soft-money donors 

would attend events with federal officials and contact officials in other ways, and RNC would be 

unable to prevent donors from informing officials of their donations).) 

18. “Though a soft money check might be made out to a political party, . . . those 

checks open the doors to the offices of individual and important Members of Congress and the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 21 of 44
11

Administration . . . .” (Greenwald Decl. ¶ 12 (FEC Exh. 30).) This access to federal candidates 

and officeholders, even if it were “not explicitly promised” by the party, “gives [soft-money 

donors] an opportunity to shape and affect governmental decisions.” (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.) Such 

influence provides the impetus for “the vast majority of soft money” (id. ¶ 11), and “the system 

would be perpetuated whether a Member or some other person representing the party is calling to 

ask.” (Id.) 

D. State and Local Political Parties Are Inextricably Intertwined with National 

Parties, Federal Candidates, and Federal Officeholders 

19. State and local parties — such as Plaintiffs California Republican Party (“CRP”) 

and Republican Party of San Diego County (“RPSD”) — are “entities uniquely positioned to 

serve as conduits for corruption” because of their close connection to the national parties and to 

federal officeholders and candidates. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 156 n.51; see also id. at 161. 

20. “Congress recognized that” there were “close ties between federal candidates and 

state party committees,” id. at 161, and concluded — “based on the evidence before it” — that 

“state committees function as an alternative avenue for precisely the same corrupting forces” of 

soft money as the national party committees, id. at 164. 

21. The chairperson of each state Republican party sits on the RNC. (Josefiak Dep. 

14:18-15:13 (FEC Exh. 1).) This arrangement facilitates near-constant strategic communication 

between state parties and the RNC. (See id. 200:13-201:1; see also Steele Dep. 12:13-20, 31:9-

13, 53:7-21 (FEC Exh. 42) (noting RNC’s and Steele’s frequent strategic communication with 

state parties).) 

22. The CRP’s chairperson serves on the RNC, and all three of the CRP’s RNC 

members regularly convey strategic information among and between the CRP and the RNC. 

(See Christiansen Dep. 14:16-18, 15:2-5, 17:14-18 (FEC Exh. 2).) Communication between the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 22 of 44
12

RNC and CRP is particularly frequent during election years, when the parties discuss strategic 

topics such as voter registration and voter contact goals. (See id. 173:19-174:15.) In addition, 

the CRP’s Board of Directors always includes a United States Representative, who serves on 

behalf of the entire California Republican congressional delegation. (Id. 170:6-11.) The CRP, 

therefore, is inextricably intertwined with both the RNC and California’s federal officeholders 

and candidates. 

23. Each Republican nominee for the United States Senate and House of 

Representatives sits on the CRP’s State Central Committee. Standing Rules & Bylaws of the 

Cal. Republican Party § 2.01.01(A)(1)-(2) (Feb. 22, 2009), available at 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/about_party_bylaws.htm. If elected, each of these federal 

officeholders appoints a minimum of eight to twelve additional delegates to the Committee. See 

id. § 2.01.01(B)(1)-(2),(6). Even if not elected, each nominee appoints a minimum of one to five 

additional delegates. See id. § 2.01.01(B)(7). All of California’s RNC members also sit on the 

CRP’s State Central Committee. See id. § 2.01.01(A)(3)-(4). Each of these members appoints 

four to twelve additional delegates to the Committee. See id. § 2.01.01(B)(3)-(4). 

24. The CRP engages in strategic coordination with local Republican committees, 

including the RPSD, as to key party activities, such as voter registration and voter contact. (See

Christiansen Dep. 175:8-176:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

25. The CRP’s Board of Directors — which always includes at least one federal 

officeholder, see supra ¶ 22 — is informed of individual “generous donations.” (Id. 82:14-

83:25.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 23 of 44
13

26. Each Republican United States Representative from San Diego County is an 

officer of the RPSD (Buettner Dep. 11:14-23, 99:14-24 (FEC Exh. 3)), and so the leadership of 

the RPSD is inextricably intertwined with that area’s federal officeholders and candidates. 

27. The RPSD’s committee members — including federal officeholders, see supra

¶ 26 — have access to the RPSD’s internal donor records. (Buettner Dep. 33:20-34:4 (FEC Exh. 

3).) 

28. The RPSD also makes available to some candidates for the House or 

Representatives the RPSD’s file containing voter information. (Id. at 89:9-90:2.) 

E. State and Local Political Parties Facilitate Their Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

29. The CRP invites its donors to meet and speak with federal candidates and 

officeholders, including the President and Vice President (Christiansen Dep. 62:5-25 (FEC Exh. 

2)), candidates for President and Vice President (id. 54:2-58:16), and many other federal 

candidates and officeholders (see id. 94:24-99:2 (describing state party conventions); see also id. 

109:22-110:7 (acknowledging that “at a fundraising event, . . . [donors] can have access through 

that”); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 5-6 (Response ¶ 4) (FEC Exh. 32) (“Federal 

candidates or officeholders who have spoken at such events include: Former Mayor Rudy 

Giuliani and former Governor Mitt Romney (2007); Senate candidate Bill Jones (2004); 

Congressman Ed Royce, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, 

and Congressman Kevin McCarthy.”); FEC Exh. 49 (invitations to nine CRP fundraising events 

with presidential candidate Sen. John McCain over three-month period)). 

30. Some of these events have tiered ticket structures, with donors who pay larger 

amounts receiving more intimate access to the officeholders and candidates, such as at seated 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 24 of 44
14

dinners, where the officeholders and candidates know that the people with whom they are eating 

are the largest donors. (See Christiansen Dep. 54:2-58:16, 94:24-99:2 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

31. The CRP has a menu of defined benefits for its major donors, promising them that 

they will “work closely with California’s Republican candidates and officials” and that donors 

“are well recognized for their important support of the Republican campaign.” California 

Republican Party, Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/golden_state_leadership_team.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

(FEC Exh. 9); see also California Republican Party, Join the California Republican Party 

Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/pdf/Golden_State_Leadership_Application.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

(FEC Exh. 10). The CRP believes that providing these benefits helps the party raise funds. 

(Christiansen Dep. 88:10-89:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

32. The CRP also “strong arms” federal candidates and officeholders into 

participating in conference calls with major donors. (Christiansen Dep. 85:25-86:16 (FEC Exh. 

2).) For example, Senator McCain’s presidential campaign manager held a conference call for 

the CRP’s major donors (id. 91:17-20, 92:23-94:6), and then held a second call for an even more 

exclusive set of the CRP’s very biggest donors — those who gave over $25,000 (id. 106:19-

107:15). 

33. The CRP does not intend to change its practice of giving its donors access to 

federal candidates and officeholders, even if the CRP is permitted to raise and spend soft money 

on federal election activity. (See id. 177:19-178:6.) 

34. The RPSD provides its donors with access to federal candidates and officeholders, 

including at events attended by such candidates and officeholders where donors giving larger 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 25 of 44
15

amounts receive greater recognition. (Buettner Dep. 20:15-22:2 (FEC Exh. 3); see also id. 

37:10-38:3, 39:7-9.) Each month, the RPSD holds a meeting that is open to the public but that is 

followed by a reception to which only major donors and important guests (including federal 

candidates and officeholders) are invited. (Id. 49:2-51:3.) The RPSD also arranges “VIP 

junkets” to Washington, where major donors meet with members of Congress. (Id. 43:23-45:2, 

45:24-46:7.) This preferential access is set out in menus of defined benefits, including, “for [the 

RPSD’s] most generous supporters . . . private, complimentary VIP meetings and events with 

major Republican leaders and candidates.” RPSD, Join a Republican Supporter Club or Renew 

Your Membership, https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/ (last visited Mar. 8, 

2009) (FEC Exh. 11); see also RPSD, Tony Krvaric, Chairman’s Circle Chair, 

http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/donor/chairmans_circle/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 12) (listing benefits for RPSD’s highest donor group); CRP-RPSD-44 (FEC Exh. 50) 

(inviting donors to be “personally introduce[d]” to candidate for U.S. Senate); CRP-RPSD-58 

(FEC Exh. 51) (inviting donors to private reception with sitting Member of Congress and 

presidential candidate). 

35. The RPSD does not intend to change its practice of giving access to donors, even 

if the RPSD is permitted to raise and spend soft money on federal election activity. (See 

Buettner Dep. 56:18-23 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

36. “‘[T]he federal candidates who benefit from state party use of [soft money] will 

know exactly whom their benefactors are; the same degree of beholdenness and obligation will 

arise; the same distortions on the legislative process will occur; and the same public cynicism 

will erode the foundations of our democracy — except it will all be worse in the public’s mind 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 26 of 44
16

because a perceived reform was undercut once again by a loophole that allows big money into 

the system.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 467 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quoting Senator Rudman). 

F. A National Party Official Acting as an Agent of His Party Raises the Same 

Actual and Apparent Corruption Concerns as the National Party Itself

37. Plaintiff Steele is the Chairman of the RNC. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14.) 

38. To the extent Chairman Steele wishes to solicit soft-money donations in his 

capacity as an RNC officer, each of the foregoing facts regarding the RNC, see supra ¶¶ 1-18, 

applies to Chairman Steele with equal force. To the extent Chairman Steele wishes to solicit soft 

money for state and local candidates in his individual capacity, BCRA does not prevent him from 

doing so. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 157. Nonetheless, Chairman Steele does not intend to solicit 

soft money in his individual capacity, nor does he plan to solicit federal funds for state or local 

parties or candidates. (Steele Dep. 83:13-84:22 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

38.1. Chairman Steele has not decided whether or how he would solicit soft-money 

donations to be used for specific purposes (see id. at 85:1-19, 106:11-17), nor has he even 

considered the question. (Id. at 66:7-11 (“I have not thought about how I would raise the 

money.”).) 

39. Former plaintiff and former RNC Chairman Robert M. Duncan remains a member 

of the RNC, but he has no official leadership role within that organization. (Josefiak Dep. 29:21-

30:13 (FEC Exh. 1).) He has no authority, beyond that of any other RNC member, over the 

actions or decisions of the current RNC Chairman. (See id.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 27 of 44
17

II. PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES HAVE 

RAISED SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WITHIN THE 

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 

40. Since BCRA’s enactment, which raised the limit on contributions to national 

political parties and indexed it to inflation, BCRA § 307(a)(2),(d), the national party committees4

have raised more hard money during each presidential election cycle than they raised in hard and 

soft money combined prior to BCRA: 

a. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, the national party committees raised a 

total of approximately $1.09 billion — approximately $574.5 million in hard money and 

approximately $515.1 million in soft money. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the national party committees raised 

approximately $1.24 billion in hard money. (Id.) 

c. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the national party committees raised 

approximately $1.24 billion in hard money. (Id.) 

41. In the 2005-2006 non-presidential election cycle, the national party committees 

raised approximately $900.2 million in hard money alone, representing approximately 90 percent 

of the $1.011 billion ($515.2 million in hard money and $496.1 million in soft money) they 

raised in 2001-2002. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

42. Since BCRA’s enactment, the amounts of hard money raised by the RNC each 

presidential election cycle have been greater than the amounts the RNC raised in hard and soft 

money combined prior to BCRA: 

 

4

 The national party committees are the RNC, the National Republican Congressional 

Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Democratic 

National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and 

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 28 of 44
18

a. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, the RNC raised a combined total of 

approximately $379 million — nearly $212.8 million in hard money and approximately $166.2 

million in soft money. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RNC raised approximately $392.4 

million in hard money. (Id.) 

c. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the RNC raised approximately $427.6 

million in hard money. (Id.) 

43. In the 2005-2006 non-presidential election cycle, the RNC raised approximately 

$243 million in hard money, representing approximately 85 percent of the $284 million ($170 

million in hard money and $113.9 million in soft money) the RNC raised in 2001-2002. 

(Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

44. The RNC, CRP, and RPSD are subject to the same contribution limits as their 

Democratic Party equivalents. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1). 

45. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RNC, CRP, and RPSD have in most election cycles 

each raised considerably more hard money than their Democratic counterparts: 

a. In the 2007-2008 cycle, the RNC raised approximately $427.5 million, 

roughly 64% more than the DNC’s $260.1 million. In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the RNC 

raised approximately $243 million, approximately 85% more than the DNC’s $130.8 million. In 

the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RNC and DNC each raised almost $400 million. (Biersack 

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the three post-BCRA election cycles, the CRP has raised significantly 

more hard money than the California Democratic Party (“CDP”). In the 2007-2008 election 

cycle, the CRP raised approximately $14 million, over 3.5 times more hard money than the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 29 of 44
19

CDP’s $3.8 million. In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the CRP raised approximately $10.8 

million, almost double CDP’s $5.6 million. And in the 2003-2004 election cycle, the CRP raised 

approximately $13.3 million, or 25% more than the CDP’s $10.7 million. (Biersack Decl. 

¶¶ 9-10 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

c. In the six years since BCRA became effective, the RPSD has raised 

considerably more hard money than the San Diego Democratic Party (“SDDP”). Although the 

SDDP raised about $90,000 more hard dollars than the RPSD in the 2007-2008 election cycle, 

the RPSD raised twice as much hard money as the SDDP in the 2005-2006 cycle: $648,137 for 

the RPSD, versus $297,827 for the SDDP. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RPSD raised 

$703,478, more than 5.5 times the $121,803 raised by the SDDP. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 11-12 (FEC 

Exh. 33).) 

46. In the three election cycles since BCRA’s enactment, the amount of money raised 

by the national committees of the Republican Party is considerably greater than the combined 

total raised by all of the Democratic-leaning 527 groups that have a national presence and affect 

federal elections. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the three national committees of the 

Republican Party cumulatively raised approximately $640.3 million, while the national 

Democratic 527 groups raised less than one-quarter of that amount, about $154 million. 

(Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 34).) Similarly, in the 2005-

2006 election cycle, the national committees of the Republican Party raised approximately 

$508.1 million, more than quadrupling the Democratic 527 groups’ $112.5 million. (Biersack 

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 5 (FEC Exh. 34).) The national Republican 

committees raised almost 2.5 times as much as all national Democratic 527 groups in the 2003-

2004 election cycle: $657 million for the Republican committees versus $264.5 million for the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 30 of 44
20

key Democratic 527 groups. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 6 (FEC Exh. 

34).) The corresponding fundraising totals for national Republican-leaning 527 groups were 

$138 million in the 2008 election cycle, $106.2 million in the 2006 cycle, and $164.7 million in 

the 2004 cycle. (Hajjar Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (FEC Exh. 34).) 

47. The RNC raises substantial funds via joint fundraising committees (“JFCs”), 

through which the RNC, state parties, and candidate campaign committees solicit donors 

collectively and share the proceeds received from those solicitations. (See, e.g., RNC 000106-

000110 at 000108, 000110 (FEC Exh. 13) (explaining breakdown of donations to JFC shared by 

RNC, McCain presidential campaign, and state Republican parties of Colorado, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, and Wisconsin).) 

48. The RNC predicted in McConnell that “‘[t]he net effects of BCRA will be 

massive layoffs and severe reduction of . . . speech at the RNC, and reduction of many state 

parties to a ‘nominal’ existence.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 698 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) 

(quoting RNC brief). The RNC “calculate[d] that the BCRA will cause the RNC to lose 

revenues of approximately $48.5 million per non-presidential election year, and $125 million per 

presidential election year.” (Shea Decl. ¶ 19 (FEC Exh. 27).) The RNC further asserted that it 

would “not be able to recoup these lost non-federal revenues” because, the RNC projected, “it is 

unlikely that the RNC will be able to raise more federal money from lower-dollar contributors 

than it currently does.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) 

49. Directly contrary to the RNC’s foregoing predictions in McConnell: (a) the RNC 

generally raises more hard money now than it raised in hard and soft money combined before 

BCRA, see supra ¶¶ 40-43; and (b) the RNC also has massively expanded its low-dollar 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 31 of 44
21

contributor base. (See Ornstein Decl. ¶¶ 21-26 (Exh 3 to Van Hollen S. J. Opp. (Docket No. 

41)).) 

50. The RNC acknowledges that it has not yet “been able to compete effectively in 

[the] area” of fundraising via the internet. (Josefiak Dep. 185:22-186:12 (FEC Exh. 1); see also 

id. 188:17-189:1 (Q: . . . [T]here’s no reason that the RNC can’t raise hard dollars over the 

Internet in the same way and with the same effect as any other hard money group, is there? A. 

Correct. We attempt to raise it. It’s not productive, so the competition is there because others 

can, and we can’t.”), 83:18-84:5 (“[E]ven though we constantly try to increase . . . the 

solicitations by e-mail, which is very cost effective, we have not been as successful as the 

opposition party in generating interest by our donor base to contribute that way.”).) But the RNC 

does not know if its competitive disadvantage in this area will continue. (Steele Dep. 92:20-94:8 

(FEC Exh. 42) (“I don’t know what the future holds for fundraising on the Internet.”).) 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ ACTIVITIES 

A. Plaintiffs Are Demonstrably Willing and Able to Finance Their Activities 

with Federal Funds

51. BCRA does not “in any way limit[] the total amount of money parties can spend. 

Rather, [it] simply limit[s] the source and individual amount of donations.” McConnell, 540 

U.S. at 139 (citation omitted). 

52. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RNC has engaged in all of the activities it now 

claims to wish to pursue: supporting state candidates, including in elections where no federal 

candidates were on the ballot (Plaintiff RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4)); 

redistricting (id. at 5); grassroots lobbying (Josefiak Dep. 156:22-157:10 (FEC Exh. 1)); and 

litigation (id. 171:20-172:9). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 32 of 44
22

53. To the extent that the RNC has chosen to forego certain activities, that is the result 

of the RNC’s strategic decision to spend its plentiful federal funds on other elections. (See id. 

141:10-143:16, 160:12-20; Steele Dep. 71:11-76:11 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

54. Since BCRA’s enactment, the CRP has “spent . . . money supporting” federal 

candidates through direct and coordinated expenditures (see Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts 

¶ 38), and through substantial sums spent on federal election activity, including voter 

registration, voter identification, GOTV, and generic campaign activity, see infra ¶¶ 72-83. 

55. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RPSD has distributed material promoting federal 

and state candidates together in every election cycle. (See FEC Exh. 20 (RPSD materials); see 

also Buettner Dep. 77:2-79:21 (FEC Exh. 3) (acknowledging that RPSD has distributed materials 

endorsing federal candidates).) 

56. The purpose of the RPSD’s alleged activities is “to get Republicans elected” at 

the federal, state, and local levels. (Buettner Dep. 62:5-63:18, 66:3-67:9 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

Regardless of the result of this case, the RPSD will continue to conduct all of its voter 

registration, GOTV, and generic campaign activities in the same manner that it has conducted 

them since BCRA was enacted. (See id. 76:2-12.) 

B. The RNC’s Ability to Support State and Local Candidates Is Unlimited, and 

Such Activity Has the Potential to Affect Federal Elections

57. The RNC contributed approximately $900,000 to a candidate for governor of 

Virginia in 2005, $300,000 to New Jersey county parties that year, $540,000 to the Louisiana 

Republican Party in 2007, and $450,000 to the Kentucky Republican Party in 2007. (See Pl. 

RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4).) Thus, as to elections “in which there is no 

federal candidate on the ballot,” the RNC has spent a total of approximately $2.2 million on such 

elections since 2003, although that only constitutes approximately 0.2% of the RNC’s 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 33 of 44
23

disbursements during this period. (See id.; disbursements per election cycle available at 

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml.) 

58. If the RNC were interested in committing more of its resources to state and local 

activity, it was free to spend more of the nearly $1.1 billion it raised in that time period on such 

activity. See supra ¶¶ 42-43. 

59. Prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds 

ostensibly for the same type of activities at issue in this case — the RNC donated only a “small 

fraction” of its federal funds to state and local candidates. McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 464 

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Combined, the two national parties donated “less than 4% of their soft 

money spending and 1.6% of their total financial activity in 2000” to state candidates. Id. 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Activities such as training of state and local candidates or 

direct donations to them “constituted a very small portion of the political parties’ nonfederal 

expenditures during the 2000 election cycle.” Id. at 465. 

59.1. Chairman Steele has not determined the specific activities that the RNC would 

finance with soft money if it were permitted to do so in connection with the 2009 New Jersey 

elections, and he does not intend to make such a determination until this lawsuit is concluded. 

(Steele Dep. 69:19-70:9 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

60. The RNC’s off-year voter registration efforts increase the number of registered 

Republicans in subsequent years and facilitate the RNC’s compilation of voter information that 

the party uses to drive its GOTV and other programs assisting federal candidates in later 

elections. (See Josefiak Dep. 245:17-248:20.) More generally, the RNC’s state and local 

activities “give the RNC the opportunity to test new and improved targeting and tactics.” See

RNC, “Memo From Chairman Mehlman Regarding GOTV Efforts in Special Elections,” at 1 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 34 of 44
24

(May 23, 2005) (FEC Exh. 35). This is true regardless of whether federal elections are also on 

the ballot: For example, to “improve [its] grassroots effort, the RNC . . . deployed trained staff 

and resources into 2005 legislative and local special elections.” (Id. at 2.) These same efforts, 

refined in state and local races, “helped the GOP expand [its] majorities in the U.S. Congress 

. . . , in addition to re-electing President George W. Bush.” (See id. at 1; see also Press Release, 

“RNC Makes Additional Investment in Northeast Republican Leadership” (Mar. 17, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 36) (stating that RNC’s “investment in [its] state parties and . . . grassroots organizations 

. . . will help ensure victory in the special election in New York’s 20th Congressional district.”).) 

The CRP, too, uses its state and local campaign activities to “further refine the strategies and 

tactics for [its] target congressional candidates.” Ron Nehring, California GOP Chair: Go 

Local, http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_599.htm (Dec. 7, 2008) (FEC 

Exh. 15). 

61. In light of the foregoing, if the RNC is permitted to funnel soft money to them, 

“state and local candidates and officeholders will become the next conduits for the soft-money 

funding of sham issue advertising,” just as state parties served as that conduit prior to BCRA. 

See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 185. The RNC does not plan (unless this Court orders otherwise) to 

restrict the use of the soft money it would transfer to state candidates. (See Steele Dep. 105:10-

20 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

C. The RNC’s “Grassroots Lobbying” Is Sham Issue Advertising

62. Prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds 

ostensibly to, inter alia, conduct “issue advertising” — “genuine issue advocacy on the part of 

political parties [was] a rare occurrence.” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 451 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

J.). Similarly, the RNC spent only “a minuscule percentage” of its nonfederal budget on state 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 35 of 44
25

and local governmental affairs. Id. at 463. “What is clear from the evidence [in McConnell],

however, is that regardless of whether or not it is done to advocate the party’s principles, the 

Republican Party’s primary goal is the election of its candidates who will be advocates for their 

core principles.” Id. at 470. 

63. The precise contours of what the RNC now considers to be “grassroots lobbying” 

are unclear: When asked during discovery to respond to interrogatories and to produce certain 

documents relating to “grassroots lobbying,” as that term was defined in Plaintiffs’ Statement of 

Material Facts, the RNC objected that the term was “extremely vague, overbroad and 

ambiguous.” (See Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 3 (Objection ¶ 8) (FEC Exh. 32).) 

Chairman Steele similarly disavowed any ability to determine what would or would not 

constitute “grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s own definition. (Steele Dep. 80:1-82:19 (FEC 

Exh. 42).) 

64. The RNC cannot determine how much money — if any — it has spent on 

advertisements that it considers “grassroots lobbying” during the last three election cycles. (Pl. 

RNC’s Discovery Responses at 6 (FEC Exh. 4); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 4 

(Response ¶ 1 (FEC Exh. 32).) 

65. The RNC has testified that several communications that this Court found in 

McConnell to be sham issue ads — i.e., “so-called ‘issue ads’” that “were actually electioneering 

advertisements,” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 826-27 (Leon, J.) — would constitute 

“grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s definition of that term. (Compare Josefiak Dep. 164:8-

22 (FEC Exh. 1) (testifying that RNC’s “Taxed Too Much” ad is grassroots lobbying), 170:14-

171:19 (same for RNC’s “More” ad), with McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 446 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 36 of 44
26

J.) (including both ads in list of sham issue ads), 826 (Leon, J.) (same); see also ODP0029-00041 

(FEC Exh. 5) (text of ad); ODP 0023-02326 (FEC Exh. 6) (same).) 

66. Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts (¶ 39) includes disbursements for “nonadvocacy issue oriented mailings” in the CRP’s lists of disbursements “supporting” candidates, 

thereby further confirming the evidence that so-called “grassroots lobbying” affects candidate 

elections. 

67. Using hard money, the Democratic National Committee (which has far less cashon-hand than does the RNC) has recently produced and distributed a genuine grassroots lobbying 

advertisement. See “Door to Door,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtE4YX7_GVk (last 

visited Apr. 3, 2009). 

D. Redistricting Affects Federal Elections

68. “Redistricting efforts affect federal elections no matter when they are held,” and 

national party redistricting efforts “are of value to Members of Congress because the changes in 

the composition of a Member’s district can mean the difference between reelection and defeat.” 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 462, 468 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

The most important legislative activity in the electoral lives of U.S. House 

members takes place during redistricting, a process that is placed in the 

hands of state legislatures. The chances that a House incumbent will be 

ousted by unfavorable district boundaries are often greater than the chances 

of defeat at the hands of the typical challenger. Thus, federal legislators 

who belong to the state majority party have a tremendous incentive to be 

attuned to the state legislature and the state party leadership. 

Id. at 462 (quoting Defendants’ expert Donald Green). The importance of redistricting to federal 

officeholders was not lost on large soft-money donors: As one memorandum to a high-level Fortune 

100 company executive from the company’s own governmental affairs staff explained, 

because both [national] parties will be working to influence redistricting 

efforts during the next two years, we anticipate that we will be asked to 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 37 of 44
27

make soft money contributions to these efforts. Redistricting is a key oncea-decade effort that both parties have very high on their priority list. Given 

the priority of the redistricting efforts, relatively small soft money 

contributions in this area could result in disproportionate benefit. 

Id. at 508. Thus, as Chairman Steele has testified, the redistricting process following the next 

census will determine “[t]he composition of the House of Representatives for the next 10 to 12 

years or maybe even beyond that.” (Steele Dep. 76:13-17 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

69. In this case, the RNC has conceded that the purpose of its redistricting activities is 

to divide federal and state legislative districts “into a proper format that hopefully would be . . . 

more of a benefit to [the RNC] than the opposition party.” (Josefiak Dep. 155:18-21 (FEC Exh. 

1); see also Remarks of Chairman Jim Nicholson, RNC 0293683-85 [DEV 102].) Indeed, the 

CRP has repeatedly noted in this case the effect that redistricting can have on campaigns for the 

United States House of Representatives. (See Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 36, 38 

(“California’s Congressional seats were redistricted in 2001 to virtually eliminate partisan 

competition at general elections . . . .”); see also Erwin Dep. 47:3-11, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. 

No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 37) (“Q. . . . [T]he prospects for election of a candidate for the 

[H]ouse of [R]epresentatives would depend on redistricting; correct? A. Yes. Q. And to your 

knowledge do actual members of Congress and candidates for the [H]ouse of [R]epresentatives 

communicate with the state party and with state legislative officials about redistricting? A. 

Certainly members of Congress did.”).) The RPSD has noted the same effect. (Pls.’ Statement 

of Material Facts ¶ 55.) 

E. Plaintiffs’ Litigation Affects Who Obtains Federal Office

70. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the “litigation account” would “be used solely

for paying the fees and expenses attributable to this case.” (Compl. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 38 of 44
28

71. To the extent the litigation account would be used to fund litigation regarding 

voter registration and similar issues (see Josefiak Dep. 172:13-176:3 (FEC Exh. 1)), such 

litigation affects federal elections. See infra ¶¶ 77-78. 

F. Get-Out-The-Vote Activity Affects All Elections on the Ballot

72. The purpose of the CRP’s voter identification and GOTV activities is to “get . . . 

to the polls” all Republicans and Republican-leaning voters (Christiansen Dep. 127:14-25 (FEC 

Exh. 2)), so that Republican candidates “win on election day” in federal and state races (id. at 

128:1-4). Accordingly, the CRP acknowledges that its GOTV activities affect federal elections. 

(Id. at 128:24-129:1.) 

73. The RNC, too, has acknowledged the affect of GOTV on federal elections: 

A. . . . Your get-out-the-vote program is to get Republicans and 

independents and maybe disgruntle[d] democrats to vote for your 

candidate. So it’s more than just the Republican base. It’s getting the 

base plus in order to win. 

Q. So it’s designed to get people to the polls who you believe will vote 

Republican? 

A. Correct. 

Q. And, again, doesn’t that also help Republican candidates for federal 

office? 

A. It helps the ticket and Republican candidates, all Republican 

candidates for office, federal and non-federal. 

(Josefiak Dep. 27:18-28:19, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

74. In 2008, then-Chairman Duncan stated publicly that the RNC’s “prodigious 

fundraising” has allowed it to “buil[d] up over a long period of time” a GOTV program and other 

“organizational efforts [that] make the difference . . . generally, there’s probably a 2 to 5 percent 

difference in additional turnout for a candidate that you make.” Victory Dream Team, CONGRESS 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 39 of 44
29

DAILY, July 29, 2008, 2008 WLNR 14131041 (FEC Exh. 26). This “difference” applies to both 

federal and “down-ballot” candidates. See id. 

75. The CRP includes federal candidates in some of its GOTV slate listings. (See 

Door Hanger, “Elect Our Republican Team” (FEC Exh. 14); see also Christiansen Dep. 137:24-

139:11 (FEC Exh. 2) (noting that door hanger was distributed).) 

76. The RPSD uses federal funds to make GOTV phone calls and to distribute GOTV 

doorhangers “that include[] all Republican candidates.” (Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 

10 (Response ¶ 16) (FEC Exh. 32).) 

G. Voter Registration Affects Federal Elections

77. The purpose of the CRP’s voter registration activities is to register “as many 

Republicans as possible” and help elect Republican candidates in federal and state elections. 

(Christiansen Dep. 121:12-14, 121:23-122:3 (FEC Exh. 2).) The CRP acknowledges that its 

voter registration activity is intended to — and actually does — affect federal elections. (Id. 

123:1-17 (“Q: Does the CRP’s voter registration activity affect federal elections? A: Yes.”); 

see also Phillip J. LaVelle, For GOP, California Dreamin’?, 2004 WLNR 17013682, San Diego 

Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 2004 (FEC Exh. 16) (“[C]hairman of the California Republican Party . . . 

said Republican registration gains are creating a Bush-friendly environment.”); Erwin Dep. 

31:15-32:25, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 37) (stating that voter 

registration is an “ongoing project[]” to “build our party base” that “helps with elections”).) 

78. The RNC, too, has acknowledged the affect of voter registration on federal 

elections: 

Q. When a state party . . . conduct[s] voter registration drives, are they 

designed to register likely Republican voters? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Doesn't that help Republican candidates for federal office? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 40 of 44
30

A. The hope is, as a lot of these plans refer to it, helps the entire ticket in 

that state. And whether it’s for the legislature or whether it’s for governor, 

whether it’s for Congress or the U.S. Senate, if they have any of those 

races in that particular year, that’s the whole purpose behind it and that 

was really the purpose behind the Federal Election Commission’s 

allocation regulations in the states recognizing based on who was on a 

ballot in any particular election federal election year. That’s how you 

would allocate resources. There was an acknowledgment that it benefited 

the entire ticket and how it benefited and what kind of funds were used 

were based on the categories on those candidates on the ballot. 

Q. So it does help federal candidates? 

A. It does. 

(Josefiak Dep. 26:5-27:8, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

H. Advertising that Mentions State Ballot Measures and Promotes, Attacks, 

Supports, or Opposes Federal Candidates Affects Federal Elections

79. As to the direct effect on federal elections of advertising that promotes, attacks, 

supports, or opposes a federal candidate, “[t]he record on this score could scarcely be more 

abundant.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 170. “Such ads were a prime motivating force behind 

BCRA’s passage,” and “any public communication that promotes or attacks a clearly identified 

candidate directly affects the election in which he is participating.” Id. at 169-70 (emphasis 

added). 

80. Using federal funds, the CRP has distributed communications that endorse or 

oppose state ballot initiatives and identify federal candidates — thus associating the officeholder 

with the initiative — without promoting or attacking the candidate. (See California Republican 

Party, Your Official Orange County Republican Party Endorsements at 5 (FEC Exh. 21) (listing 

members of Congress endorsing ballot proposition); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 9 

(Response ¶ 13) (FEC Exh. 32) (acknowledging that Exhibit 21 “was distributed to Republican 

voters in Orange County” and was paid for with “federal funds only”).) The CRP’s assertions 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 41 of 44
31

that it “has not made any public communication that supported or opposed a ballot initiative that 

mentioned a federal candidate since BCRA became effective,” and that “[n]o federal funds were 

used for ballot measures” (id. at 9-10 (Response ¶¶ 14-15)) are therefore contradicted by the 

undisputed existence of occurrence of such a communication. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Other Federal Election Activity Affects Federal Elections

81. To the extent that any of the CRP’s intended activities constitute “generic 

campaign activity” 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(ii) — which is “campaign activity that promotes a 

political party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate” 2 U.S.C. § 431(21) 

— such activity also influences federal elections. See Ron Nehring, A Republican 50-State 

Strategy?, http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_617.htm (Jan. 27, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 18) (CRP Chairman’s statement: “Building organizational and communications capability 

— and expanding the ranks of congressional, state and local officials from our party — makes it 

more likely a state will be competitive in a presidential election down the road.”); San Joaquin 

Republicans Organizing for Dean Andal, http://www.cagop.org/blog/2008/09/san-joaquinrepublicans-organizing-for.html (Sept. 12, 2008) (FEC Exh. 19) (CRP Chairman’s blog post 

noting that Congressional candidate was “benefitting from the organization our volunteer groups 

have built in the region”); see also supra ¶ 60 (noting use of party-building operations to refine 

strategies and tactics for federal campaigns). 

82. The “generic” activities the CRP plans to conduct with soft money directly helps 

federal candidates and influences their election. Voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, 

and generic campaign activity as defined by BCRA “clearly capture activity that benefits federal 

candidates,” and “funding of such activities creates a significant risk of actual and apparent 

corruption.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 167-68. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 42 of 44
32

Common sense dictates, and it was “undisputed” below, that a 

party’s efforts to register voters sympathetic to that party directly 

assist the party’s candidates for federal office. 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 

460 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). It is equally clear that federal candidates 

reap substantial rewards from any efforts that increase the number 

of like-minded registered voters who actually go to the polls. See, 

e.g., id., at 459 (“‘[The evidence] shows quite clearly that a 

campaign that mobilizes residents of a highly Republican precinct 

will produce a harvest of votes for Republican candidates for both 

state and federal offices. A campaign need not mention federal 

candidates to have a direct effect on voting for such a candidate . . . 

. [G]eneric campaign activity has a direct effect on federal 

elections’” (quoting Green Expert Report 14)). 

Id.; see also supra ¶¶ 60, 72-78 (discussing purpose and effect of voter registration, voter 

identification, and GOTV activities); RNC Memorandum, Non-Allocable Party Building 

Programs, RNC 0084450-64 at 0084455 [DEV 101] (“There are certain election related party 

expenditures that make no reference to any specific candidates but do benefit the entire 

Republican ticket . . . . These generic programs include voter registration[] and GOTV programs 

. . . . These programs and projects benefit the Republican Party and all of its candidates, federal 

and state.”); Philp Dep. 49:8-16, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-874 (D.D.C.) (Sept. 19, 2002) 

(FEC Exh. 38) (Chairman of Colorado Republican Party testifying that state party’s “Get-outthe-vote program is designed to benefit all candidates. That could include voter registration and 

so on and so forth. Q. And is the same true of generic party advertising, in other words, Vote 

Republican, that’s designed to benefit all the candidates? A. Yes.”). 

83. Each of the organizational Plaintiffs has conceded that, in an election where both 

state and federal candidates are on the ballot, any GOTV activity inherently affects the federal 

elections, even if such activity does not specifically mention any of the federal candidates. 

(Josefiak Dep. 45:7-16 (FEC Exh. 1); Christiansen Dep. 129:25-130:5 (FEC Exh. 2); Buettner 

Dep. 68:16-21 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 43 of 44
33

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

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

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: June 18, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 44 of 44
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S SUPPLEMENTED

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN GENUINE DISPUTE 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 35
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS WOULD CREATE AN 

APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION AND POSE A DANGER OF ACTUAL 

CORRUPTION ...................................................................................................................1

A. The Republican National Committee Is in a Unique Position Between Donors 

and Federal Candidates and Officeholders ..............................................................1 

B. The Republican National Committee Facilitates Its Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders .....................................3 

C. Federal Candidates and Officeholders Know the Identity of Their Parties’ 

Large Donors, Regardless of Who Solicits the Donations ......................................7 

D. State and Local Political Parties Are Inextricably Intertwined with National 

Parties, Federal Candidates, and Federal Officeholders ........................................11 

E. State and Local Political Parties Facilitate Their Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders ...................................13 

F. A National Party Official Acting as an Agent of His Party Raises the Same 

Actual and Apparent Corruption Concerns as the National Party Itself................16 

II. PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES HAVE RAISED 

SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WITHIN THE FEDERAL 

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ...............................................................................................17 

III. PLAINTIFFS’ ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................21 

A. Plaintiffs Are Demonstrably Willing and Able to Finance Their Activities 

with Federal Funds.................................................................................................21 

B. The RNC’s Ability to Support State and Local Candidates Is Unlimited, 

and Such Activity Has the Potential to Affect Federal Elections ..........................22 

C. The RNC’s “Grassroots Lobbying” Is Sham Issue Advertising............................24 

D. Redistricting Affects Federal Elections .................................................................26 

E. Plaintiffs’ Litigation Affects Who Obtains Federal Office....................................27 

F. Get-Out-The-Vote Activity Affects All Elections on the Ballot ...........................28 

G. Voter Registration Affects Federal Elections ........................................................29 

H. Advertising that Mentions State Ballot Measures and Promotes, Attacks, 

Supports, or Opposes Federal Candidates Affects Federal Elections....................30 

I. Plaintiffs’ Other Federal Election Activity Affects Federal Elections ..................31 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 35
Pursuant to LCvR 7(h) and 56.1, Defendant Federal Election Commission 

(“Commission”) submits in support of its motion for summary judgment the following statement 

of material facts not in genuine dispute. 

I. UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS WOULD CREATE AN 

APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION AND POSE A DANGER OF ACTUAL 

CORRUPTION 

A. The Republican National Committee Is in a Unique Position Between Donors 

and Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

1. Plaintiff Republican National Committee (“RNC”) is a “political arm of 

Republicans either seeking office or in office,” and representatives of the RNC are in 

communication with candidates and officeholders on a frequent, ongoing basis. (Josefiak Dep. 

197:1-18 (FEC Exh. 1); see also Steele Dep. 26:16-27:10 (FEC Exh. 42).)1

2. National political parties are “‘inextricably intertwined with federal officeholders 

and candidates.’” McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 155 (2003) (quoting 148 Cong. Rec. H409 

(Feb. 13, 2002)).2

3. “‘[T]here is no meaningful separation between the national party committees and 

the public officials who control them.’” Id. (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 

468-69 (D.D.C. 2003) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)). 

 

1

 FEC Exhibits 1-25 were appended to the Commission’s memorandum in opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39); FEC Exhibits 26-41 were appended 

to the Commission’s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 

56); FEC Exhibits 42-51 are appended to the instant memorandum. 

2

 Once resolved by an appellate court, issues of legislative fact need not be relitigated in 

lower courts each time they arise. See A Woman’s Choice—E. Side Women’s Clinic v. Newman,

305 F.3d 684, 689 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, as to any fact that the Supreme Court resolved in 

McConnell, this Court may simply adopt the relevant finding from that case. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 35
2

4. The “national parties” are in a “unique position” to serve as “‘agents for spending 

on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders.’” Id. at 145 (quoting FEC v. 

Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 452 (2001)). 

5. “The President typically controls his party’s national committee, and once a 

favorite has emerged for the presidential nomination of the other party, that candidate and his 

party’s national committee typically work closely together.” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 697 

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.). When the President of the United States is a Republican, the President 

nominates the chairperson of the RNC, and there is regular strategic coordination between the 

party and the White House. (See Josefiak Dep. 193:2-194:20 (FEC Exh. 1).) 

6. The RNC works with federal candidates each election cycle to develop “victory 

plans,” which are joint, comprehensive, election-specific strategies. (See Josefiak Dep. 198:13-

199:8 (FEC Exh. 1); see also McConnell, 540 U.S. at 159-60 (rejecting RNC’s Title I challenge 

in relation to victory plans); Victory Dream Team, CONGRESS DAILY, July 29, 2008, 2008 

WLNR 14131041 (FEC Exh. 26) (noting victory plans’ use in federal and “down-ballot” 

elections); 

 

 The RNC provides advice regarding 

the competitiveness and makeup of specific congressional districts (Steele Dep. 53:7-21 (FEC 

Exh. 42)), and it assists Members of Congress by distributing their “message point[s]” to the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 35
3

party’s “base” (see id. at 29:3-22). The RNC also sells voter preference data to campaigns (see 

Josefiak Dep. 200:10-12 (FEC Exh. 1)) and, on occasion, exchanges donor lists with them (see 

id. 98:8-14). 

B. The Republican National Committee Facilitates Its Largest Donors’ Access 

to and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

7. To facilitate its donors’ access to federal candidates and officeholders, the RNC 

organizes private receptions, dinners, and other events at which individuals who have made large 

contributions (i.e., $15,000 or more) to the RNC have an opportunity to meet, dine, and speak 

with federal candidates and officeholders. (See Josefiak Dep. 58:18-61:5 (FEC Exh. 1).) These 

opportunities are “not offered to the public at large.” (Pl. RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 7 (FEC 

Exh. 4).) Many of the events are quite intimate: For example, at one event, the President of the 

United States, six U.S. Senators, and one U.S. Representative attended a dinner with just fortynine donors — a ratio of only six donors to each officeholder. (See RNC 000830-32 (FEC Exh. 

43; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 43A).) The RNC has organized even 

smaller Presidential appearances in private homes — events at which the President has been 

joined by as few as thirty-nine donors. (See RNC 000821-22 (FEC Exh. 44; unredacted version 

filed under seal as FEC Exh. 44A) (thirty-nine attendees); RNC 000846-47 (FEC Exh. 45; 

unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 45A) (forty-one attendees); RNC000843-45 

(FEC Exh. 46; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 46A) (fifty-two attendees).) And 

the RNC has arranged similar interactions with executive branch officials: Senior White House 

official Karl Rove had breakfast with twenty-eight donors (RNC 000883-887 (FEC Exh. 47; 

unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 47A)), and White House Chief of Staff Joshua 

Bolten and a sitting Member of Congress had lunch with thirty-seven donors (RNC 000896-97

(FEC Exh. 48; unredacted version filed under seal as FEC Exh. 48A)). These examples are 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 5 of 35
4

drawn only from events for which the RNC has produced guest lists, which is a small subset of 

the total number of RNC donor events. (See RNC000058-371 (FEC Exh. 8) (invitations to donor 

events).)

8. The RNC has created tiers of donors with specified benefits: For example, donors 

who give $15,000 receive “intimate luncheons, dinners, and meetings with key policymakers”; 

donors who give $30,400 “enjoy exclusive private functions with elected Republican leaders”; 

and donors who commit to raising $60,800 receive “at least one . . . exclusive event during the 

year,” as well as other “intimate events with key GOP policymakers.” (RNC 000130 (FEC Exh. 

7).) All of these benefits involve the privilege of attending events with federal candidates and 

officeholders, from candidates for the U.S. House to the sitting President of the United States. 

(See generally RNC 000058-000371 (FEC Exh. 8) (invitations to donor events with federal 

candidates and officeholders).) At these events, an attending donor has an opportunity to inform 

the federal candidate or officeholder about the donor’s opinion on legislation or other issues, and 

the candidate or officeholder is aware that the person expressing that opinion is a major donor. 

(See Josefiak Dep. 76:14-77:11 (FEC Exh. 1); see also Draft letter from Jim Nicholson to 

Deimer True, RNC 0302806 [DEV 102]3

 (explaining that donor who buys only one ticket to 

event is unlikely to sit with U.S. Senator because “sponsors, major donors, and table buyers are 

given first choice” of “VIP” assigned to their table).) 

9. The RNC sets its highest donation tier to correspond to the legal contribution 

limit; when the contribution limits rise, the RNC increases the size of the donation required to 

 

3

 “DEV” and “Tab” citations refer to the McConnell Defendants’ Exhibit Volumes. A 

DVD copy of the non-confidential DEVs and a CD containing the confidential DEVs were filed 

in the instant action (see Docket No. 39-23), and courtesy copies were delivered to Chambers 

contemporaneously with the filing of the Commission’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 6 of 35
5

reach the top tier. (Josefiak Dep. 102:19-103:6 (FEC Exh. 1).) Prior to BCRA, when there was 

no legal limit on soft-money contributions, the RNC’s donor tiers were substantially higher than 

they are now: The “Team 100” threshold (currently $30,400) was $100,000, and the “Regents” 

threshold (currently $60,800 divided between the donor and his/her spouse) was $250,000 from 

one person during a single election cycle. (See Shea Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14(f)-(g), McConnell v. FEC, 

Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 4, 2002) (FEC Exh. 27).) 

10. In McConnell, the plaintiffs’ own expert testified that, assuming money does buy 

access to or influence over federal officeholders, soft money is more likely to buy access or 

influence “simply by virtue of the numbers.” Primo Cross Tr. (Oct. 23, 2002) at 162, McConnell 

v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.), Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003); accord Krasno & Sorauf 

Expert Rep. at 15 [DEV 1-Tab 2] (“[T]he much greater size of the [soft money] individual 

donations at issue here pose a proportionately larger risk of influencing their beneficiaries than 

do contributions of hard money.”); Andrews Decl. ¶ 18 [DEV 6-Tab 1]; Wirthlin Cross Tr. (Oct. 

21, 2002) at 57, McConnell, Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003). 

11. The RNC has no written policy — and gives no written guidance to its employees 

— against providing donors with preferential access to federal candidates and officeholders. 

(Josefiak Dep. 128:2-5, 184:10-21 (FEC Exh. 1); Steele Dep. 109:20-110:5, 112:10-22, 113:5-17

(FEC Exh. 42) (also noting that Chairman relies on RNC’s staff to “intuitively know[ ] what they 

can and can’t do”).) Chairman Steele does not plan to develop such a policy until after this 

lawsuit is resolved, and he does not know what the content of that policy will be. (Steele Dep. 

59:13-19, 106:11-17 (FEC Exh. 42).) To the extent the RNC has an unwritten policy on this 

issue, it is the same policy that was in effect prior to BCRA. (Id. 129:18-21.) That policy, 

according to the RNC in McConnell, was to “not offer to arrange personal meetings between 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 7 of 35
6

donors — no matter how large — and federal officeholders or candidates for office.” (Shea 

Decl. ¶ 44 (FEC Exh. 27); see also Shea Dep. 79:22-81:11, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 

(D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 28) (discussing policy).) When a donor requested such access as a condition 

of making a donation, the RNC asserted that it “rejected the donation and denied the request.” 

(Shea Decl. ¶ 44 (FEC Exh. 27).) When an existing donor requested a meeting with an 

officeholder, the RNC’s stated policy was to “pass the request along to the officeholder’s staff 

without inquiring into the purpose of the proposed meeting, but neither to advocate a meeting nor 

ascertain whether a meeting has been arranged.” (Id. ¶ 46.) In spite of this policy, trading of soft 

money for access to federal officeholders was rampant. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 150-52 

(“The record in the present case[] is replete with . . . examples of national party committees 

peddling access to federal candidates and officeholders in exchange for large soft-money 

donations. . . . [T]he RNC holds out the prospect of access to officeholders to attract soft-money 

donations and encourages officeholders to meet with large soft-money donors.”) (citing 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 500-03 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 860-61 (Leon, J.)); see also Steele 

Dep. 33:13-34:13 (FEC Exh. 42) (noting that, although Steele was RNC member from 2000-

2002, he was never instructed at the time “not [to] provide a donor to the RNC access to a federal 

officeholder”). 

12. Many donors make large contributions at the suggestion of professional lobbyists 

as part of a broader plan to obtain influence. As one lobbyist explained, 

I advise my clients as to which federal office-holders (or candidates) they 

should contribute and in what amounts, in order to best use the resources 

they are able to allocate to such efforts to advance their legislative agenda. 

Such plans also would include soft money contributions to political parties 

and interest groups associated with political issues.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 8 of 35
7

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 495 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (citation omitted, emphasis added); see 

also id. (“‘To have true political clout, the giving and raising of campaign money for candidates 

and political parties is often critically important.’”) (quoting different lobbyist). Through 

lobbyists and others, “national parties have actively exploited the belief that contributions 

purchase influence or protection to pressure donors into making contributions.” McConnell, 540 

U.S. at 148 n.47. As the CEO of a major corporate donor explained, if a corporation had given a 

lot of money to one party, “the other side,” i.e., the opposing national party committee, might 

have “a friendly lobbyist call and indicate that someone with interests before a certain committee 

has had their contributions to the other side noticed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

C. Federal Candidates and Officeholders Know the Identity of Their Parties’ 

Large Donors, Regardless of Who Solicits the Donations 

13. It is not only “contributions made at the express behest of” a candidate that raise 

corruption concerns, McConnell, 540 U.S. at 152, but also other contributions, because “[e]lected 

officials know exactly who the big party contributors are.” Rudman Decl. ¶ 12 [DEV 8-Tab 34]; 

accord Simpson Decl. ¶ 5 [DEV 9-Tab 38]; Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 [DEV 6-Tab 16]. Donation 

patterns are well-known or easily ascertainable by party officials, officeholders, staff, and 

opposing lobbyists, through FEC reports or other means. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 148 n.47; 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 488 (Kollar-Kotelly, J) (“‘[T]here is communication among 

Members about who has made soft money donations and at what level they have given, and this 

is widely known and understood by the Members and their staff.’”) (quoting CEO Wade 

Randlett); id. at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 853-54 (Leon, J.) (“‘[Y]ou cannot be a good 

Democratic or a good Republican Member and not be aware of who gave money to the party.’”) 

(quoting Senator Bumpers); id. at 487-88 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (“‘Legislators of 

both parties often know who the large soft money contributors to their party are.’”) (quoting 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 9 of 35
8

Senator McCain); id. at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (donor’s “‘lobbyist informs the 

Senator that a large donation was just made’”) (quoting Senator Boren). Congressional staffers 

also know the identities of the big soft-money donors. See id. at 482 (“‘Staffers who work for 

Members know who the big donors are, and those people always get their phone calls returned 

first and are allowed to see the Member when others are not.’”) (quoting Senator Simpson). 

14. In McConnell, the RNC asserted that it was “exceedingly rare for [Members of 

Congress] to solicit funds through telephone calls or personal meetings.” (Shea Decl. ¶ 17 (FEC 

Exh. 27); Josefiak Dep. 105:6-7, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Sept. 28, 2002) 

(FEC Exh. 29) (“I am not aware of Members of Congress being asked to solicit soft money on 

behalf of the RNC.”); id. at 119:15-121-3 (testifying that RNC staff and existing donors 

conducted most major-donor solicitations for RNC, and “it’s certainly not a program that we 

have in place to ask Members of Congress to solicit soft money. I'm not aware of that at all.”); 

 In fact, however, before the 

passage of BCRA, some soft-money solicitations were made by employees or officers of the 

national parties, and some were made by officeholders. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 125 (“[S]oftCase 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 10 of 35
9

money contributions . . . were in many cases solicited by the candidates themselves.”); id. at 147 

(discussing fundraising in which federal candidates were not involved). 

15. “Even when not participating directly in the fundraising, federal officeholders 

were well aware of the identities of the donors: National party committees would distribute lists 

of potential or actual donors, or donors themselves would report their generosity to 

officeholders.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 147 (emphasis added). “‘[F]or a member not to know 

the identities of these donors, he or she must actively avoid such knowledge as it is provided by 

the national political parties and the donors themselves.’” Id. (quoting McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 

2d at 487-88) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (emphasis added); see also id. (citing McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 

2d at 853-55 (Leon, J.)). 

16. In light of the foregoing, even if Plaintiffs were to exclude federal officeholders 

from the soft-money solicitation process, soft-money donors “know that elected officials would 

become aware of who has given significant amounts” (Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 (FEC Exh. 30) 

(former CEO of soft-money donor)): As a lobbyist and former congressional aide explains, 

“Members will find out who made large contributions from their staffs, other Members, or 

through ‘thank you’ type events run by the party.” (Rozen Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 31).) Indeed, 

“fundraising does not always involve a solicitation directly from a Member. . . . Sophisticated 

donors would understand that elected officials of the party would be aware and appreciative of 

the amounts contributed even if an officeholder had not personally solicited the funds 

contributed.” (Id.) 

17. Thus, “the pernicious effects of the soft money system . . . will result whether or 

not Members of Congress themselves directly solicit the contributions.” (Rozen Decl. ¶ 3 (FEC 

Exh. 31).) “Even if entrance to [donor] events were tied to hard money contributions rather than 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 11 of 35
10

soft money, such events would provide opportunities for people who had also given additional 

soft money amounts to interact with elected officials.” (Id.) For example, fundraising events for 

hard-money donors would inevitably include donors who had also made soft-money donations. 

At such events, “the officeholders would often know which of the attendees had made the large 

soft money donations, [and] they would naturally feel gratitude towards those donors 

commensurate with the amount of the donation.” (Id.; see also Ornstein Decl. ¶ 16 (Exh 3 to 

Van Hollen S. J. Opp. (Docket No. 41)) (“If the parties could now return to creating and 

managing events to solicit unlimited soft money contributions . . . with officeholders present, 

where they would interact with large donors and could be told by the parties who the large 

donors are, and would likely be told by the donors themselves, . . . it would require a huge 

suspension of disbelief to imagine that the officeholders would not pay close attention to who 

they are, and would lavish attention on them.”).) “The same willful suspension of disbelief is 

required to imagine that a busy lawmaker with a long list of phone calls to return or limited time 

to see people would ignore the call or appointment from a soft money donor who may have 

given six- or seven-figure contributions to his or her party.” (Ornstein Decl. ¶ 16; see also

Rozen Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 31) (“The dangers of the soft money system . . . will still be present. 

Members will find out who made large contributions . . . , and they will naturally be more 

responsive to those donors due to the amount of help the donors have provided to the Member’s 

party.”); see also Steele Dep. 61:4-63:20 (FEC Exh. 42) (acknowledging that soft-money donors 

would attend events with federal officials and contact officials in other ways, and RNC would be 

unable to prevent donors from informing officials of their donations).) 

18. “Though a soft money check might be made out to a political party, . . . those 

checks open the doors to the offices of individual and important Members of Congress and the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 12 of 35
11

Administration . . . .” (Greenwald Decl. ¶ 12 (FEC Exh. 30).) This access to federal candidates 

and officeholders, even if it were “not explicitly promised” by the party, “gives [soft-money 

donors] an opportunity to shape and affect governmental decisions.” (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.) Such 

influence provides the impetus for “the vast majority of soft money” (id. ¶ 11), and “the system 

would be perpetuated whether a Member or some other person representing the party is calling to 

ask.” (Id.) 

D. State and Local Political Parties Are Inextricably Intertwined with National 

Parties, Federal Candidates, and Federal Officeholders 

19. State and local parties — such as Plaintiffs California Republican Party (“CRP”) 

and Republican Party of San Diego County (“RPSD”) — are “entities uniquely positioned to 

serve as conduits for corruption” because of their close connection to the national parties and to 

federal officeholders and candidates. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 156 n.51; see also id. at 161. 

20. “Congress recognized that” there were “close ties between federal candidates and 

state party committees,” id. at 161, and concluded — “based on the evidence before it” — that 

“state committees function as an alternative avenue for precisely the same corrupting forces” of 

soft money as the national party committees, id. at 164. 

21. The chairperson of each state Republican party sits on the RNC. (Josefiak Dep. 

14:18-15:13 (FEC Exh. 1).) This arrangement facilitates near-constant strategic communication 

between state parties and the RNC. (See id. 200:13-201:1; see also Steele Dep. 12:13-20, 31:9-

13, 53:7-21 (FEC Exh. 42) (noting RNC’s and Steele’s frequent strategic communication with 

state parties).) 

22. The CRP’s chairperson serves on the RNC, and all three of the CRP’s RNC 

members regularly convey strategic information among and between the CRP and the RNC. 

(See Christiansen Dep. 14:16-18, 15:2-5, 17:14-18 (FEC Exh. 2).) Communication between the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 13 of 35
12

RNC and CRP is particularly frequent during election years, when the parties discuss strategic 

topics such as voter registration and voter contact goals. (See id. 173:19-174:15.) In addition, 

the CRP’s Board of Directors always includes a United States Representative, who serves on 

behalf of the entire California Republican congressional delegation. (Id. 170:6-11.) The CRP, 

therefore, is inextricably intertwined with both the RNC and California’s federal officeholders 

and candidates. 

23. Each Republican nominee for the United States Senate and House of 

Representatives sits on the CRP’s State Central Committee. Standing Rules & Bylaws of the 

Cal. Republican Party § 2.01.01(A)(1)-(2) (Feb. 22, 2009), available at 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/about_party_bylaws.htm. If elected, each of these federal 

officeholders appoints a minimum of eight to twelve additional delegates to the Committee. See 

id. § 2.01.01(B)(1)-(2),(6). Even if not elected, each nominee appoints a minimum of one to five 

additional delegates. See id. § 2.01.01(B)(7). All of California’s RNC members also sit on the 

CRP’s State Central Committee. See id. § 2.01.01(A)(3)-(4). Each of these members appoints 

four to twelve additional delegates to the Committee. See id. § 2.01.01(B)(3)-(4). 

24. The CRP engages in strategic coordination with local Republican committees, 

including the RPSD, as to key party activities, such as voter registration and voter contact. (See

Christiansen Dep. 175:8-176:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

25. The CRP’s Board of Directors — which always includes at least one federal 

officeholder, see supra ¶ 22 — is informed of individual “generous donations.” (Id. 82:14-

83:25.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 14 of 35
13

26. Each Republican United States Representative from San Diego County is an 

officer of the RPSD (Buettner Dep. 11:14-23, 99:14-24 (FEC Exh. 3)), and so the leadership of 

the RPSD is inextricably intertwined with that area’s federal officeholders and candidates. 

27. The RPSD’s committee members — including federal officeholders, see supra

¶ 26 — have access to the RPSD’s internal donor records. (Buettner Dep. 33:20-34:4 (FEC Exh. 

3).) 

28. The RPSD also makes available to some candidates for the House or 

Representatives the RPSD’s file containing voter information. (Id. at 89:9-90:2.) 

E. State and Local Political Parties Facilitate Their Largest Donors’ Access to 

and Influence Over Federal Candidates and Officeholders 

29. The CRP invites its donors to meet and speak with federal candidates and 

officeholders, including the President and Vice President (Christiansen Dep. 62:5-25 (FEC Exh. 

2)), candidates for President and Vice President (id. 54:2-58:16), and many other federal 

candidates and officeholders (see id. 94:24-99:2 (describing state party conventions); see also id. 

109:22-110:7 (acknowledging that “at a fundraising event, . . . [donors] can have access through 

that”); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 5-6 (Response ¶ 4) (FEC Exh. 32) (“Federal 

candidates or officeholders who have spoken at such events include: Former Mayor Rudy 

Giuliani and former Governor Mitt Romney (2007); Senate candidate Bill Jones (2004); 

Congressman Ed Royce, Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, 

and Congressman Kevin McCarthy.”); FEC Exh. 49 (invitations to nine CRP fundraising events 

with presidential candidate Sen. John McCain over three-month period)). 

30. Some of these events have tiered ticket structures, with donors who pay larger 

amounts receiving more intimate access to the officeholders and candidates, such as at seated 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 15 of 35
14

dinners, where the officeholders and candidates know that the people with whom they are eating 

are the largest donors. (See Christiansen Dep. 54:2-58:16, 94:24-99:2 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

31. The CRP has a menu of defined benefits for its major donors, promising them that 

they will “work closely with California’s Republican candidates and officials” and that donors 

“are well recognized for their important support of the Republican campaign.” California 

Republican Party, Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/golden_state_leadership_team.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

(FEC Exh. 9); see also California Republican Party, Join the California Republican Party 

Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/pdf/Golden_State_Leadership_Application.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

(FEC Exh. 10). The CRP believes that providing these benefits helps the party raise funds. 

(Christiansen Dep. 88:10-89:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

32. The CRP also “strong arms” federal candidates and officeholders into 

participating in conference calls with major donors. (Christiansen Dep. 85:25-86:16 (FEC Exh. 

2).) For example, Senator McCain’s presidential campaign manager held a conference call for 

the CRP’s major donors (id. 91:17-20, 92:23-94:6), and then held a second call for an even more 

exclusive set of the CRP’s very biggest donors — those who gave over $25,000 (id. 106:19-

107:15). 

33. The CRP does not intend to change its practice of giving its donors access to 

federal candidates and officeholders, even if the CRP is permitted to raise and spend soft money 

on federal election activity. (See id. 177:19-178:6.) 

34. The RPSD provides its donors with access to federal candidates and officeholders, 

including at events attended by such candidates and officeholders where donors giving larger 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 16 of 35
15

amounts receive greater recognition. (Buettner Dep. 20:15-22:2 (FEC Exh. 3); see also id. 

37:10-38:3, 39:7-9.) Each month, the RPSD holds a meeting that is open to the public but that is 

followed by a reception to which only major donors and important guests (including federal 

candidates and officeholders) are invited. (Id. 49:2-51:3.) The RPSD also arranges “VIP 

junkets” to Washington, where major donors meet with members of Congress. (Id. 43:23-45:2, 

45:24-46:7.) This preferential access is set out in menus of defined benefits, including, “for [the 

RPSD’s] most generous supporters . . . private, complimentary VIP meetings and events with 

major Republican leaders and candidates.” RPSD, Join a Republican Supporter Club or Renew 

Your Membership, https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/ (last visited Mar. 8, 

2009) (FEC Exh. 11); see also RPSD, Tony Krvaric, Chairman’s Circle Chair, 

http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/donor/chairmans_circle/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 12) (listing benefits for RPSD’s highest donor group); CRP-RPSD-44 (FEC Exh. 50) 

(inviting donors to be “personally introduce[d]” to candidate for U.S. Senate); CRP-RPSD-58 

(FEC Exh. 51) (inviting donors to private reception with sitting Member of Congress and 

presidential candidate). 

35. The RPSD does not intend to change its practice of giving access to donors, even 

if the RPSD is permitted to raise and spend soft money on federal election activity. (See 

Buettner Dep. 56:18-23 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

36. “‘[T]he federal candidates who benefit from state party use of [soft money] will 

know exactly whom their benefactors are; the same degree of beholdenness and obligation will 

arise; the same distortions on the legislative process will occur; and the same public cynicism 

will erode the foundations of our democracy — except it will all be worse in the public’s mind 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 17 of 35
16

because a perceived reform was undercut once again by a loophole that allows big money into 

the system.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 467 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quoting Senator Rudman). 

F. A National Party Official Acting as an Agent of His Party Raises the Same 

Actual and Apparent Corruption Concerns as the National Party Itself

37. Plaintiff Steele is the Chairman of the RNC. (Am. Compl. ¶ 14.) 

38. To the extent Chairman Steele wishes to solicit soft-money donations in his 

capacity as an RNC officer, each of the foregoing facts regarding the RNC, see supra ¶¶ 1-18, 

applies to Chairman Steele with equal force. To the extent Chairman Steele wishes to solicit soft 

money for state and local candidates in his individual capacity, BCRA does not prevent him from 

doing so. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 157. Nonetheless, Chairman Steele does not intend to solicit 

soft money in his individual capacity, nor does he plan to solicit federal funds for state or local 

parties or candidates. (Steele Dep. 83:13-84:22 (FEC Exh. 42).)

38.1. Chairman Steele has not decided whether or how he would solicit soft-money 

donations to be used for specific purposes (see id. at 85:1-19, 106:11-17), nor has he even 

considered the question. (Id. at 66:7-11 (“I have not thought about how I would raise the 

money.”).)

39. Former plaintiff and former RNC Chairman Robert M. Duncan remains a member 

of the RNC, but he has no official leadership role within that organization. (Josefiak Dep. 29:21-

30:13 (FEC Exh. 1).) He has no authority, beyond that of any other RNC member, over the 

actions or decisions of the current RNC Chairman. (See id.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 18 of 35
17

II. PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEES HAVE 

RAISED SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY WITHIN THE 

FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 

40. Since BCRA’s enactment, which raised the limit on contributions to national 

political parties and indexed it to inflation, BCRA § 307(a)(2),(d), the national party committees4

have raised more hard money during each presidential election cycle than they raised in hard and 

soft money combined prior to BCRA: 

a. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, the national party committees raised a 

total of approximately $1.09 billion — approximately $574.5 million in hard money and 

approximately $515.1 million in soft money. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the national party committees raised 

approximately $1.24 billion in hard money. (Id.) 

c. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the national party committees raised 

approximately $1.24 billion in hard money. (Id.) 

41. In the 2005-2006 non-presidential election cycle, the national party committees 

raised approximately $900.2 million in hard money alone, representing approximately 90 percent 

of the $1.011 billion ($515.2 million in hard money and $496.1 million in soft money) they 

raised in 2001-2002. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

42. Since BCRA’s enactment, the amounts of hard money raised by the RNC each 

presidential election cycle have been greater than the amounts the RNC raised in hard and soft 

money combined prior to BCRA: 

 

4

 The national party committees are the RNC, the National Republican Congressional 

Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Democratic 

National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and 

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 19 of 35
18

a. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, the RNC raised a combined total of 

approximately $379 million — nearly $212.8 million in hard money and approximately $166.2 

million in soft money. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RNC raised approximately $392.4 

million in hard money. (Id.) 

c. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the RNC raised approximately $427.6 

million in hard money. (Id.) 

43. In the 2005-2006 non-presidential election cycle, the RNC raised approximately 

$243 million in hard money, representing approximately 85 percent of the $284 million ($170 

million in hard money and $113.9 million in soft money) the RNC raised in 2001-2002. 

(Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

44. The RNC, CRP, and RPSD are subject to the same contribution limits as their 

Democratic Party equivalents. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1). 

45. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RNC, CRP, and RPSD have in most election cycles 

each raised considerably more hard money than their Democratic counterparts: 

a. In the 2007-2008 cycle, the RNC raised approximately $427.5 million, 

roughly 64% more than the DNC’s $260.1 million. In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the RNC 

raised approximately $243 million, approximately 85% more than the DNC’s $130.8 million. In 

the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RNC and DNC each raised almost $400 million. (Biersack 

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 8 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

b. In the three post-BCRA election cycles, the CRP has raised significantly 

more hard money than the California Democratic Party (“CDP”). In the 2007-2008 election 

cycle, the CRP raised approximately $14 million, over 3.5 times more hard money than the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 20 of 35
19

CDP’s $3.8 million. In the 2005-2006 election cycle, the CRP raised approximately $10.8 

million, almost double CDP’s $5.6 million. And in the 2003-2004 election cycle, the CRP raised 

approximately $13.3 million, or 25% more than the CDP’s $10.7 million. (Biersack Decl. 

¶¶ 9-10 (FEC Exh. 33).) 

c. In the six years since BCRA became effective, the RPSD has raised 

considerably more hard money than the San Diego Democratic Party (“SDDP”). Although the 

SDDP raised about $90,000 more hard dollars than the RPSD in the 2007-2008 election cycle, 

the RPSD raised twice as much hard money as the SDDP in the 2005-2006 cycle: $648,137 for 

the RPSD, versus $297,827 for the SDDP. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the RPSD raised 

$703,478, more than 5.5 times the $121,803 raised by the SDDP. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 11-12 (FEC 

Exh. 33).) 

46. In the three election cycles since BCRA’s enactment, the amount of money raised 

by the national committees of the Republican Party is considerably greater than the combined 

total raised by all of the Democratic-leaning 527 groups that have a national presence and affect 

federal elections. In the 2007-2008 election cycle, the three national committees of the 

Republican Party cumulatively raised approximately $640.3 million, while the national 

Democratic 527 groups raised less than one-quarter of that amount, about $154 million. 

(Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 4 (FEC Exh. 34).) Similarly, in the 2005-

2006 election cycle, the national committees of the Republican Party raised approximately 

$508.1 million, more than quadrupling the Democratic 527 groups’ $112.5 million. (Biersack 

Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 5 (FEC Exh. 34).) The national Republican 

committees raised almost 2.5 times as much as all national Democratic 527 groups in the 2003-

2004 election cycle: $657 million for the Republican committees versus $264.5 million for the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 21 of 35
20

key Democratic 527 groups. (Biersack Decl. ¶¶ 3, 13 (FEC Exh. 33); Hajjar Decl. ¶ 6 (FEC Exh. 

34).) The corresponding fundraising totals for national Republican-leaning 527 groups were 

$138 million in the 2008 election cycle, $106.2 million in the 2006 cycle, and $164.7 million in 

the 2004 cycle. (Hajjar Decl. ¶¶ 7-9 (FEC Exh. 34).) 

47. The RNC raises substantial funds via joint fundraising committees (“JFCs”), 

through which the RNC, state parties, and candidate campaign committees solicit donors 

collectively and share the proceeds received from those solicitations. (See, e.g., RNC 000106-

000110 at 000108, 000110 (FEC Exh. 13) (explaining breakdown of donations to JFC shared by 

RNC, McCain presidential campaign, and state Republican parties of Colorado, Minnesota, New 

Mexico, and Wisconsin).) 

48. The RNC predicted in McConnell that “‘[t]he net effects of BCRA will be 

massive layoffs and severe reduction of . . . speech at the RNC, and reduction of many state 

parties to a ‘nominal’ existence.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 698 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) 

(quoting RNC brief). The RNC “calculate[d] that the BCRA will cause the RNC to lose 

revenues of approximately $48.5 million per non-presidential election year, and $125 million per 

presidential election year.” (Shea Decl. ¶ 19 (FEC Exh. 27).) The RNC further asserted that it 

would “not be able to recoup these lost non-federal revenues” because, the RNC projected, “it is 

unlikely that the RNC will be able to raise more federal money from lower-dollar contributors 

than it currently does.” (Id. (emphasis in original).) 

49. Directly contrary to the RNC’s foregoing predictions in McConnell: (a) the RNC 

generally raises more hard money now than it raised in hard and soft money combined before 

BCRA, see supra ¶¶ 40-43; and (b) the RNC also has massively expanded its low-dollar 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 22 of 35
21

contributor base. (See Ornstein Decl. ¶¶ 21-26 (Exh 3 to Van Hollen S. J. Opp. (Docket No. 

41)).) 

50. The RNC acknowledges that it has not yet “been able to compete effectively in 

[the] area” of fundraising via the internet. (Josefiak Dep. 185:22-186:12 (FEC Exh. 1); see also 

id. 188:17-189:1 (Q: . . . [T]here’s no reason that the RNC can’t raise hard dollars over the 

Internet in the same way and with the same effect as any other hard money group, is there? A. 

Correct. We attempt to raise it. It’s not productive, so the competition is there because others 

can, and we can’t.”), 83:18-84:5 (“[E]ven though we constantly try to increase . . . the 

solicitations by e-mail, which is very cost effective, we have not been as successful as the 

opposition party in generating interest by our donor base to contribute that way.”).) But the RNC 

does not know if its competitive disadvantage in this area will continue. (Steele Dep. 92:20-94:8 

(FEC Exh. 42) (“I don’t know what the future holds for fundraising on the Internet.”).)

III. PLAINTIFFS’ ACTIVITIES 

A. Plaintiffs Are Demonstrably Willing and Able to Finance Their Activities 

with Federal Funds

51. BCRA does not “in any way limit[] the total amount of money parties can spend. 

Rather, [it] simply limit[s] the source and individual amount of donations.” McConnell, 540 

U.S. at 139 (citation omitted). 

52. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RNC has engaged in all of the activities it now 

claims to wish to pursue: supporting state candidates, including in elections where no federal 

candidates were on the ballot (Plaintiff RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4)); 

redistricting (id. at 5); grassroots lobbying (Josefiak Dep. 156:22-157:10 (FEC Exh. 1)); and 

litigation (id. 171:20-172:9). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 23 of 35
22

53. To the extent that the RNC has chosen to forego certain activities, that is the result 

of the RNC’s strategic decision to spend its plentiful federal funds on other elections. (See id. 

141:10-143:16, 160:12-20; Steele Dep. 71:11-76:11 (FEC Exh. 42).) 

54. Since BCRA’s enactment, the CRP has “spent . . . money supporting” federal 

candidates through direct and coordinated expenditures (see Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts 

¶ 38), and through substantial sums spent on federal election activity, including voter 

registration, voter identification, GOTV, and generic campaign activity, see infra ¶¶ 72-83. 

55. Since BCRA’s enactment, the RPSD has distributed material promoting federal 

and state candidates together in every election cycle. (See FEC Exh. 20 (RPSD materials); see 

also Buettner Dep. 77:2-79:21 (FEC Exh. 3) (acknowledging that RPSD has distributed materials 

endorsing federal candidates).) 

56. The purpose of the RPSD’s alleged activities is “to get Republicans elected” at 

the federal, state, and local levels. (Buettner Dep. 62:5-63:18, 66:3-67:9 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

Regardless of the result of this case, the RPSD will continue to conduct all of its voter 

registration, GOTV, and generic campaign activities in the same manner that it has conducted 

them since BCRA was enacted. (See id. 76:2-12.) 

B. The RNC’s Ability to Support State and Local Candidates Is Unlimited, and 

Such Activity Has the Potential to Affect Federal Elections

57. The RNC contributed approximately $900,000 to a candidate for governor of 

Virginia in 2005, $300,000 to New Jersey county parties that year, $540,000 to the Louisiana 

Republican Party in 2007, and $450,000 to the Kentucky Republican Party in 2007. (See Pl. 

RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4).) Thus, as to elections “in which there is no 

federal candidate on the ballot,” the RNC has spent a total of approximately $2.2 million on such 

elections since 2003, although that only constitutes approximately 0.2% of the RNC’s 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 24 of 35
23

disbursements during this period. (See id.; disbursements per election cycle available at 

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml.) 

58. If the RNC were interested in committing more of its resources to state and local 

activity, it was free to spend more of the nearly $1.1 billion it raised in that time period on such 

activity. See supra ¶¶ 42-43. 

59. Prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds 

ostensibly for the same type of activities at issue in this case — the RNC donated only a “small 

fraction” of its federal funds to state and local candidates. McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 464 

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Combined, the two national parties donated “less than 4% of their soft 

money spending and 1.6% of their total financial activity in 2000” to state candidates. Id. 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Activities such as training of state and local candidates or 

direct donations to them “constituted a very small portion of the political parties’ nonfederal 

expenditures during the 2000 election cycle.” Id. at 465. 

59.1. Chairman Steele has not determined the specific activities that the RNC would 

finance with soft money if it were permitted to do so in connection with the 2009 New Jersey 

elections, and he does not intend to make such a determination until this lawsuit is concluded. 

(Steele Dep. 69:19-70:9 (FEC Exh. 42).)

60. The RNC’s off-year voter registration efforts increase the number of registered 

Republicans in subsequent years and facilitate the RNC’s compilation of voter information that 

the party uses to drive its GOTV and other programs assisting federal candidates in later 

elections. (See Josefiak Dep. 245:17-248:20.) More generally, the RNC’s state and local 

activities “give the RNC the opportunity to test new and improved targeting and tactics.” See

RNC, “Memo From Chairman Mehlman Regarding GOTV Efforts in Special Elections,” at 1 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 25 of 35
24

(May 23, 2005) (FEC Exh. 35). This is true regardless of whether federal elections are also on 

the ballot: For example, to “improve [its] grassroots effort, the RNC . . . deployed trained staff 

and resources into 2005 legislative and local special elections.” (Id. at 2.) These same efforts, 

refined in state and local races, “helped the GOP expand [its] majorities in the U.S. Congress 

. . . , in addition to re-electing President George W. Bush.” (See id. at 1; see also Press Release, 

“RNC Makes Additional Investment in Northeast Republican Leadership” (Mar. 17, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 36) (stating that RNC’s “investment in [its] state parties and . . . grassroots organizations 

. . . will help ensure victory in the special election in New York’s 20th Congressional district.”).) 

The CRP, too, uses its state and local campaign activities to “further refine the strategies and 

tactics for [its] target congressional candidates.” Ron Nehring, California GOP Chair: Go 

Local, http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_599.htm (Dec. 7, 2008) (FEC 

Exh. 15). 

61. In light of the foregoing, if the RNC is permitted to funnel soft money to them, 

“state and local candidates and officeholders will become the next conduits for the soft-money 

funding of sham issue advertising,” just as state parties served as that conduit prior to BCRA. 

See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 185. The RNC does not plan (unless this Court orders otherwise) to 

restrict the use of the soft money it would transfer to state candidates. (See Steele Dep. 105:10-

20 (FEC Exh. 42).)

C. The RNC’s “Grassroots Lobbying” Is Sham Issue Advertising

62. Prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds 

ostensibly to, inter alia, conduct “issue advertising” — “genuine issue advocacy on the part of 

political parties [was] a rare occurrence.” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 451 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

J.). Similarly, the RNC spent only “a minuscule percentage” of its nonfederal budget on state 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 26 of 35
25

and local governmental affairs. Id. at 463. “What is clear from the evidence [in McConnell],

however, is that regardless of whether or not it is done to advocate the party’s principles, the 

Republican Party’s primary goal is the election of its candidates who will be advocates for their 

core principles.” Id. at 470. 

63. The precise contours of what the RNC now considers to be “grassroots lobbying” 

are unclear: When asked during discovery to respond to interrogatories and to produce certain 

documents relating to “grassroots lobbying,” as that term was defined in Plaintiffs’ Statement of 

Material Facts, the RNC objected that the term was “extremely vague, overbroad and 

ambiguous.” (See Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 3 (Objection ¶ 8) (FEC Exh. 32).) 

Chairman Steele similarly disavowed any ability to determine what would or would not 

constitute “grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s own definition. (Steele Dep. 80:1-82:19 (FEC 

Exh. 42).)

64. The RNC cannot determine how much money — if any — it has spent on 

advertisements that it considers “grassroots lobbying” during the last three election cycles. (Pl. 

RNC’s Discovery Responses at 6 (FEC Exh. 4); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 4 

(Response ¶ 1 (FEC Exh. 32).) 

65. The RNC has testified that several communications that this Court found in 

McConnell to be sham issue ads — i.e., “so-called ‘issue ads’” that “were actually electioneering 

advertisements,” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 826-27 (Leon, J.) — would constitute 

“grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s definition of that term. (Compare Josefiak Dep. 164:8-

22 (FEC Exh. 1) (testifying that RNC’s “Taxed Too Much” ad is grassroots lobbying), 170:14-

171:19 (same for RNC’s “More” ad), with McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 446 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 27 of 35
26

J.) (including both ads in list of sham issue ads), 826 (Leon, J.) (same); see also ODP0029-00041 

(FEC Exh. 5) (text of ad); ODP 0023-02326 (FEC Exh. 6) (same).) 

66. Plaintiffs’ Statement of Material Facts (¶ 39) includes disbursements for “nonadvocacy issue oriented mailings” in the CRP’s lists of disbursements “supporting” candidates, 

thereby further confirming the evidence that so-called “grassroots lobbying” affects candidate 

elections. 

67. Using hard money, the Democratic National Committee (which has far less cashon-hand than does the RNC) has recently produced and distributed a genuine grassroots lobbying 

advertisement. See “Door to Door,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtE4YX7_GVk (last 

visited Apr. 3, 2009). 

D. Redistricting Affects Federal Elections

68. “Redistricting efforts affect federal elections no matter when they are held,” and 

national party redistricting efforts “are of value to Members of Congress because the changes in 

the composition of a Member’s district can mean the difference between reelection and defeat.” 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 462, 468 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

The most important legislative activity in the electoral lives of U.S. House 

members takes place during redistricting, a process that is placed in the 

hands of state legislatures. The chances that a House incumbent will be 

ousted by unfavorable district boundaries are often greater than the chances 

of defeat at the hands of the typical challenger. Thus, federal legislators 

who belong to the state majority party have a tremendous incentive to be 

attuned to the state legislature and the state party leadership. 

Id. at 462 (quoting Defendants’ expert Donald Green). The importance of redistricting to federal 

officeholders was not lost on large soft-money donors: As one memorandum to a high-level Fortune 

100 company executive from the company’s own governmental affairs staff explained, 

because both [national] parties will be working to influence redistricting 

efforts during the next two years, we anticipate that we will be asked to 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 28 of 35
27

make soft money contributions to these efforts. Redistricting is a key oncea-decade effort that both parties have very high on their priority list. Given 

the priority of the redistricting efforts, relatively small soft money 

contributions in this area could result in disproportionate benefit. 

Id. at 508. Thus, as Chairman Steele has testified, the redistricting process following the next 

census will determine “[t]he composition of the House of Representatives for the next 10 to 12 

years or maybe even beyond that.” (Steele Dep. 76:13-17 (FEC Exh. 42).)

69. In this case, the RNC has conceded that the purpose of its redistricting activities is 

to divide federal and state legislative districts “into a proper format that hopefully would be . . . 

more of a benefit to [the RNC] than the opposition party.” (Josefiak Dep. 155:18-21 (FEC Exh. 

1); see also Remarks of Chairman Jim Nicholson, RNC 0293683-85 [DEV 102].) Indeed, the 

CRP has repeatedly noted in this case the effect that redistricting can have on campaigns for the 

United States House of Representatives. (See Pls.’ Statement of Material Facts ¶¶ 36, 38 

(“California’s Congressional seats were redistricted in 2001 to virtually eliminate partisan 

competition at general elections . . . .”); see also Erwin Dep. 47:3-11, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. 

No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 37) (“Q. . . . [T]he prospects for election of a candidate for the 

[H]ouse of [R]epresentatives would depend on redistricting; correct? A. Yes. Q. And to your 

knowledge do actual members of Congress and candidates for the [H]ouse of [R]epresentatives 

communicate with the state party and with state legislative officials about redistricting? A. 

Certainly members of Congress did.”).) The RPSD has noted the same effect. (Pls.’ Statement 

of Material Facts ¶ 55.) 

E. Plaintiffs’ Litigation Affects Who Obtains Federal Office

70. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the “litigation account” would “be used solely

for paying the fees and expenses attributable to this case.” (Compl. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 29 of 35
28

71. To the extent the litigation account would be used to fund litigation regarding 

voter registration and similar issues (see Josefiak Dep. 172:13-176:3 (FEC Exh. 1)), such 

litigation affects federal elections. See infra ¶¶ 77-78. 

F. Get-Out-The-Vote Activity Affects All Elections on the Ballot

72. The purpose of the CRP’s voter identification and GOTV activities is to “get . . . 

to the polls” all Republicans and Republican-leaning voters (Christiansen Dep. 127:14-25 (FEC 

Exh. 2)), so that Republican candidates “win on election day” in federal and state races (id. at 

128:1-4). Accordingly, the CRP acknowledges that its GOTV activities affect federal elections. 

(Id. at 128:24-129:1.) 

73. The RNC, too, has acknowledged the affect of GOTV on federal elections: 

A. . . . Your get-out-the-vote program is to get Republicans and 

independents and maybe disgruntle[d] democrats to vote for your 

candidate. So it’s more than just the Republican base. It’s getting the 

base plus in order to win. 

Q. So it’s designed to get people to the polls who you believe will vote 

Republican? 

A. Correct. 

Q. And, again, doesn’t that also help Republican candidates for federal 

office? 

A. It helps the ticket and Republican candidates, all Republican 

candidates for office, federal and non-federal. 

(Josefiak Dep. 27:18-28:19, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

74. In 2008, then-Chairman Duncan stated publicly that the RNC’s “prodigious 

fundraising” has allowed it to “buil[d] up over a long period of time” a GOTV program and other 

“organizational efforts [that] make the difference . . . generally, there’s probably a 2 to 5 percent 

difference in additional turnout for a candidate that you make.” Victory Dream Team, CONGRESS 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 30 of 35
29

DAILY, July 29, 2008, 2008 WLNR 14131041 (FEC Exh. 26). This “difference” applies to both 

federal and “down-ballot” candidates. See id. 

75. The CRP includes federal candidates in some of its GOTV slate listings. (See 

Door Hanger, “Elect Our Republican Team” (FEC Exh. 14); see also Christiansen Dep. 137:24-

139:11 (FEC Exh. 2) (noting that door hanger was distributed).) 

76. The RPSD uses federal funds to make GOTV phone calls and to distribute GOTV 

doorhangers “that include[] all Republican candidates.” (Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 

10 (Response ¶ 16) (FEC Exh. 32).) 

G. Voter Registration Affects Federal Elections

77. The purpose of the CRP’s voter registration activities is to register “as many 

Republicans as possible” and help elect Republican candidates in federal and state elections. 

(Christiansen Dep. 121:12-14, 121:23-122:3 (FEC Exh. 2).) The CRP acknowledges that its 

voter registration activity is intended to — and actually does — affect federal elections. (Id. 

123:1-17 (“Q: Does the CRP’s voter registration activity affect federal elections? A: Yes.”); 

see also Phillip J. LaVelle, For GOP, California Dreamin’?, 2004 WLNR 17013682, San Diego 

Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 2004 (FEC Exh. 16) (“[C]hairman of the California Republican Party . . . 

said Republican registration gains are creating a Bush-friendly environment.”); Erwin Dep. 

31:15-32:25, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (FEC Exh. 37) (stating that voter 

registration is an “ongoing project[]” to “build our party base” that “helps with elections”).) 

78. The RNC, too, has acknowledged the affect of voter registration on federal 

elections: 

Q. When a state party . . . conduct[s] voter registration drives, are they 

designed to register likely Republican voters? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Doesn't that help Republican candidates for federal office? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 31 of 35
30

A. The hope is, as a lot of these plans refer to it, helps the entire ticket in 

that state. And whether it’s for the legislature or whether it’s for governor, 

whether it’s for Congress or the U.S. Senate, if they have any of those 

races in that particular year, that’s the whole purpose behind it and that 

was really the purpose behind the Federal Election Commission’s 

allocation regulations in the states recognizing based on who was on a 

ballot in any particular election federal election year. That’s how you 

would allocate resources. There was an acknowledgment that it benefited 

the entire ticket and how it benefited and what kind of funds were used 

were based on the categories on those candidates on the ballot. 

Q. So it does help federal candidates? 

A. It does. 

(Josefiak Dep. 26:5-27:8, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

H. Advertising that Mentions State Ballot Measures and Promotes, Attacks, 

Supports, or Opposes Federal Candidates Affects Federal Elections

79. As to the direct effect on federal elections of advertising that promotes, attacks, 

supports, or opposes a federal candidate, “[t]he record on this score could scarcely be more 

abundant.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 170. “Such ads were a prime motivating force behind 

BCRA’s passage,” and “any public communication that promotes or attacks a clearly identified 

candidate directly affects the election in which he is participating.” Id. at 169-70 (emphasis 

added). 

80. Using federal funds, the CRP has distributed communications that endorse or 

oppose state ballot initiatives and identify federal candidates — thus associating the officeholder 

with the initiative — without promoting or attacking the candidate. (See California Republican 

Party, Your Official Orange County Republican Party Endorsements at 5 (FEC Exh. 21) (listing 

members of Congress endorsing ballot proposition); Pls.’ Supplemental Discovery Resps. at 9 

(Response ¶ 13) (FEC Exh. 32) (acknowledging that Exhibit 21 “was distributed to Republican 

voters in Orange County” and was paid for with “federal funds only”).) The CRP’s assertions 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 32 of 35
31

that it “has not made any public communication that supported or opposed a ballot initiative that 

mentioned a federal candidate since BCRA became effective,” and that “[n]o federal funds were 

used for ballot measures” (id. at 9-10 (Response ¶¶ 14-15)) are therefore contradicted by the 

undisputed existence of occurrence of such a communication. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Other Federal Election Activity Affects Federal Elections

81. To the extent that any of the CRP’s intended activities constitute “generic 

campaign activity” 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(ii) — which is “campaign activity that promotes a 

political party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate” 2 U.S.C. § 431(21) 

— such activity also influences federal elections. See Ron Nehring, A Republican 50-State 

Strategy?, http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_617.htm (Jan. 27, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 18) (CRP Chairman’s statement: “Building organizational and communications capability 

— and expanding the ranks of congressional, state and local officials from our party — makes it 

more likely a state will be competitive in a presidential election down the road.”); San Joaquin 

Republicans Organizing for Dean Andal, http://www.cagop.org/blog/2008/09/san-joaquinrepublicans-organizing-for.html (Sept. 12, 2008) (FEC Exh. 19) (CRP Chairman’s blog post 

noting that Congressional candidate was “benefitting from the organization our volunteer groups 

have built in the region”); see also supra ¶ 60 (noting use of party-building operations to refine 

strategies and tactics for federal campaigns). 

82. The “generic” activities the CRP plans to conduct with soft money directly helps 

federal candidates and influences their election. Voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, 

and generic campaign activity as defined by BCRA “clearly capture activity that benefits federal 

candidates,” and “funding of such activities creates a significant risk of actual and apparent 

corruption.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 167-68. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 33 of 35
32

Common sense dictates, and it was “undisputed” below, that a 

party’s efforts to register voters sympathetic to that party directly 

assist the party’s candidates for federal office. 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 

460 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). It is equally clear that federal candidates 

reap substantial rewards from any efforts that increase the number 

of like-minded registered voters who actually go to the polls. See, 

e.g., id., at 459 (“‘[The evidence] shows quite clearly that a 

campaign that mobilizes residents of a highly Republican precinct 

will produce a harvest of votes for Republican candidates for both 

state and federal offices. A campaign need not mention federal 

candidates to have a direct effect on voting for such a candidate . . . 

. [G]eneric campaign activity has a direct effect on federal 

elections’” (quoting Green Expert Report 14)). 

Id.; see also supra ¶¶ 60, 72-78 (discussing purpose and effect of voter registration, voter 

identification, and GOTV activities); RNC Memorandum, Non-Allocable Party Building 

Programs, RNC 0084450-64 at 0084455 [DEV 101] (“There are certain election related party 

expenditures that make no reference to any specific candidates but do benefit the entire 

Republican ticket . . . . These generic programs include voter registration[] and GOTV programs 

. . . . These programs and projects benefit the Republican Party and all of its candidates, federal 

and state.”); Philp Dep. 49:8-16, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-874 (D.D.C.) (Sept. 19, 2002) 

(FEC Exh. 38) (Chairman of Colorado Republican Party testifying that state party’s “Get-outthe-vote program is designed to benefit all candidates. That could include voter registration and 

so on and so forth. Q. And is the same true of generic party advertising, in other words, Vote 

Republican, that’s designed to benefit all the candidates? A. Yes.”). 

83. Each of the organizational Plaintiffs has conceded that, in an election where both 

state and federal candidates are on the ballot, any GOTV activity inherently affects the federal 

elections, even if such activity does not specifically mention any of the federal candidates. 

(Josefiak Dep. 45:7-16 (FEC Exh. 1); Christiansen Dep. 129:25-130:5 (FEC Exh. 2); Buettner 

Dep. 68:16-21 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 34 of 35
33

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

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

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: June 18, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-2 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 35 of 35
FEC Exhibit 42 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, 

et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 -vs- Civ No. 08-1953 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

et al., 

 Defendants. PAGES 1 - 116 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

 DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL STEELE 

 Washington, D.C. 

 Monday, June 1, 2009 

Reported by: Tammy S. Newton 

JOB NO. 57346 

2

1 

2

3 June 1, 2009 

4 1:27 p.m. 

5 

6 Deposition of Michael Steele held at the offices of: 

7 Republican National Committee 

8 310 1st Street, S.E. 

9 Washington, D.C. 

10 

11

12

13

14 Pursuant to notice, before Tammy S. Newton, a Notary 

15 Public in and for the District of Columbia. 

16 

17

18

19

20

21

22

3

1 APPEARANCES 

2 For the Plaintiffs RNC & Chairman Steele: 

3 JAMES BOPP, JR., ESQUIRE 

4 Bopp Coleman & Bostrom 

5 One South 6th Street 

6 Terre Haute, Indiana 47807 

7 (812) 232-2434 

8 

9 For the Plaintiff RNC: 

10 HEATHER L. SIDWELL, ESQUIRE 

11 Republican National Committee 

12 310 First Street, S.E. 

13 Washington, D.C. 20003 

14 (202) 863-8638 

15 

16 For the Plaintiff Chairman Steele: 

17 BOBBY R. BURCHFIELD, ESQUIRE 

18 McDermott Will & Emery 

19 600 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

20 Washington, D.C. 20005 

21 (202) 756-8003 

22 

4

1 For the Defendant FEC: 

2 KEVIN DEELEY, ESQUIRE 

3 ADAV NOTI, ESQUIRE 

4 Federal Election Commission 

5 999 E Street, N.W. 

6 Washington, D.C. 20463 

7 (202) 694-1556 

8 

9 For the Defendant Christopher Van Hollen 

10 FRANCESCO VALENTINI, ESQUIRE 

11 Wilmer Hale 

12 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

13 Washington, D.C. 20006 

14 (202) 663-6559 

15 

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

5

1 C O N T E N T S 

2 EXAMINATION OF MICHAEL STEELE BY: PAGE: 

3 Mr. Deeley 6, 112 

4 Mr. Valentini 94, 113 

5 Mr. Bopp 111 

6 

7 DEPOSITION EXHIBITS: FOR ID: 

8 A - Major Donor Groups 44 

9 B - Affidavit of Richard Clinton Beeson 45 

10 C - Advertisement 80 

11 D - First Set of Discovery Requests 87 

12 E - Blueprint for Tomorrow 99 

13 

14 (All exhibits attached to transcript.) 

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

6

1 Thereupon, 

2 MICHAEL STEELE, 

3 was called for examination by counsel for the 

4 Defendant FEC, and, after having been sworn by the 

5 notary, was examined and testified as follows: 

6 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT FEC 

7 BY MR. DEELEY: 

8 Q Good afternoon, Mr. Steele. 

9 A Good afternoon. 

10 Q My name is Kevin Deeley. I'm an attorney 

11 with the Federal Election Commission. Joining me 

12 today is Adav Noti, also with the FEC. And in 

13 addition to your counsel, also here today is Francesco 

14 Valentini from the Wilmer Hale firm representing 

15 Congressman Van Hollen. 

16 Will you, please, state your full name and 

17 your business address for the record. 

18 A Michael Stephen Steele, 310 First Street, 

19 Southeast, Washington, D.C., 20005 -- what is our zip? 

20 MS. SIDWELL: '3. 

21 THE WITNESS: 20003. 

22 BY MR. DEELEY: 

7

1 Q Have you ever been deposed before? 

2 A Yes. 

3 Q How many times? 

4 A Once. 

5 Q And have you conducted any depositions? 

6 A No. 

7 Q Have you attended any depositions? 

8 A Just in the context of the one in which I 

9 was deposed. 

10 Q So you're somewhat familiar with how it 

11 works. Let me just give you a few reminders on how 

12 things would proceed this afternoon. I'll ask a 

13 series of questions, and Ms. Newton, the court 

14 reporter, will take down my questions and your 

15 answers. 

16 It's important that you answer verbally, 

17 not through gestures or nods, okay? 

18 A Correct. 

19 Q And if you do not hear or understand a 

20 question, please tell me so I can restate it. If you 

21 answer, I'll assume that you've heard the question and 

22 understood it. Okay? 

8

1 A Yes. 

2 Q And since Ms. Newton can only take down one 

3 person's words at a time, please let me finish my 

4 question before you answer, even if you already know 

5 the answer while I'm asking the question. Okay? 

6 A Okay. 

7 Q There's water here. Feel free to help 

8 yourself during the deposition if you need it. If you 

9 need a break at any time, please let me know. We will 

10 finish your answer, if we're in the middle of one, and 

11 then talk about a break after that. 

12 A Okay. 

13 Q If you give an answer and then later on you 

14 remember some additional information in response to an 

15 earlier question, or you think of a clarification you 

16 need to make, please tell me. We can go ahead and do 

17 it whenever that's on your mind. 

18 A Okay. 

19 Q Is there any reason that you cannot give 

20 truthful and accurate testimony today? 

21 A No. 

22 Q Do you have any question for me before we 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

9

1 proceed? 

2 A No. 

3 Q Did you have any meetings to prepare for 

4 today's deposition? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q With whom? 

7 A With my counsel. 

8 Q Other than your attorneys, did you talk to 

9 anyone else about today's deposition? 

10 A No. 

11 Q Other than documents your lawyers may have 

12 shown you, did you review or prepare any documents in 

13 preparation for the deposition? 

14 A No. 

15 Q Where do you presently work? 

16 A The Republican National Committee. 

17 Q And what's your position? 

18 A I'm the chairman. 

19 Q How long have you held that position? 

20 A Four months. 

21 Q So you became the chairman when? 

22 A January 30th, 2009. 

10

1 Q And can you briefly summarize your 

2 professional background? 

3 A Lawyer. I was -- before coming here was a 

4 partner at Dewey & LeBoeuf, and prior to that, I was 

5 the Lieutenant Governor of the state of Maryland. And 

6 prior to that, I was chairman of the Maryland state 

7 party, as well as a lawyer at the law firm of Cleary 

8 Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton. 

9 Q Okay. And for what years were you an -- 

10 approximately employed with Cleary Gottlieb? 

11 A 1991 to '97. 

12 Q And what type? 

13 A I was an associate. 

14 Q What type of practice? 

15 A Finance, international finance. 

16 Q Any litigation? 

17 A No. Stayed as far away from that as 

18 possible. 

19 Q And for what years were you the chairman of 

20 the Maryland Republican Party? 

21 A 2000 to 2002. 

22 Q What years were you the Lieutenant Governor 

11

1 of Maryland? 

2 A 2003 to 2007. 

3 Q And did you run for the United States 

4 Senate? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q And when was that? 

7 A 2006. 

8 Q What years were you with Dewey & LeBoeuf? 

9 A 2007 until 2009. 

10 Q Have you also been -- well, let me first 

11 ask. What type of practice did you have with Dewey & 

12 LeBoeuf? 

13 A It was largely corporate, primarily focused 

14 on Africa and Asia. 

15 Q Still no litigation? 

16 A No litigation. 

17 Q And were you -- have you been affiliated 

18 with a group called GOPAC at some point? 

19 A Yes. 

20 Q When was that? 

21 A I was chairman of GOPAC from February of 

22 2007 until being elected chairman of the RNC. 

12

1 Q Was that a paid position? 

2 A No. 

3 Q Can you just briefly describe that group. 

4 A Well, GOPAC is a national grass-roots 

5 organization that focuses on state and local races 

6 across the country, from governor all the way down to 

7 sheriff, and it's a training team for candidates 

8 building a farm team, spending -- since 1978, it's 

9 been around. 

10 Q What are your responsibilities as RNC 

11 chairman? 

12 A Win elections, raise money. 

13 Q And what -- what tasks do you personally 

14 undertake to make those happen? 

15 A Well, with respect to both of those, it's 

16 spending time in the various states working with state 

17 chairmen and working with candidates and elected 

18 officials and helping them develop various strategies 

19 to get candidates elected. So it depends on the 

20 states. It's all state-specific. 

21 Q And what particular tasks do you personally 

22 undertake to raise money? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

13

1 A It depends. It could be a meeting or it 

2 could be a phone call. Those are largely the two ways 

3 in which that's done. 

4 Q By "meeting," you mean a meeting with a 

5 prospective donor? 

6 A Yes, or an existing donor. 

7 Q Existing donor who would be encouraged to 

8 contribute again? 

9 A Maybe. Maybe not. Sometimes the 

10 conversation could be about something other than 

11 having them contribute. It could be about, you know, 

12 their impressions of, you know, the national climate 

13 and mood. So it's not just solely focused on the 

14 fundraising. 

15 Q And what purpose is served by meeting with 

16 them to discuss these other topics besides 

17 solicitations? 

18 A It's just getting a sense from them, if 

19 there's a businessperson, getting their views on 

20 various policies that, you know, the Democrats are 

21 advocating or espousing, get their impressions just 

22 like we would from any citizen. But many of them are 

14

1 in unique positions, having run successful businesses. 

2 So their insights are also very helpful in 

3 appreciating the role of a small business owner, for 

4 example, and the challenges that they face. 

5 So we take that information. We put it in 

6 the context of, you know, how an effective business 

7 should run and the role of government relative to what 

8 they do to make the principal argument of less 

9 government, lower taxes, et cetera. 

10 Q To make the principal arguments you 

11 discussed to who? 

12 A To voters. 

13 Q And you mentioned in addition to meetings, 

14 phone calls, as well. Are those also with prospective 

15 donors or existing donors? 

16 A Yes. 

17 Q On the same sorts of topics? 

18 A Yeah. 

19 Q Can you, please, explain the organizational 

20 structure of the RNC, starting with the top of its 

21 leadership just briefly. 

22 A Well, it's changing. So -- I can only 

15

1 speak to what I've put in place so far. Chief of 

2 staff, and you've got directors of various departments 

3 who may or may not have a deputy working with them, 

4 and then the rest of the staff from there. 

5 Q Have you named a chief of staff? 

6 A Yes. 

7 Q Who is that? 

8 A Ken McKay. 

9 Q And what are the various departments? 

10 A Let's see. There's Coalitions, Political, 

11 Finance, Strategy, Research, Communications, and 

12 others to be designed. 

13 Q And then is there an organizational 

14 structure separate from the paid staff? 

15 A What do you mean? 

16 Q How is the -- how are you and the paid 

17 staff governed? 

18 A Still don't know what you mean. 

19 Q What is the Republican National Committee? 

20 A It's a collection of representatives from 

21 50 states and the territories made up of about 168 

22 members who make the Republican National Committee, 

16

1 make up the committee itself. 

2 Q Okay. And how do they -- how do they 

3 oversee the work of the RNC? 

4 A Well, the ultimate responsibility, you 

5 know, rests with the chairman and the senior staff for 

6 the execution of, you know, the day-to-day operations. 

7 There's an Executive Committee of the RNC and various 

8 other committees that, you know, have specific 

9 responsibilities that deal with the operations in some 

10 cases or the budget. There's a Budget Committee and 

11 the like. 

12 Q So how do you interact with the Executive 

13 Committee? 

14 A It's sort of -- I haven't had an 

15 interaction with them yet, because we haven't had a 

16 meeting of the Executive Committee. So I don't know. 

17 Q But your expectation is that there will be 

18 periodic meetings? 

19 A Oh, yeah. According to the rules, yeah, at 

20 the required times. 

21 Q So those rules are not going to be 

22 changing? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 5 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

17

1 A No. They're set by the members every four 

2 years when they meet at convention. 

3 Q And does the -- you're an officer of the 

4 RNC; is that right? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q Are there other officers? 

7 A There's a secretary -- well, there's a 

8 co-chair, secretary, and a treasurer. 

9 Q And are you a current member of the RNC? 

10 A No. 

11 Q Is the co-chair a member of the RNC? 

12 A Yes: national committeewoman from Wyoming. 

13 Q And is the secretary a member? 

14 A National committeewoman from Florida. 

15 Q And who's that? 

16 A Sharon Day. 

17 Q Is the treasurer a member? 

18 A The chairman of Arizona, Randy Pullen. 

19 Q Could you spell that, please. 

20 A P-u-l-l-e-n. 

21 Q Is there a committee of the RNC members 

22 that is involved with fundraising? 

18

1 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

2 THE WITNESS: I don't know how -- what do 

3 you mean is there a committee involved with 

4 fundraising? 

5 BY MR. DEELEY: 

6 Q Is there -- is one of the committees 

7 involved with overseeing or engaging in fundraising 

8 for the RNC? 

9 A Not to my knowledge. 

10 Q What are the general responsibilities of 

11 the co-chair briefly? 

12 A It depends on what she runs on, what a 

13 particular interest that she wants to be a leader on, 

14 espouse during her term. She typically would -- well, 

15 in the past has overseen member services. So that's 

16 the relationship -- you know, developing the 

17 relationship between the membership and the leadership 

18 of the party. 

19 Again, that all depends on, you know, the 

20 understanding between the chair and the co-chair of 

21 what she wants to do. You try to accommodate that to 

22 the fullest extent possible. Each co-chair is 

19

1 different. So there's no one set responsibility, 

2 other than, like the chair, be a cheerleader for the 

3 party and, you know, to help across the country in 

4 various activities, whatever they may be. 

5 Q You described member services as involving 

6 connecting the membership with the leadership of the 

7 party. By "membership," you meant the RNC members? 

8 A The RNC, yeah, of -- the 168 members of the 

9 RNC, developing that relationship and meeting their 

10 needs, their inquiries, their questions, concerns in 

11 their states, and that office works as sort of a 

12 filter clearinghouse, so we can get -- if they've got 

13 a Communications question, we can direct it to the 

14 Communications shop, et cetera, like that. 

15 Q When you spoke about the leadership of the 

16 party, who are you referring to? 

17 A The chairman, the co-chair, the secretary, 

18 the treasurer. 

19 Q What are the general responsibilities of 

20 the secretary? 

21 A Generally what secretaries do in any 

22 corporate entity. 

20

1 Q So recording minutes? 

2 A Minutes of meetings and notices, et cetera, 

3 yeah. 

4 Q What are the general responsibilities of 

5 the treasurer? 

6 A General responsibilities are to work with 

7 the chairman and the Budget Committee on the budget 

8 and to take responsibility for the execution and 

9 organizing of the FEC report, which you guys get, and 

10 that's primarily it. 

11 Q And how does the RNC chairman get to that 

12 position? 

13 A You have to run for it. 

14 Q And who elects the -- 

15 A The 168. It's a full-blown campaign. 

16 Q Who does the RNC chairman report to? 

17 A In terms of what? 

18 Q Just general oversight of performance 

19 and -- 

20 A Oh, the 168. They are the ultimate 

21 arbiters of whether you're doing well or you're not 

22 doing well. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 6 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

21

1 Q Does the Executive Committee play a more 

2 immediate oversight role? 

3 A No, not really. At least it hasn't in the 

4 past, to my knowledge. It is an advisory role. It's 

5 partnership role with the chairman, probably very much 

6 like DNC's operation. Both parties -- political 

7 parties functionally work very similar in terms of the 

8 various roles that are played. 

9 It's more advisory, and certainly the 

10 chairman will turn to the Executive Committee for 

11 ideas on various issues or approaches that can be 

12 taken. But it's not an oversight, you know, type of 

13 situation. 

14 Q How does the co-chair get that position? 

15 A Runs for it as well. All the officers run 

16 for their positions, and the 168 members vote on them. 

17 Q And do any of the other officers report to 

18 anyone other than the membership as a whole? 

19 A No. 

20 Q Who currently leads the Political Division 

21 of the RNC, if anyone? 

22 A When you say who leads the Political 

22

1 Division, what do you mean? 

2 Q Has someone been hired to -- 

3 A Director? Yes. Gentry Collins is the 

4 director. 

5 Q And when was that hiring made? 

6 A Two months ago. 

7 Q And to whom does Gentry Collins report? 

8 A Chief of staff. 

9 Q To whom does the chief of staff report? 

10 A Chairman. 

11 Q Has the RNC had a chief of staff in the 

12 past, to your knowledge? 

13 A Yes. 

14 Q Who is the current director, if there is 

15 one, of the Finance Division? 

16 A Just recently announced and hired a 

17 gentleman by the name of Rob Bickhart. 

18 Q Could you spell that, please? That's okay. 

19 A Thank you on that one. 

20 Q What are the general responsibilities of 

21 the Finance Division? 

22 A To develop a strategic plan to raise 

23

1 dollars for the ongoing operations of the RNC within 

2 the limits of the law. 

3 Q And what are the Political Division's 

4 general responsibilities? 

5 A Politics. The politics of the various 

6 states; candidate identification; coordinating with 

7 state parties, their political activity. 

8 Q People sometimes have different meaning of 

9 the term "politics." What did you mean by that? 

10 A You know, everything political. I don't 

11 know any other term that politics could mean other 

12 than working with candidates, working with grass-roots 

13 activists, working with various organizations out 

14 there that have issues and concerns that they want to 

15 make the party aware of. 

16 Q Do former heads of the Political Division 

17 have any authority over the conduct of their 

18 successors? 

19 A Former heads have any authority -- no. 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

21 THE WITNESS: No. 

22 What do you mean? Do they have the ability 

24

1 to do what? 

2 BY MR. DEELEY: 

3 Q To control the behavior their successors -- 

4 A You're asking if a former director, now 

5 replaced by a new director, still has control or sway 

6 over the new director? 

7 Q In any way. 

8 A No. 

9 Q What generally is the Strategy Division's 

10 responsibilities? 

11 A It's looking at -- for example, they're 

12 looking at redistricting right now, which is a big 

13 issue coming up for the various states. And it's 

14 really looking at the landscape, the political 

15 landscape, where lines are and where bodies are, the 

16 political electeds and people that are going to run. 

17 Their job is to, you know, look at potential races for 

18 us and give assessments of strength or weaknesses and 

19 the likes. 

20 Q Approximately how many people are working 

21 on redistricting now? 

22 A Well, we're just beginning that emphasis, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 7 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

25

1 that focus. Unfortunately, it had not been done prior 

2 to my arriving here. So I'm now trying to get up to 

3 speed as quickly as possible. So I've got a small 

4 committee that's being formed as we speak, and the 

5 full complement of folks has not been determined, what 

6 we're going to need, who we're going to need. 

7 Q You do expect to shortly have some paid 

8 staff working on the issue? 

9 A Yes. 

10 Q And what are the responsibilities of the 

11 Research Division? 

12 A Research. It's just generally whatever the 

13 issue, whatever the subject, to get me information if 

14 I need it. 

15 Q What are the general responsibilities of 

16 the Communications Division? 

17 A Communicate the research. 

18 Q To who? 

19 A To the general public and to base activists 

20 around the country. 

21 Q Can you tell me what papers you have in 

22 front of you, please. 

26

1 A This is the affidavit and the bio of my 

2 attorney here, and just my own notes on, you know, the 

3 history of this case and just getting up to speed and 

4 educating myself, since I'm a new chairman and wasn't 

5 part of the original lawsuit. Just my way of kind of 

6 making sure I understand the issues at hand. 

7 MR. DEELEY: I think those would probably 

8 be responsive to our discovery requests, and so we 

9 request a copy of that. 

10 MR. BURCHFIELD: We'll take that under 

11 advisement. These actually reflect his discussions 

12 with counsel. So I think they may be privileged. 

13 BY MR. DEELEY: 

14 Q Is that accurate, that they reflect -- 

15 A Yes. 

16 Q How frequently do you communicate with 

17 federal officeholders? 

18 A I would say it depends on what issues are 

19 out there that they want to talk about or that they 

20 plan to talk about. So I think, you know, it's not 

21 like a regular conversation. It just depends if they 

22 call or if I have an issue that I want to ask them 

27

1 about. 

2 Q So just a ballpark figure, how frequently 

3 does one of them -- 

4 MR. BURCHFIELD: I'd remind the witness 

5 he's not required to guess. If you have a 

6 well-founded basis for making an estimate, then you 

7 may make an estimate, but don't just give a wild 

8 guess. 

9 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not. 

10 I would say probably once or twice a week. 

11 BY MR. DEELEY: 

12 Q What are the frequent purposes of those 

13 communications? 

14 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

15 THE WITNESS: That's tough to answer. It 

16 just depends on what the question is. 

17 BY MR. DEELEY: 

18 Q What are some examples of some recurring 

19 questions? 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

21 THE WITNESS: Not recurring. It's not 

22 necessarily recurring. An example of a question could 

28

1 be: What is the RNC going to say about health care? 

2 BY MR. DEELEY: 

3 Q And do you have an understanding as to why 

4 a federal officeholder is concerned about what the RNC 

5 is going to say about health care? 

6 A We try to have a -- 

7 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection. Are you asking 

8 him why the questioner asks the question? 

9 BY MR. DEELEY: 

10 Q I'm asking you if you have an understanding 

11 as to why the -- why the question was asked. 

12 MR. BURCHFIELD: You may certainly answer 

13 that question if you have an understanding. But don't 

14 speculate about what someone else may have -- 

15 THE WITNESS: I was going to say, I 

16 don't -- it depends on when I pick up the phone what 

17 they ask. I have no idea ahead of time what their 

18 question is. I mean, it just depends on their own 

19 particular interest. 

20 BY MR. DEELEY: 

21 Q And so for in that particular example, did 

22 the officeholder explain why they were -- wanted to 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 8 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

29

1 know what the RNC was going to say about health care? 

2 A No. 

3 Q For what purposes do you initiate contact 

4 with federal officeholders? 

5 A I'm trying to think -- typically my 

6 conversations -- and they've been very few where I've 

7 initiated to an officeholder -- federal officeholder 

8 have been to have them get us information on a 

9 subject, you know, so that we understand, you know, 

10 what their message point is and that our team can 

11 better understand the issue, particularly if there's 

12 legislation or piece of legislation that is being 

13 proposed so that we have the understanding of what it 

14 is they want, what they're trying to do. 

15 Q And why do you seek to gain that 

16 understanding? 

17 A So that we can educate our base as to, you 

18 know, why the stimulus bill is bad, why government 

19 spending is out of control, and the solutions that 

20 legislative leaders are looking to propose as a 

21 counter balance to what the administration is doing or 

22 proposing. 

30

1 Q Have you made any recommendations to 

2 federal officeholders on legislative issues? 

3 A No. 

4 Q Have you had any conversations with federal 

5 officeholders in which you mentioned that someone was 

6 a donor to the RNC? 

7 A No. 

8 Q Does it appear from your conversations with 

9 federal officeholders that they are often aware of who 

10 the large donors to the RNC are? 

11 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

12 foundation. 

13 You may answer. 

14 THE WITNESS: I have no basis for knowing 

15 that. 

16 BY MR. DEELEY: 

17 Q Can you, please, describe in general the 

18 relationship between the RNC and state or local 

19 Republican parties. 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

21 You may answer. 

22 THE WITNESS: Describe the relationship? 

31

1 BY MR. DEELEY: 

2 Q Yes. 

3 A Well, the state parties are 50 independent 

4 entities that coalesce under the banner RNC. And our 

5 relationship with them is to, you know, help develop 

6 strategies for farm teams and communication and 

7 winning elections. They're the foot soldiers. 

8 They're the ones on the ground. 

9 Q How frequently do you have conversations 

10 with representatives of the state or local parties? 

11 A Rarely with local parties. Fairly 

12 frequently with state chairmen and national committee 

13 members. 

14 Q And in what different -- through what 

15 different means do you communicate with them? 

16 A Phone or e-mail or -- if we see -- if I'm 

17 in their state, obviously, or meetings like we just 

18 had recently. 

19 Q As chair of the Maryland state Republican 

20 Party, were you a member of the RNC? 

21 A Yes. 

22 Q And for how long were you a member? 

32

1 A Two years. 

2 Q Did you have any leadership roles within 

3 the RNC? 

4 A Yes. 

5 Q What were those? 

6 A I served on the Executive Committee. 

7 Q How many people were on the Executive 

8 Committee at the time? 

9 A I don't recall. 

10 Q Approximately. 

11 A I couldn't begin to guess. 

12 Q How many people are on the Executive 

13 Committee now, approximately? 

14 A I would estimate about 13. There may be 

15 more, because the various regions also elect 

16 representatives. So I'm not sure how big the number 

17 grows to. 

18 Q Did you have any particular role during 

19 those two years on the Executive Committee? 

20 A No. 

21 Q How frequently did the Executive Committee 

22 meet during your time? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 9 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

33

1 A Pursuant to the rules, I would say probably 

2 twice a year at the winter meeting and the summer 

3 meeting, and a minimum twice a year, and if there was 

4 any need for any other occasion, I would call. 

5 Minimum two; twice a year. 

6 Q Did you have any other position within the 

7 RNC as a member, apart from the Executive Committee? 

8 A No. 

9 Q And other than your time as a member and 

10 Executive Committee member and chairman, have you had 

11 any other positions with the RNC at any other times? 

12 A No. 

13 Q Just for the record, which years were those 

14 that you were an RNC member? 

15 A 2000 to 2002. 

16 Q Are you aware of the RNC's policy or 

17 practices regarding providing access to federal 

18 officeholders for donors for any time period before 

19 you came -- became chairman? 

20 A No. 

21 Q When you were an RNC member, did anyone 

22 instruct you not to serve as a conduit for access to 

34

1 federal officeholders? 

2 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

3 THE WITNESS: You have to restate that 

4 question. 

5 BY MR. DEELEY: 

6 Q You were a member of the RNC. 

7 A Yeah. 

8 Q Did anyone tell you that you should not 

9 provide a donor to the RNC with access to the federal 

10 officeholder? 

11 A That I should not provide a donor to the 

12 RNC access to a federal officeholder? No, I never had 

13 that conversation. 

14 Q Did you -- during that time, did you have 

15 any conversations with President Bush specifically as 

16 a result of your position with the RNC? 

17 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

18 THE WITNESS: Did I have conversations? 

19 No. 

20 BY MR. DEELEY: 

21 Q Did you have communications with him as a 

22 result of your position with the RNC? 

35

1 A No. 

2 Q Did you have any communications with any 

3 Executive Branch officials as a result of your 

4 position with the RNC? 

5 A When I was chairman you mean? 

6 Q When you were a member -- 

7 A State chairman, no. 

8 Q Did you have any communication with White 

9 House staff members during the time that you were an 

10 RNC member as a result of that position? 

11 A No. 

12 Q Did you have communications with any 

13 federal officeholders during the time you were an RNC 

14 member as a result of that position? 

15 A No. 

16 Q Do you have an understanding as to what 

17 hard money is, if I use that term? 

18 A Yes. 

19 Q It's money raised in compliance with 

20 federal contribution limits and source restrictions, 

21 right? 

22 A Correct. 

36

1 Q And do you have an understanding what soft 

2 money is? 

3 A Yes. 

4 Q That's money raised under state law without 

5 regard to the federal contribution limits and source 

6 restrictions, right? 

7 A Correct. 

8 Q So if I use the term soft money, you'll 

9 understand what I mean? 

10 A Yes. 

11 Q And do you know whether the RNC provided 

12 soft money donors with access to federal officeholders 

13 during the time you were an RNC member? 

14 A No. 

15 Q You're not sure? 

16 A No, I don't know. 

17 Q What role, if any, do you have in making 

18 the strategic decisions about how the RNC will raise 

19 funds? 

20 A Well, you start with the law. The law 

21 tells you what you can do and what you can't do. And 

22 then you go from there. We are currently under 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 10 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

37

1 federal law that bans us from raising money, soft 

2 money. So the only strategic conversations are with 

3 respect to hard money. And there are no -- there's no 

4 if, ands, or buts about that. It's very clear. 

5 Q And there are different potential ways you 

6 could raise hard money, right? 

7 A How do you mean? 

8 Q Well, there's different means of reaching 

9 prospective donors, like e-mail or having events or 

10 direct mail? 

11 A Yeah. 

12 Q And are you involved in the big-picture 

13 decision-making about how to allocate resources and do 

14 fundraising? 

15 A No. 

16 Q Who is involved in those decisions? 

17 A Well, typically the way I -- the way I am 

18 setting up shop here, and the way I've run when I was 

19 state chairman, is I look to the staff to develop the 

20 plan and the strategy, and they come to me with the 

21 recommendations of, you know, Our target is we want to 

22 raise X amount of dollars, or we want to reach X 

38

1 number of voters, or we want to develop X number of 

2 candidates, and I sign off on the broad idea. But in 

3 terms of the development of that strategy, I don't do 

4 that. 

5 Q Are there any points at which you're 

6 involved in specifics, like approving specific 

7 solicitations or making decisions on what specific 

8 events will be held? 

9 A No, no. That's my minutia of detail there. 

10 No. 

11 Q So what are the different means by which 

12 the RNC does raise money? 

13 A Direct mail, fund-raisers, Internet. 

14 Whatever's legal. 

15 Q And telephone solicitations? 

16 A Telephones. 

17 Q And e-mail -- I mean -- yeah, e-mail 

18 solicitations? 

19 A Yes. 

20 MR. DEELEY: Why don't we take a five-minute 

21 break. 

22 (A brief recess was taken.) 

39

1 BY MR. DEELEY: 

2 Q On the different ways of fundraising for 

3 the RNC, you also mentioned that you periodically have 

4 meetings with prospective donors or former donors? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q And does anyone else have meetings with 

7 prospective donors or former donors as part of your 

8 fundraising on behalf of the RNC? 

9 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form, 

10 foundation. 

11 THE WITNESS: I don't know who -- who you 

12 would be referring to. 

13 BY MR. DEELEY: 

14 Q Does -- do people from the Finance Division 

15 have meetings with donors, prospective donors? 

16 A To the best of my knowledge, they -- in 

17 large measure, they arrange for me to have a 

18 conversation with them, in many cases, or donors may 

19 call in and have questions or an issue that they want 

20 to have raised with the chairman. So that's generally 

21 their role, as far as I know. 

22 I don't know if anyone has independent -- 

40

1 meaning the sole fund-raiser for the RNC has been the 

2 chairman or the finance director in working together. 

3 Q Do federal officeholders assist in having 

4 any meetings with prospective donors for RNC 

5 contributions? 

6 A No. 

7 Q When you have meetings with prospective or 

8 former donors, are federal officeholders ever in 

9 attendance with you? 

10 A No. 

11 Q When you have -- when the RNC has in-person 

12 fund-raisers, are federal officeholders sometimes 

13 featured guests at those fund-raisers? 

14 A What do you mean "in-person fund-raiser"? 

15 Q Fundraising dinner or reception. 

16 A Oh, if we host a dinner or something like 

17 that? 

18 Q Yes. 

19 A And you're asking if federal officeholders 

20 are -- 

21 Q -- featured guests at those events. 

22 A Sometimes. Sometimes. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 11 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

41

1 Q And when the RNC has large dinner events, 

2 there are also smaller receptions before and/or after 

3 the dinner, correct? 

4 A Sometimes. 

5 Q And people who have contributed more to the 

6 RNC get to attend the smaller receptions, correct? 

7 A Not necessarily. 

8 Q Sometimes that's how -- 

9 A Sometimes that happens. 

10 MR. BURCHFIELD: All these questions relate 

11 to the current time, right, where the RNC is raising 

12 only federal dollars? 

13 MR. DEELEY: That's right. 

14 THE WITNESS: Right. 

15 BY MR. DEELEY: 

16 Q People who have contributed more sometimes 

17 get photo opportunities with a featured guest 

18 officeholder, federal officeholder, correct? 

19 A Sometimes. 

20 Q And at dinner events, how is it determined 

21 which donors get to sit with the officeholders? 

22 A I don't know. 

42

1 Q Does your name appear on e-mail 

2 solicitations for the RNC? 

3 A I don't know, but I would presume in some 

4 cases, yes. Sometimes, maybe not. 

5 Q Do you know whether federal officeholders 

6 sometimes -- solicitations go out in their names? 

7 A From us? 

8 Q Yes. 

9 A I don't know that, no. 

10 Q Have you made any changes to the way the 

11 RNC raises money? 

12 A Not yet. 

13 Q Do you have plans to change how -- 

14 A No. 

15 Q Does the RNC have major donor groups? 

16 A Yes. 

17 Q And there's higher benefits for higher 

18 donor levels, correct? 

19 A Yes. 

20 Q And have you made any changes to the major 

21 donor groups? 

22 A No. 

43

1 Q Do you plan to make any? 

2 A No. 

3 Q Why do you plan to continue to have these 

4 groups for different donor levels? 

5 A Well, because they currently exist. Those 

6 donors have shown their support. These programs are 

7 comfortable for them in terms of their participation 

8 level, and so I don't see any need to change that. 

9 Again, all of those programs are consistent with BCRA 

10 and McCain-Feingold in terms of appropriate 

11 disclosures and -- so all of the donors know exactly 

12 what's expected and required under the law, et cetera. 

13 There's no need to change any of that. 

14 Q Does having the groups help raise money? 

15 A Yeah, because, you know, some people 

16 are -- have the means to give more. I wish we had 

17 Hollywood, but we don't. Our opponents do. So our 

18 donors are very limited in what they can give. We 

19 don't have unions. So we don't get that level of 

20 contribution support. So we recognize that there's a 

21 certain level to which we can reasonably expect an 

22 individual to give, from $5 to the maximum under 

44

1 federal law. 

2 Q Do the benefits that the major donor groups 

3 offer -- do they get some people to give at a higher 

4 level than they otherwise would? 

5 A I don't know. I don't know what floats 

6 their boat, what their interests may be. 

7 MR. DEELEY: I'd like to have this marked 

8 for identification as Exhibit A, please. 

9 (Deposition Exhibit No. A was marked for 

10 identification and attached to the transcript.) 

11 BY MR. DEELEY: 

12 Q I'll give a copy to your counsel, as well. 

13 Please generally review it, and let me know if you're 

14 familiar with it. 

15 A Yes, vaguely. 

16 Q What is it? 

17 A It is the major donor groups for 2009. 

18 Q And does this accurately reflect the RNC's 

19 major donor groups? 

20 A Yes. 

21 Q And have you experienced people requesting 

22 that their donations be used for particular purposes, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 12 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

45

1 without regard to the major donor groups, just 

2 generally? 

3 A I have not, no. 

4 MR. DEELEY: I'd like to have this marked 

5 for identification as Exhibit B, and I'll hand a copy 

6 to your counsel as well. 

7 (Deposition Exhibit No. B was marked for 

8 identification and attached to the transcript.) 

9 BY MR. DEELEY: 

10 Q I'm going to direct your attention to 

11 Paragraph 19. 

12 A Paragraph 19, uh-huh. 

13 Q This is an affidavit from the then-RNC 

14 political director Richard Beeson. And please review 

15 Paragraph 19. 

16 A Okay. Okay. 

17 Q The second sentence begins, "For example, 

18 the RNC will not, in any manner different than or 

19 beyond that currently afforded to contributors of 

20 federal funds, one, encourage officeholders or 

21 candidates to meet with or have other contact with 

22 contributors to these accounts." 

46

1 The question is: To what extent does the 

2 RNC currently encourage officeholders or candidates to 

3 meet with or have other contact with RNC donors? 

4 A We don't. 

5 Q The sentence continues, "No. 2, arrange for 

6 contributors to participate in conference calls with 

7 federal candidates for officeholders." 

8 The question is: To what extent does the 

9 RNC currently arrange for contributors to participate 

10 in conference calls with federal candidates or 

11 officeholders? 

12 A We don't. 

13 Q Then Section 3 of the sentence, "Offer 

14 access to federal officeholders or candidates in 

15 exchange for contributions." 

16 So to what extent does the RNC currently 

17 offer access to federal officeholders or candidates in 

18 exchange for contributions? 

19 A We don't. 

20 Q Doesn't the RNC have dinners, receptions at 

21 which donors to the RNC may have an opportunity to 

22 speak with officeholders or candidates if they 

47

1 contribute the amount that is required to get into the 

2 reception? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object; foundation and 

4 form. 

5 THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, yes, to the 

6 extent that a donor, you know, contributes to a 

7 fund-raiser, and federal candidate or federal official 

8 is a speaker or attending in some fashion. But not 

9 all donors are contributors. 

10 BY MR. DEELEY: 

11 Q How can one be a donor without being a 

12 contributor? 

13 A In other words, are you meaning contribute 

14 each time there's a fund-raiser or just generally 

15 making a contribution? 

16 Q Just generally making a contribution. 

17 A Then that would be the answer. 

18 Q What would be the answer? 

19 A What I just said; that to the extent that a 

20 federal official is there, they may or may not have an 

21 opportunity to speak to them. 

22 Q So in some circumstances, people would get 

48

1 access to a federal officeholder as a result of 

2 contributions they had made to the RNC, correct? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to the term 

4 "access." 

5 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I -- what do you mean 

6 by "access"? 

7 BY MR. DEELEY: 

8 Q They would have a chance to meet and 

9 potentially speak with an officeholder at a reception 

10 or dinner. 

11 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

12 foundation. 

13 THE WITNESS: They would -- yeah. I mean, 

14 if they're in the room, and they have a chance to see 

15 them and talk to them. Typically these conversations 

16 are about three to seven seconds long: Hi. How are 

17 you. 

18 BY MR. DEELEY: 

19 Q In addition to the dinner, there's also 

20 more -- there are receptions at which a smaller number 

21 of contributors are allowed to attend? 

22 A Sometimes. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 13 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

49

1 Q So the RNC does, to at least that extent, 

2 currently offer access to federal officeholders and 

3 candidates in exchange for contributions, correct? 

4 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and the 

5 word "access," and foundation. I think you are also 

6 mischaracterizing his testimony. 

7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm not -- you're 

8 inferring that somehow they're getting something more 

9 than -- or that there's something nefarious going on 

10 because they happen to be in the room with a federal 

11 official. That's just not the case. Again, political 

12 parties, both of them, Democrat and Republican, have 

13 these functions where federal officials are invited, 

14 again within the rule of the law, the appropriate 

15 information is put on invitations, and all the 

16 precautions are taken. 

17 So this is not a question or an opportunity 

18 to have access. It is an event. If I'm a donor, I'm 

19 invited. If I attend, I may have a chance to say 

20 hello. I may have an opportunity for a photo op. But 

21 depending on the size of the room and the program, it 

22 is more than likely not. 

50

1 Q I'm not making any suggestions, but if I 

2 understand you correctly, you don't consider those 

3 types of events to be access within the meaning of the 

4 way that Mr. Beeson used that term? 

5 A I don't. I'm not familiar with how 

6 Mr. Beeson used that term. 

7 Q But to you, an opportunity to briefly speak 

8 with an officeholder does not constitute access to 

9 that officeholder? 

10 A No, not -- not the way it is typically 

11 understood in Washington. 

12 Q What is "access" typically understood? 

13 A Typically access is some -- some secret 

14 cabal. You're getting some special favor, and that's 

15 not -- that's not what these events are about. That's 

16 not how they're styled. That's not the function, nor 

17 is that opportunity really ever present. Because if 

18 you've attended them, you know it's a brief handshake. 

19 If you see the individual, it's a quick photo line. 

20 They push and pull. That's it. 

21 Q And what are the smallest receptions that 

22 the RNC hosts at which -- the lowest number of 

51

1 attendees at which a federal officeholder appears? 

2 A I don't know. I've only been on the job 

3 three months and haven't had one of those functions 

4 yet. 

5 Q If you go back to the first sentence of 

6 Paragraph 19, it reads, "The RNC will not aid 

7 contributors to any of the accounts in obtaining 

8 preferential access to federal candidates or 

9 officeholders." 

10 The question is: To what extent does the 

11 RNC currently aid its contributors in obtaining 

12 preferential access to federal candidates or 

13 officeholders? 

14 A It does not. 

15 Q And does the RNC plan in the future to 

16 offer preferential access for donors to federal 

17 candidates or officeholders? 

18 A No. 

19 Q Why doesn't the RNC do that? 

20 A Do what? 

21 Q Offer preferential access to donors to 

22 federal candidates or officeholders. 

52

1 A It's against the law. 

2 Q Preferential access? 

3 A As far as I'm concerned, it is. Try to 

4 keep your nose clean. 

5 Q Any other reasons? 

6 A I don't know what other reasons there would 

7 be, other than you don't want to create an environment 

8 where people believe that that's available to them. 

9 Q Do you have an understanding as to whether 

10 anyone on the RNC staff helps to arrange for donors to 

11 have meetings with federal officeholders? 

12 A I'm not aware of that. 

13 Q You don't know either way? 

14 A I'm just not aware of it happening. 

15 Q Have you issued any instructions for people 

16 not to arrange for donors to have meetings with 

17 federal officeholders? 

18 A I've not issued any instructions on that 

19 subject at all. 

20 Q Have you -- are you aware of any policies 

21 of the RNC about arranging for donors to have meetings 

22 with federal officeholders? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 14 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

53

1 A I'm not aware of any policy of the RNC. 

2 Q To your knowledge, the responsibilities of 

3 the new political director are similar to that of 

4 Mr. Beeson? 

5 A I'm not familiar with what Mr. Beeson's 

6 responsibilities were. 

7 Q You say the political department does 

8 candidate identification? 

9 A Among other things. 

10 Q What is that? 

11 A State parties will say, Hey, we got a 

12 candidate who's running for -- who's looking to run 

13 for X, Y, Z -- typically someone who's looking to run 

14 for Congress -- and we -- we will advise them of, you 

15 know, the makeup of the district and what we know 

16 about the competitiveness of the race and tell them 

17 that they need to be very familiar with you, the FEC, 

18 and BCRA and McCain-Feingold and all the other 

19 constraints and restraints and responsibilities that 

20 they have as a federal candidate for office. 

21 That's pretty much it. 

22 Q And what are the ways, other than that 

54

1 specific one we discussed, that the Political Division 

2 coordinates or works with the state parties? 

3 A It really is driven bottom up, you know, if 

4 they have a particular question. These rules are very 

5 complicated for a lot of state parties. And they 

6 sometimes run -- particularly when you get into the 

7 heat of a presidential election, for example, or a 

8 very hot federal election, we try to provide them with 

9 clear guidance and making sure they understand what 

10 the rules are, because they're less familiar with it. 

11 Their purview tends to be more state 

12 focused, because in any given state, they could 

13 have, like Maryland, eight federal candidates for 

14 office, but, you know, 300 candidates running for 

15 state and local offices. So their emphasis is much 

16 different, their focus is much different. You want to 

17 make sure they stay within the letter of the law and 

18 the rules that they're required and, you know, not do 

19 a fund-raiser that puts the candidate, the state 

20 party, or the campaign as a whole in jeopardy of being 

21 afoul of the law. 

22 Q So other than compliance type issues, what, 

55

1 if any, other ways does the Political Division work 

2 with state parties? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Objection; foundation and 

4 form. 

5 THE WITNESS: That's -- that's pretty much 

6 it, and depending on whatever issues they raise. 

7 That's pretty much it. 

8 BY MR. DEELEY: 

9 Q So if the RNC prevails in this lawsuit, 

10 will it aid contributors to the new proposed accounts? 

11 A Will it -- I didn't hear the first part of 

12 that. 

13 Q For people who give money to the new 

14 accounts that are proposed in the lawsuit -- 

15 A Right, the nine or so that were listed in 

16 the affidavit, yes. 

17 Q Yes. 

18 -- will the RNC aid those contributors in 

19 obtaining preferential access to federal candidates or 

20 officeholders in any way different from the way that 

21 hard-money contributors are treated now? 

22 A Absolutely not, no. 

56

1 Q And how will representatives of the RNC 

2 determine how much -- how will they determine in the 

3 future how much preferential access is being given to 

4 hard-money contributors? 

5 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

6 foundation. 

7 THE WITNESS: I don't understand your 

8 question. 

9 BY MR. DEELEY: 

10 Q Well, if someone from the RNC is raising 

11 money for the new accounts, they'll need to make -- 

12 they'll -- the claim in the affidavit is they won't 

13 give any more preferential access than the hard-money 

14 contributors are getting. So if an RNC staff person 

15 is working on raising money for the new accounts, how 

16 will they know how much preferential access the 

17 hard-money contributors are getting? 

18 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

19 foundation. 

20 THE WITNESS: Well, the goal is to not 

21 create preferential treatment, the way I think you're 

22 using it. I mean, the goal is to -- if we're giving 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 15 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

57

1 the access to create these accounts, then the goal 

2 would be to raise the money to do what has been stated 

3 in the affidavit, whether it's redistricting, whether 

4 it's operations, and to -- New Jersey and Virginia 

5 races this year are very important. 

6 So there's -- federal candidates have 

7 nothing to do with that. There will be no need for 

8 any staffer who wouldn't be in that position in the 

9 first place, having that kind of conversation with a 

10 donor, No. 1. No. 2, to the extent that it's myself 

11 or the finance director, we don't need to talk to them 

12 about the federal race, because it's nothing to do 

13 with the matter at hand. 

14 BY MR. DEELEY: 

15 Q What steps, if any, will be taken to make 

16 sure that no preferential access is given to the 

17 contributors to the new accounts that goes beyond what 

18 the hard-money contributors are getting? 

19 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

20 foundation. 

21 THE WITNESS: Well, it will be subject to 

22 whatever the ruling that becomes the basis of the 

58

1 parameters for which we can raise the money. I mean, 

2 that's -- it's no different than what McCain-Feingold 

3 currently does. It sets in place the parameters, what 

4 you can do with respect to hard money and soft money. 

5 So now if we prevail here, there will be new 

6 procedures and rules in place that we'll be required 

7 to follow, which we'll follow to the letter of the law 

8 and keep in the spirit of the law. 

9 BY MR. DEELEY: 

10 Q So if the ruling mirrors the language in 

11 Mr. Beeson's affidavit and says no preferential access 

12 will be given to contributors to the new accounts 

13 beyond what hard-money contributors are getting, what 

14 steps would the RNC take to make sure that no 

15 preferential access beyond what the hard-money 

16 contributors are getting is given? 

17 A Well, given that I'm unfamiliar with 

18 Beeson's affidavit, so I can't really base the answer 

19 off of that, because I'm not familiar with -- 

20 Q I'm referring to the paragraph we just 

21 walked through. 

22 A Again, you know, we would take every step 

59

1 that was necessary to make sure that there was no 

2 confusion as to what our limitations are or would be 

3 with respect to those donations for the soft-money 

4 accounts. So we would -- again, we would look to see 

5 how the ruling comes down, and then we'd work within 

6 the parameters of the ruling. 

7 But I can't speculate as to what steps 

8 would be taken until I understand what the nature of 

9 the ruling is. I don't know what limitations the 

10 judge is going to put. I don't know to what extent 

11 the judge accepts all or part of what's in 

12 Mr. Beeson's affidavit. 

13 Q Well, assuming that the language from the 

14 ruling mirrors Mr. Beeson's affidavit, then what steps 

15 would the RNC take? 

16 A I would address that issue as chairman at 

17 that time. I'm not, at this point, prepared to 

18 speculate as to what that would be other than to say 

19 it would meet whatever requirements the court sets. 

20 Q What will you do if you learn that someone 

21 at the RNC has provided a donor to the new accounts 

22 with preferential access to a federal officeholder? 

60

1 A They'd likely be fired. That's violation 

2 of the law, wouldn't it be? 

3 Q Anything else? 

4 A Definitely do whatever investigations are 

5 necessary to see to the extent the offense occurred. 

6 You take whatever internal steps you need to take. 

7 Look, I don't tolerate violation of the 

8 law, period. The law's very clear. We -- we abide by 

9 it very clearly, and that's -- anyone who has 

10 responsibilities within this building with respect to 

11 our donors understand that and will come to understand 

12 that based on whatever rulings come out of this 

13 proceeding. 

14 Q Even under a scenario where there's a 

15 specific ruling about the RNC providing preferential 

16 access, lobbyists would still be able to inform 

17 officeholders of the amounts that their clients have 

18 given to these new proposed RNC accounts, correct? 

19 A I don't know. I don't know what a lobbyist 

20 tells his clients or tells a donor -- potential donor. 

21 Q You're not proposing that officeholders 

22 would be unable to learn who had made large 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 16 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

61

1 contributions to the accounts, correct? 

2 A I don't know how officeholders get access 

3 to the information that they want. 

4 Q When -- people who had given large amounts 

5 to the new accounts would still be able to seek to 

6 speak directly with an officeholder or have a meeting 

7 with an officeholder, correct? 

8 A On their own? 

9 Q Yes. 

10 A Or through us? 

11 Q On their own. 

12 A I don't know. I guess if they picked up 

13 the phone and called an officeholder on their own. I 

14 can't control that. That has nothing to do with 

15 whether or not they contribute to us. 

16 Q Nothing would stop -- 

17 A In other words, they don't have to make a 

18 contribution to the RNC to make that phone call. 

19 Q If they had made a contribution as large as 

20 a million dollars to one of these new accounts, 

21 nothing would prevent those contributors from 

22 informing the federal officeholders of how much they 

62

1 had given to the new account, right? 

2 A I don't know. Again, I don't know if 

3 that -- 

4 Q You're not proposing any prohibition on 

5 people making such a statement to a federal 

6 officeholder, are you? 

7 A I can't control what people say. You can 

8 write whatever law you want in the book. That still 

9 doesn't necessarily infringe on my freedom of speech 

10 to tell you what I want you to know. I can't 

11 speculate on what a potential donor to these accounts 

12 would say to a potential officeholder or an existing 

13 officeholder outside of the purview of the RNC. 

14 Q If you had the new accounts, there would be 

15 people who would give both hard money and money to the 

16 new proposed accounts, right? 

17 A Perhaps. 

18 Q And so if someone was in an elite major 

19 donor group through their hard-money contributions, 

20 and then they also gave to the new proposed accounts, 

21 they would still get to participate in all of the 

22 major donor group activities, correct? 

63

1 A They would get to participate whether or 

2 not they gave to the state account, because they would 

3 have given to the hard-money account, and they would 

4 get the benefits that are outlined in Steele 

5 Deposition Exhibit A, Steele A, under those programs. 

6 So that has nothing to do with whether or not they 

7 write a check to one of the soft-money accounts. 

8 Q So they -- someone who -- someone who had 

9 given to both, by virtue of their hard-money 

10 contributions, could potentially have the ability to 

11 speak with an officeholder at a fundraising reception 

12 or major-donor event, correct? 

13 A Someone whose given both hard and soft at a 

14 hard-money event you're saying? 

15 Q Yes. 

16 A Could have potential to speak to, I 

17 presume, or they could just as easily call that 

18 individual -- they don't need an event. If they need 

19 to speak to a Congressman, they'll call them. That's 

20 what happens now, I think. 

21 Q Now, people who -- 

22 A I'm just saying -- 

64

1 MR. BOPP: There's no question. 

2 BY MR. DEELEY: 

3 Q People who have contributed to the RNC do 

4 call officeholders directly to speak with them? 

5 A I don't know if they do or not. 

6 Q But you have some personal knowledge of 

7 contributors trying to set up meetings with 

8 officeholders? 

9 A No, I don't. 

10 Q So if you were to prevail in this lawsuit, 

11 you would solicit donations to the new accounts in 

12 amounts above the federal contribution limits, 

13 correct? 

14 A Within the limits of state law, to the 

15 extent the state law's applicable, yeah. 

16 Q And to the extent that state law permits 

17 you to raise money from sources the federal law 

18 prohibits, you would solicit from those sources such 

19 as corporations, correct? 

20 A If state law permits it. 

21 Q Other than that fact -- those facts, are 

22 there any other ways that your fundraising practices 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 17 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

65

1 would change? Would you solicit the money in any 

2 different manner? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

4 foundation. 

5 THE WITNESS: You would -- you would raise 

6 money by the means that are appropriate and necessary. 

7 You do mailings or you could -- again, certain states 

8 have limitations on that as well. So you would be 

9 mindful of what state law requirements are. So if 

10 you're raising money for your redistricting account or 

11 for your building account, you know, again, state law 

12 would be determinative in this situation. 

13 BY MR. DEELEY: 

14 Q Would you hold separate fund-raisers for 

15 soft-money -- the soft-money accounts? 

16 A We could not have a joint fund-raiser 

17 between soft money and federal money. 

18 Q No. I mean so would you have a fund-raiser 

19 just for the soft-money accounts? 

20 A I would raise that money separately from 

21 anything that comes close to touching federal campaign 

22 finance laws and money. 

66

1 Q Including you would have fundraising events 

2 like dinners to raise the money? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object. You may -- on 

4 foundation. 

5 You may answer that if you have thought 

6 about how you would raise the money. 

7 THE WITNESS: I was about to say I have not 

8 thought about how I would raise the money. There's a 

9 variety of ways to do it. I don't know one specific 

10 way that would be better or worse than another. So I 

11 would evaluate that at the time. 

12 BY MR. DEELEY: 

13 Q So just generally, how does the RNC decide 

14 what activities it's going to spend its money on, kind 

15 of big-picture decision-making? 

16 A Like many organizations, you look at the 

17 available resources, what the potential costs are, and 

18 you make a determination. If its, in the case of 

19 California, an initiative, a ballot initiative, if we 

20 get opportunities to assist under this suit to -- you 

21 look at that as a potential thing to be involved in. 

22 So you would raise money accordingly, very 

67

1 much as, again, a lot of third-party organizations do 

2 right now for the DNC of various ballot initiatives. 

3 So we would look to raise money within the context of, 

4 again, state law, the requirements that are set forth 

5 by the judge in this particular case, should we 

6 prevail. 

7 I don't know what way that necessarily 

8 would be. If it would be a letter, if it would be a 

9 direct fund-raiser, you know, event. I'm not sure. 

10 Q So setting -- let's set aside the new 

11 accounts and the proposed activities in the lawsuit 

12 for a second. Just generally the way the RNC works 

13 now, can you just describe generally how it's decided 

14 what -- what activities are going to be funded and in 

15 what amounts? 

16 A Again, we look at the costs -- the relative 

17 costs to the organization, whether or not we have the 

18 money or can raise the money under existing federal 

19 laws to meet that cost, that obligation. Everything 

20 has a price tag. So you assess and evaluate whether 

21 or not you have the resources to meet that price tag. 

22 In some cases, you say you don't. Other 

68

1 cases, you say you do. And others, you may take -- 

2 you'll take the risk. The race may be that important 

3 or whatever. 

4 Q And just as a matter of process, who is 

5 involved and what are their roles? 

6 A Well, again, I can't give too much to that, 

7 since I've only been on the job a very short time. So 

8 I can't say that there's an established protocol under 

9 my administration yet as to how that would come about. 

10 We're just now beginning to have to deal with, you 

11 know, some of these issues that are beginning to come 

12 up. 

13 Candidates are coming in and they're 

14 starting to talk about their races for Congress and 

15 the U.S. Senate. So there's been -- there's no form 

16 established. But I think, looking at the past 

17 practices, it would be the same thing. You evaluate 

18 and the chairman and the finance director or the -- 

19 the finance director will tell you how much you can 

20 play with, how much we can raise. Maybe the political 

21 shop. 

22 Q And who has the authority to make the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 18 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

69

1 decisions? 

2 A Ultimately the chairman. Everything's made 

3 in terms of recommendations to spend this money, 

4 because the chairman is ultimately accountable to the 

5 membership and to the donors for how the money's 

6 spent. 

7 Q So the -- there's a few accounts that are 

8 proposed related to state activities. One of them 

9 involves the 2009 election and the elections in New 

10 Jersey? 

11 A Uh-huh. 

12 Q Can you just generally describe what 

13 activities the RNC intends to undertake in New Jersey 

14 in 2009? 

15 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object; foundation. 

16 You may answer. 

17 THE WITNESS: None, right now. We can't. 

18 BY MR. DEELEY: 

19 Q If you prevail, what -- in the lawsuit, 

20 what activities do you intend to undertake? 

21 MR. BURCHFIELD: Same objection. 

22 THE WITNESS: Again, I would -- that's 

70

1 speculation for me at this point. I don't know. I'd 

2 have to see what's needed. I mean, it depends on when 

3 the ruling comes down and where we are in the election 

4 process at that point. The election is November. 

5 This is June. If the ruling comes next week, that's 

6 one scenario. If the ruling comes two weeks before 

7 the general election, that's a different scenario. 

8 So I can't speculate as to what we would do 

9 until I know what I can do. 

10 BY MR. DEELEY: 

11 Q Now, for the funds that you raise within 

12 the hard-money limits, nothing stops you from spending 

13 those on New Jersey state activities, correct? 

14 A The monies that are raised for hard -- out 

15 of hard dollars? 

16 Q Correct. 

17 A To the extent that state party has a 

18 federal account, you know, that you have that, I can't 

19 see -- again, you're working within the limits of 

20 federal law with respect to what you do for a federal 

21 candidate. 

22 Q I'm talking about just the RNC spending 

71

1 money, itself. There's nothing -- however much cash 

2 on hand the RNC has, there's nothing stopping it from 

3 spending -- 

4 A Bankruptcy. 

5 Q -- on -- whatever money it has available, 

6 there's nothing stopping you -- 

7 A Bankruptcy stops it. 

8 MR. BURCHFIELD: Let him finish his 

9 question here. 

10 BY MR. DEELEY: 

11 Q Also there's nothing stopping it from 

12 spending whatever money it has, for example, on an 

13 independent expenditure in the New Jersey governor's 

14 race? 

15 A Well, the reality is, the only thing that 

16 stops is the fact you don't have the money. You're 

17 only raising hard dollars, federal dollars. My 

18 opponents don't have that -- they don't have that same 

19 limitation, because there's so many other sources that 

20 are working to assist them in any given election 

21 cycle, whether state or federal elections. 

22 Certainly with respect to activities on the 

72

1 ground, you know, we would be -- we're severely 

2 limited right now. Just spending these dollars so now 

3 we spend it on the federal races, the state races, 

4 then what do I do come January? 

5 Q Are you familiar with the fact that the RNC 

6 has spent money on New Jersey state races in off-year 

7 elections in the past? 

8 A Yeah, absolutely, yeah, at great risk. 

9 Again, like I said, you take that risk that you're 

10 able to win the election. That's how you ultimately 

11 can justify the expense. If you have an opportunity 

12 there. Would I prefer to spend federal dollars on a 

13 state race? Absolutely not. If I had unions, if I 

14 had 527s, if I had Hollywood, if I had a whole bunch 

15 of resources that are not available to the RNC, then I 

16 probably wouldn't mind so much. 

17 Q The main reason that you need to be able to 

18 raise above the federal limits is because, under the 

19 existing law, your opponents raise more money than you 

20 do? 

21 A Under existing law, our opponents may not 

22 raise -- 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 19 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

73

1 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

2 foundation. 

3 You may answer. 

4 THE WITNESS: Under existing law, our 

5 opponents may not raise more money than the RNC does 

6 necessarily in any given, but there are other 

7 resources that they have available that they can tap 

8 into that assist them in raising those dollars and 

9 putting those dollars to work. Give me a George 

10 Soros, and I'd be a very happy RNC chairman. 

11 BY MR. DEELEY: 

12 Q So when you talk about your opponents, 

13 you're referring to the Democratic Party? 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q And the outside assistance that the 

16 Democratic Party gets, you're referring to nonprofit 

17 groups and unions; is that right? 

18 A Yes, and individuals. 

19 Q So in regard to other state elections in 

20 the future, stepping outside of just 2009 New Jersey, 

21 is it -- are the issues basically the same in terms of 

22 availability of hard-money resources being the main 

74

1 issue for why you need to be able to take in amounts 

2 and from sources different from the federal limits? 

3 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form. 

4 THE WITNESS: Could you clarify that so I 

5 can clearly understand. I think I know what you're 

6 asking. If you could just clarify the question. 

7 BY MR. DEELEY: 

8 Q Sure. 

9 I guess basically it's just, is the -- we 

10 just had a conversation largely about -- we started 

11 talking about the New Jersey 2009 election. 

12 A Yes. 

13 Q Is it basically the same issues for other 

14 state election accounts that you want to create? 

15 A It -- it's exacerbated in 2010 beyond any 

16 comprehensible measure. Because in 2009, you have two 

17 states, Virginia and New Jersey. Next year you have 

18 50 -- 48 states that have state elections, and all 50, 

19 of course, have federal elections. So the 

20 constriction on federal -- the use of federal funds is 

21 exacerbated, because then you're really targeting 

22 down -- you don't have the resources to otherwise 

75

1 assist the states the way you'd like to, and the way 

2 others are able to on the other side, on the 

3 Democratic Party. 

4 So we have to stretch those dollars a lot 

5 farther, because the playing field is a lot bigger 

6 now, and more races are involved. So it would be very 

7 helpful to be able to clearly delineate, particularly 

8 given next year is redistricting and a host of other 

9 activities that are going to be part of the national 

10 and state and local political scene -- to be able 

11 to -- to be as effective as we can with the monies 

12 that we raise and not be so limited as to take federal 

13 dollars and put it in 17 different places at one time. 

14 Q So in a world of limited means, your first 

15 priority is the federal races, and you only spend on 

16 the state races if there's money left over? 

17 A If -- again, I'm not in that situation yet. 

18 I anticipate being there, I'm sure, because of just 

19 the magnitude of the number of races that we have. 

20 But you are limited when all we are raising is federal 

21 dollars. Priority is to take care of the federal 

22 candidates for the Senate; 36 seats in the Senate up 

76

1 next year. Every member of the House, some are 

2 vulnerable; some not so, but still -- 

3 So there are a lot of pieces that go into 

4 the federal equation. Then you layer on top of that 

5 governors' races, attorney general races, state 

6 official races, and then a few legislative races that 

7 could be outcome determinative in terms of who 

8 controls the state legislature, and then there's 

9 redistricting on top of that. 

10 So, yeah, I've got to stretch a federal 

11 dollar a very long way; whereas, my opponents do not. 

12 Q And why is redistricting important? 

13 A Because redistricting sets in place the 

14 map, the lines that will determine who controls state 

15 legislatures for the next 10 to 12 years. The 

16 composition of the House of Representatives for the 

17 next 10 to 12 years or maybe even beyond that. And I 

18 would much prefer to have our party, the Republican 

19 Party, go into such battles, if you will, with both 

20 hands free, as opposed to having one arm tied behind 

21 our back. 

22 Q Just again, when it comes time for the RNC 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 20 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

77

1 to decide where it's going to spend money on 

2 advertising, who makes that decision? 

3 A I mean, all decisions are ultimately run by 

4 the chairman, I would suspect. I don't know how the 

5 process has been in the past. The staff will again 

6 evaluate what's required and what's necessary, and 

7 they will make the appropriate recommendations. And 

8 if I feel we have the money to spend, we may or may 

9 not spend it. It just depends. 

10 Q So there's a proposal to have an account 

11 for -- to do grass-roots lobbying advertising? 

12 A Yes. 

13 Q Who at the RNC would decide which issues to 

14 be advertising about? 

15 A I don't know. I don't know how that will 

16 shape out just yet. 

17 You know, grass-roots activities generally 

18 involve state party operations and the grass roots of 

19 the party, you know. The men and women who are door 

20 knocking and working on, you know, handing out 

21 literature and certainly working to create sort of a 

22 competitive environment for the state party or the 

78

1 local party. 

2 A lot of that's grass-roots focused. We'd 

3 have to -- if the court, you know, rules in our favor, 

4 then the appropriate strategies will be put in place 

5 to assist in grass-roots efforts from training 

6 candidates to run for sheriff or county office to 

7 issue advocacy that are focused on state issues or 

8 local issues, grass roots. 

9 Q So another issue that would have to be made 

10 would regard which federal candidates are 

11 officeholders to mention in the grass-roots lobbying? 

12 A That wouldn't be a part. Federal 

13 candidates wouldn't be a part of that process. 

14 Q They wouldn't be a part of the process of 

15 deciding which federal candidates get mentioned in the 

16 grass-roots lobbying? 

17 A No, they wouldn't -- I don't see a reason 

18 for them to be involved in that issue -- 

19 Q So who -- 

20 A -- on that situation. 

21 Q Who would be involved in deciding which 

22 candidates or officeholders were going to be mentioned 

79

1 in the grass-roots lobbying advertisements? 

2 A The state party, I guess. 

3 Q I'm talking about the -- if the RNC could 

4 run grass-roots lobbying advertisements as it proposes 

5 to do. 

6 A You mean who in the building? 

7 Q Yeah. Who on behalf of the RNC would 

8 decide? 

9 A Again, that's -- I'm not sure how that 

10 process will be worked out. It is a world I hope to 

11 step into, and then I can make that decision at that 

12 time. But again, it would be consistent with the 

13 requirements set forth by the court and consistent 

14 with the applicable laws. And at no time is there any 

15 intention to mingle or comingle or otherwise mix into 

16 it the federal candidates, federal issues, federal 

17 component. 

18 We're, again, trying to be a competitive 

19 grass-roots party and working with state issues and 

20 local issues and local candidates and state issues -- 

21 and state candidates. And the appropriate walls that 

22 need to be built will be built. 

80

1 MR. DEELEY: I'd like to have a document 

2 marked for identification, and this would be 

3 Exhibit C. 

4 (Deposition Exhibit No. C was marked for 

5 identification and attached to the transcript.) 

6 BY MR. DEELEY: 

7 Q I've handed copies to your lawyers as well. 

8 And this is an advertisement that I'll represent has 

9 previously been run by either the RNC or the NRCC. 

10 Please review it. 

11 A Okay. Okay. 

12 Q Now, assuming that this was run in the time 

13 period immediately preceding an election in which 

14 David Woo was involved, would this be grass-roots 

15 lobbying as the RNC has proposed to do in this case? 

16 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

17 foundation. 

18 THE WITNESS: I can't speak to that. I 

19 don't have any prior history with this piece or what 

20 the RNC has proposed in the past as grass-roots 

21 lobbying, so I can't -- I don't know if this would fit 

22 that definition or not. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 21 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

81

1 BY MR. DEELEY: 

2 Q I'm not talking about the past. I just 

3 mean the future. If this was -- if this was an 

4 advertisement that was proposed for the 2010 election 

5 cycle, would this qualify as grass-roots lobbying as 

6 the RNC has proposed it? 

7 A I don't know. 

8 Q What else would you need to know to 

9 determine that? 

10 A I'd want to know what, if any, limitations 

11 are put on such activity by the courts. Until the 

12 ruling has come, I can't speak to what the future 

13 looks like, because that, in my view, would -- is 

14 outcome determinative. It determines the outcome for 

15 everything you do. 

16 Q So the RNC is not itself proposing any 

17 means by which the court could determine what is 

18 grass-roots lobbying and what is not? 

19 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

20 foundation. 

21 THE WITNESS: All I'm saying is I can't say 

22 whether or not this would fit in the definition of 

82

1 grass-roots lobbying, because I don't know what that 

2 looks like in the future. 

3 BY MR. DEELEY: 

4 Q So if I -- 

5 A But the ability to be able to communicate a 

6 message through our grass roots, through various 

7 activities, advertisements and the like, relevant to 

8 state and local issues, something that we would like 

9 to do, again, within the restrictions of the law and 

10 state law included without having to, as we do now, if 

11 we engage -- I don't know when this piece was done -- 

12 using federal dollars to do it. 

13 Q So if I showed you other advertisements, 

14 you would similarly be unable to provide an answer? 

15 A Absolutely. 

16 Q It's not this particular -- 

17 A No, it's not this particular piece. I 

18 would not be able to speak to what the future would 

19 look like until someone gives me a clue what it's 

20 supposed to look like. 

21 Q Is the RNC paying any legal fees or 

22 expenses associated with this case? 

83

1 A I would presume that -- 

2 MR. BOPP: They better be. 

3 THE WITNESS: I would presume they are. 

4 BY MR. DEELEY: 

5 Q And how many -- how much has been paid to 

6 date? 

7 A I do not know. 

8 Q Approximately how much does the RNC expect 

9 to pay for the litigation of the case? 

10 A As little as possible. 

11 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Counsel. 

12 BY MR. DEELEY: 

13 Q Assuming that there's no change in the law 

14 as a result of this lawsuit, do you intend to solicit 

15 money for state parties in your personal capacity as 

16 Michael Steele as opposed to your official capacity as 

17 the RNC chairman? 

18 A I have no such intention. 

19 Q Why not? 

20 A I just don't. 

21 Q Do you intend, if there's no change in the 

22 law, to solicit hard money for state parties in your 

84

1 official capacity as RNC chairman? 

2 A Got to raise the money. As the RNC 

3 chairman, would I ask, you know, for hard dollars, 

4 federal dollars? 

5 Q Will you ask for hard dollars to be 

6 contributed to state parties as the -- 

7 A Contributed to state parties? 

8 Q Yes. 

9 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

10 foundation. 

11 THE WITNESS: Asking a hard -- asking a 

12 donor to contribute federal dollars to a state party 

13 for what purpose? 

14 BY MR. DEELEY: 

15 Q For any purpose. 

16 A No. 

17 Q Why not? 

18 A Because I'd want the dollars to come to me. 

19 Q You mean the RNC? 

20 A The RNC. Not me personally, but the RNC. 

21 I would want those dollars -- federal dollars to come 

22 to the RNC. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 22 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

85

1 Q If you were soliciting for the RNC, how 

2 would you go about soliciting funds for a specific 

3 purpose? 

4 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

5 foundation. 

6 THE WITNESS: If I were soliciting for the 

7 RNC? 

8 BY MR. DEELEY: 

9 Q Yes. 

10 A Just ask you. 

11 Q Just ask someone to give for a particular 

12 purpose? 

13 A I generally don't ask for them to give for 

14 a particular purpose. I ask them just to give 

15 generally. 

16 Q If you prevailed in the lawsuit, would you 

17 then, in the future in some circumstances, ask people 

18 to give for specific purposes? 

19 A I don't know. 

20 Q Turning back to Exhibit B, the Beeson 

21 affidavit, did you say that you are generally not 

22 familiar with its contents? 

86

1 A That's correct. 

2 Q You can put that document aside. 

3 A Okay. 

4 Q Are you familiar with the RNC's website? 

5 A Yes. 

6 Q When items appear on that site under the 

7 chairman's name, who writes them? 

8 A Staff. 

9 Q And do you approve them? 

10 A No. 

11 Q Do you have any reason to believe that 

12 anything posted under your name is inaccurate that's 

13 currently on the website? 

14 A I have no reason to believe anything as 

15 currently posted is inaccurate, no. 

16 Q Without revealing the substance of any 

17 communications you've had with your lawyers, were you 

18 advised to retain all documents that may be relevant 

19 to this litigation? 

20 A No. 

21 Q Do you know whether other RNC personnel 

22 were told to retain all documents that may be relevant 

87

1 to this litigation? 

2 A I am not aware of that. 

3 Q To your knowledge, have any relevant 

4 documents been deleted or thrown away since the 

5 litigation commenced? 

6 A To my knowledge, no. 

7 Q To your knowledge, have any relevant 

8 e-mails been deleted since this litigation commenced? 

9 A To my knowledge, no. 

10 MR. DEELEY: I'd like to mark for 

11 identification a document as Exhibit D, and I'll hand 

12 copies to your lawyers, as well. 

13 (Deposition Exhibit No. D was marked for 

14 identification and attached to the transcript.) 

15 BY MR. DEELEY: 

16 Q Please take a few moments to generally 

17 familiarize yourself with it. 

18 A Okay. 

19 Q Are you familiar with what's been marked as 

20 Exhibit D? 

21 A Yes. 

22 Q It's discovery requests the FEC sent for 

88

1 documents from you, correct? 

2 A Yes. 

3 Q And to your knowledge, have -- have you 

4 provided all responsive documents to your lawyers? 

5 A To my knowledge, yes. 

6 Q Are there any potentially relevant 

7 documents on a non-RNC e-mail account? 

8 A Not that I'm aware of. 

9 Q Are there any potentially relevant 

10 documents on a personal computer that haven't been 

11 provided to your lawyers? 

12 A Not that I'm aware. 

13 Q You'll see Requests for Production 2 asks 

14 for all documents relating to any of the planned 

15 activities for which you have alleged that you would 

16 solicit non-federal funds if you were legally 

17 permitted to do so. One of those activities was 

18 redistricting. 

19 Have you forwarded all documents related to 

20 redistricting that have begun to your lawyers? 

21 A To the extent that there have been any 

22 documents produced, yeah. But that's very -- again, I 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 23 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

89

1 just arrived here. So there's not a formal 

2 redistricting process under way. It would be very, 

3 very limited. 

4 Q A chairman has been named for the 

5 Redistricting Committee, correct? 

6 A That's correct, yes. 

7 Q And you mentioned there have been some 

8 efforts to plan for redistricting, correct? 

9 A Yeah. 

10 Q No documents were produced in response to 

11 this request. So if any were located, we would 

12 obviously request that they be produced to us 

13 immediately. 

14 A Understood. 

15 Q Similarly, any -- some of the planned 

16 activities involve the Virginia and New Jersey 

17 elections, this election cycle, so any documents 

18 related to those, if there are -- any of those exist, 

19 have they been passed on to your lawyers? 

20 A To my knowledge, they should have been or 

21 have been, yes. 

22 Q And with respect to Document Request 3, it 

90

1 asks for all documents relating to any preferential 

2 access to federal candidates or officeholders or other 

3 benefits that you or the RNC currently affords to 

4 contributors of federal funds, and I'm omitting the 

5 quotations. 

6 Have you preserved all documents relating 

7 to such benefits that the RNC currently affords to 

8 contributors of federal funds? 

9 A To my knowledge, if they exist, yes. 

10 Q And any that exist have been passed on to 

11 your lawyers? 

12 A That's correct. 

13 Q So for example, any documents relating to 

14 benefits that the major donor groups receive, those 

15 have been passed on to your lawyers? 

16 A Similar to the exhibit that you referred 

17 to, yes. 

18 Q Yes. Or any specific individual 

19 communications with a donor about any of those 

20 benefits? 

21 A To my knowledge, that would be true, yes. 

22 Q Or for example, a request to sit with a 

91

1 particular officeholder at a reception, anything like 

2 that would have been passed along to your lawyers? 

3 A I would -- I would presume so. 

4 Q Again -- 

5 A I don't know. I don't know if, you know -- 

6 if they have. To my knowledge, if they existed and 

7 requested, they would have been delivered. 

8 Q Okay. Again, we didn't receive any 

9 documents in response to that request. 

10 A Then that means they probably don't exist. 

11 MR. DEELEY: Why don't we take another 

12 short break. Does that work for you guys? 

13 THE WITNESS: I'm fine. I'd rather keep 

14 going. 

15 MR. DEELEY: Just five minutes, and that 

16 will help wrap this up. 

17 (A brief recess was taken.) 

18 BY MR. DEELEY: 

19 Q Just talking about hard-money 

20 contributions -- 

21 A If I could, before -- I wanted to go back 

22 and clarify one of my answers with respect to the 

92

1 document retention question that you had asked. 

2 Q Sure. 

3 A I had been informed by my counsel with 

4 respect to that. So my interpretation of the question 

5 was, outside of my counsel, has anyone else; and the 

6 answer to that was no. But my counsel did inform me, 

7 with respect to the policy, to make sure we keep all 

8 the appropriate documents related to the case. 

9 I just wanted to make sure we were clear of 

10 what was meant there. 

11 Q Okay. Just talking about hard-money 

12 contributions, are there any reasons why the 

13 Republican National Committee won't be able to raise 

14 as much money through e-mail and Internet fundraising 

15 as the Democratic Party in the future? 

16 A The Democratic Party has President Barack 

17 Obama. I think that's very clearly been demonstrated 

18 his capacity to raise money on e-mail and the 

19 Internet. Will we be limited is the question? 

20 Q Are there any reasons why, in the future, 

21 the RNC won't be able to raise as much as the 

22 Democratic Party through e-mail and Internet 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 24 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

93

1 fundraising? 

2 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

3 foundation. I think that's somewhat speculative. 

4 THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't know what 

5 the future holds for fundraising on the Internet. So 

6 it's very hard to say what we will be able to do or 

7 not do with respect to that one particular form of 

8 fundraising or any form of fundraising. 

9 Donors are a particular creature and not 

10 necessarily one of habit. So it's hard to say that 

11 the Internet will be a key source or any source for 

12 money in the future. 

13 BY MR. DEELEY: 

14 Q So to your knowledge today, other than 

15 President Obama's demonstrated capacity to raise money 

16 through those means, are you aware of any other 

17 reasons why the RNC won't be able to raise as much 

18 through the Internet and e-mail as the Democratic 

19 Party? 

20 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

21 foundation. 

22 THE WITNESS: Again, you know, I don't know 

94

1 to what extent, you know, the Democrats are able to 

2 raise such money. I know that, you know, for the RNC, 

3 it is an avenue that we, you know, try to raise 

4 dollars through with mixed success. So I don't -- I 

5 can't speak to even in present terms of how much money 

6 we'll be able to raise, you know, this cycle, next 

7 cycle, or at any point in time, just because of the 

8 nature of the environment right now. 

9 MR. DEELEY: I have no further questions at 

10 this time. I think Francesco might need another 

11 minute to -- before he gets himself prepared. 

12 MR. VALENTINI: I think we can just swap 

13 seats. 

14 (Discussion off the record.) 

15 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT 

16 VAN HOLLEN 

17 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

18 Q My name is Francesco Valentini. I'm an 

19 attorney with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, 

20 and we represent Defendant Van Hollen. 

21 MR. BOPP: I'd like to interpose an 

22 objection. We are, of course, aware of your notice to 

95

1 participate in this deposition. However, I am unaware 

2 of a court order that allows you to participate in 

3 this deposition. Do you have one? 

4 MR. VALENTINI: We interpret the court 

5 record as permitting our participation in the 

6 deposition by permitting a deposition of Mr. Steele, 

7 and it is -- it goes without saying that if the FEC is 

8 permitted to take the deposition of Chairman Steele, 

9 we are also allowed to participate as a full party to 

10 this action. 

11 MR. BOPP: Well, I assume by that answer 

12 the answer is, no, that you do not have a court order? 

13 MR. VALENTINI: The answer is that we 

14 interpret the court order as permitting our 

15 participation in this deposition. 

16 MR. BOPP: The one dated May 5th? 

17 MR. VALENTINI: Precisely. 

18 MR. BOPP: Well, without a subsequent court 

19 order, the original order permitted certain discovery 

20 to be conducted by various parties. For instance, 

21 Van Hollen is specifically allowed to take -- for 

22 instance, to seek leave of court to depose a 

96

1 representative. The FEC is the only defendant that is 

2 authorized to -- is permitted, according to court 

3 order, to conduct discovery related to Plaintiff 

4 Steele. 

5 So without a -- without a court order, I 

6 don't think that you have authority to answer 

7 questions -- to ask questions of this deponent. Now, 

8 I do note that it is -- and frankly, I might not have 

9 raised this except in the past -- the -- Van Hollen 

10 has sought to take liberties. 

11 For instance, serving a discovery 

12 response -- request on the RNC and unilaterally 

13 shortening the periods of time on which the response 

14 was to be made absent a court order, without a court 

15 order. So there's a pattern, in my view, of 

16 participation by Van Hollen which is designed to -- 

17 designed to, one, take liberty with the rules, and 

18 No. 2, is designed to obstruct, delay, and otherwise 

19 unduly burden this litigation. 

20 So now I do note that it is a few minutes 

21 after 4:00. This deposition was scheduled to go until 

22 6:00. And the fact that the FEC has completed their 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 25 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

97

1 questions allows time here, even though we would all 

2 prefer to do something else. So we will permit the 

3 questions. But we're going to take careful -- keep a 

4 careful eye of the time. 

5 MR. DEELEY: I just note for the record the 

6 silence shouldn't be construed to indicate agreement 

7 with the suggested end date of the -- end time for the 

8 deposition. 

9 MR. VALENTINI: Before we proceed with the 

10 deposition, I would just like to note for the record 

11 that there is absolutely no precedent for 

12 Representative Van Hollen attempted to unilaterally 

13 shorten the discovery period on any of the requests 

14 that have been served on the plaintiffs. Moreover, I 

15 note -- I note, for the record, that the court order 

16 does not provide that the FEC is the only party that 

17 will be allowed to seek discovery of Mr. Steele. 

18 That is not part of the court order and it 

19 is not our interpretation of the court order. And 

20 with that, we do appreciate that we will have the 

21 opportunity to seek -- to answer a few questions 

22 within the time remaining for the deposition. 

98

1 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

2 Q With respect to the Virginia and New Jersey 

3 upcoming elections, what do you view as the direct and 

4 indirect political impact that may result from a 

5 Republican victory in the Virginia and New Jersey 

6 gubernatorial races? 

7 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object -- object to form 

8 and foundation. 

9 THE WITNESS: What is the direct impact of 

10 a Republican victory in New Jersey and Virginia? 

11 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

12 Q Political impact. 

13 A Political impact on what? 

14 Q Let me be more specific. 

15 Would the results in New Jersey and 

16 Virginia have an impact on the RNC's fundraising 

17 ability going forward? 

18 A I don't know. 

19 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form and 

20 foundation. 

21 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 

22 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

99

1 Q Is it your view that the outcome of the 

2 New Jersey and Virginia races may have an impact on 

3 the recruiting of candidates for future elections? 

4 A I don't know. 

5 Q When you say "I don't know," you mean to 

6 say you don't know that it may have? 

7 A It could or it could not. I don't know. 

8 We have, for example, the outcome of 2006, following 

9 the logic of your question, would presume that our 

10 ability to recruit candidates for 2008 could be 

11 impacted. You don't know until you do it. 

12 Similarly, the outcome in 2009 in Virginia 

13 and New Jersey, I have no idea what that means for 

14 anything in 2010 and beyond. 

15 MR. VALENTINI: I would ask the court 

16 reporter to mark this document for identification as 

17 the next exhibit. This document is entitled 

18 "Blueprint for Tomorrow." 

19 (Deposition Exhibit No. E was marked for 

20 identification and attached to the transcript.) 

21 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

22 Q Would you, please, turn to Page 6 -- first 

100

1 of all, Mr. Chairman, are you familiar with this 

2 document at all? 

3 A Yes. 

4 MR. BURCHFIELD: This is Steele Exhibit E? 

5 COURT REPORTER: Yes. 

6 MR. BURCHFIELD: Which page are you on? 

7 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

8 Q If you could, please turn to Page 6. And I 

9 would direct your attention to the series of bullet 

10 points, and in particular I would direct your 

11 attention to Bullet Point No. 4. 

12 A Uh-huh. 

13 Q If you could, please, review it. 

14 A Okay. 

15 Q So is it your position that the elections 

16 this year in Virginia and New Jersey offer Republicans 

17 a chance to demonstrate that the Republican Party got 

18 the message and is on its way back? 

19 A Yeah, as noted there. 

20 Q And when you state that the Republican 

21 Party is on its way back, does that mean -- what do 

22 you mean by that? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 26 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

101

1 A That we have redeveloped our relationship 

2 with the voters. If anybody's been paying attention 

3 to the last two election cycles, we haven't actually 

4 been their favorite. So clearly, whether you're 

5 talking federal elections or not, there is a 

6 downstream effect on state and local elections. 

7 I can speak to my own race for the United 

8 States Senate, as well as the impact that races have 

9 across the board, federal races have across the board, 

10 presidential, for example, on state and local 

11 elections. So a win for the governorship, yes, it's a 

12 way of saying that, you know, our -- we've developed a 

13 message that the voters trust and issues that they 

14 support candidates -- our candidates on. 

15 Q And the impact of that message would not be 

16 limited to, say, Virginia? 

17 A It could be or it could not be. It depends 

18 on how -- what you do with it, how people read it, how 

19 the liberal media interprets it and defines it going 

20 forward. I'm sure they will not put the best spin on 

21 it for the Republican Party should we win. And they 

22 certainly wouldn't use glowing terms as I've used in 

102

1 this document that I ran on for this job as to say 

2 that, you know, we're on our way back. 

3 Q And the RNC intends -- your intent in 

4 assisting Republican candidates is for this message to 

5 be limited to Virginia and New Jersey, or to be a 

6 nationwide message? 

7 A If we lose, I'm not going to be saying too 

8 much. There's no specific intent on the message at 

9 this point. Let's get to Wednesday after the 

10 election, and then I'll answer that question. 

11 Q Right. But it is your intent to send a 

12 message that the Republican Party is on its way back, 

13 correct? 

14 A Well, it's been my intent since the losses 

15 of 2006 to say that the Republican Party is on its way 

16 back. Every election is an opportunity for both 

17 parties to stake particular claims of overcoming 

18 opposition and putting themselves in a position to win 

19 future elections. 

20 Q And will the outcome of the New Jersey and 

21 Virginia legislative races have an impact on future 

22 redistricting processes that will occur in Virginia in 

103

1 2011? 

2 A I'm sure they will. I'm sure. Sure. 

3 Q That will include redrawing Congressional 

4 districts, correct? 

5 A Not the -- well, the legislative races are 

6 drawn differently and separate and apart from the 

7 congressional districts. That's total two different 

8 processes. 

9 Q I'm sorry. Let me rephrase the question. 

10 My question was whether the upcoming 

11 legislative elections in Virginia will have an impact 

12 on the redistricting process in Virginia, both 

13 congressional and legislative. 

14 A No. I can tell you from my experience as 

15 state chairman, when I had to draw the lines in 

16 Maryland, our legislative process had nothing to do 

17 with the congressional -- in fact, the congressional 

18 race's maps were drawn separately and apart from what 

19 I was doing as state party chairman, which is why I 

20 was able to sue the governor. Oh, and win. 

21 Q But the composition of the General Assembly 

22 of Virginia will have an impact on the redistricting 

104

1 process that will begin in -- 

2 A It will have an impact on the state and 

3 local redistricting process, not the federal process. 

4 Q But under -- 

5 A The legislative wins have nothing to do, 

6 necessarily, with how the congressional lines are 

7 drawn. 

8 Q Under the -- is it your understanding that 

9 under the Virginia constitution, the General Assembly 

10 will engage in a redistricting process that will 

11 include both legislative districts and congressional 

12 districts? 

13 A I'm not familiar with what Virginia 

14 requires. I just know that the legislative lines are 

15 drawn separately and apart from the federal lines. So 

16 legislative districts may or may not line up 

17 within -- within a given congressional district. 

18 Q If you were to prevail in this lawsuit, it 

19 is my understanding that you plan to solicit 

20 contributions on behalf of specific state candidates, 

21 correct? 

22 A Yes. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 27 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

105

1 Q Just to be clear, you intend to solicit 

2 these contributions on behalf of state candidates 

3 running for office during dual state and federal 

4 elections, meaning on -- not only on off-year cycles, 

5 but also on -- 

6 A Yeah, yes. 

7 Q -- even number of years? 

8 A You wouldn't -- yeah. Congress runs every 

9 two years, so they're going to be in every cycle. 

10 Q And do you plan to impose any restrictions 

11 on how these contributions would be used by the state 

12 candidates that would receive the contributions? 

13 A Whatever restrictions are imposed are going 

14 to be within the determination made by the court in 

15 this proceeding, and so however the judge decides the 

16 case, then we, again, will determine what the 

17 limitations are. And as I said before, the 

18 appropriate standard will be applied to all state 

19 parties, and everybody will know. This is the bright 

20 line -- you cannot cross it -- 

21 Q But you have -- 

22 A -- between state and federal. 

106

1 Q But you have taken no steps, up to now, to 

2 determine what that line is? 

3 A That's correct. No steps have been taken. 

4 Q And that goes not only for solicitations 

5 for state candidates but for all the solicitations 

6 that you will be able to do -- 

7 A -- as a result of winning this lawsuit. 

8 Q Do you mind, just for the court reporter. 

9 -- if you were to prevail in this lawsuit? 

10 A That's correct. 

11 Q So just to make clear for the record, you 

12 have not taken any steps as to the limitations that 

13 you would put on the fundraising of soft money if you 

14 were to prevail in this lawsuit? 

15 A No steps have been taken, correct. 

16 Q And no policies have been developed? 

17 A That's correct. 

18 Q If I remember correctly, before you stated 

19 that in connection with the federal fund-raisers, that 

20 is fund-raisers for federal dollars, all the necessary 

21 precautions are being taken; is that correct? 

22 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to the form. 

107

1 THE WITNESS: What's -- what do you mean 

2 necessary precautions have been taken? 

3 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

4 Q Well, precautions -- what steps are being 

5 taken currently to ensure that donors do not get 

6 preferential access to federal candidates and 

7 officeholders? 

8 A Generally, it's policy of the RNC that you 

9 don't -- that's not the purpose. You don't set that 

10 in motion. You don't put in motion preferential 

11 access to a federal official vis-a-vis -- through 

12 fund-raisers, for example. So the policy is very 

13 clear, since BCRA has been in place; and, you know, we 

14 adhere to that, No. 1. 

15 No. 2, with respect to such events, we 

16 follow what the requirements are in terms of 

17 appropriate notification, invitation, the appropriate 

18 listing of names of federal officials, if that's 

19 appropriate, and we follow what's required. So if it 

20 involves a state party, then we make sure that, again, 

21 all those rules are very, very closely followed. 

22 That would be the situation in a 

108

1 presidential election where those types of events are 

2 held for presidential candidates coming into a state. 

3 You want to make sure everything is lined up and is 

4 appropriate and right as possible. 

5 Q And who's in charge of the policy that you 

6 stated? 

7 A Who's in charge of the policy? I don't 

8 know who specifically wrote. I would assume that 

9 policy is developed and vetted by counsel of the RNC, 

10 in-house counsel, with an understanding of the 

11 mandates of the law, and they take those mandates and 

12 they put them in an appropriate form for the body as a 

13 whole to operate under. 

14 Q And is that policy memorialized in any sort 

15 of writing? 

16 A I don't know. 

17 Q Aside from this policy that you just 

18 mentioned, is there anything else that the RNC does to 

19 prevent granting preferential access to federal 

20 candidates and officeholders? 

21 A I can say that there is -- there is a high 

22 degree of due diligence of asking questions and 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 28 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

109

1 clarifying and -- because, again, a lot of folks come 

2 to these events as either donors or as participants. 

3 In other words, they're helping to put it on, and 

4 they're unaware and unfamiliar with the laws. So we 

5 have to -- we're very diligent in educating them in 

6 what they can and can't do, what the limitations are, 

7 what the specific placards in some cases that you have 

8 to have outside the door of letting you know what the 

9 deal is inside the room. 

10 So the staff has been very, very particular 

11 about that. I know from my own experience firsthand 

12 as a candidate in 2006, as a federal candidate for 

13 office, making sure those steps were followed by my 

14 campaign in coordination with the NRCC -- NRSC, for 

15 example. So those steps are very -- very well 

16 understood by the staff that you got to follow, and to 

17 the extent that we have third parties that come in to 

18 work with an event, we try to make sure that we stay 

19 on top of it. 

20 Q Are these due-diligence policies 

21 memorialized in any writing? 

22 A I'm not sure. I'm not aware of it being 

110

1 memorialized other than folks knowing -- just 

2 intuitively knowing what they can and can't do and 

3 what they need to tell people. 

4 Q But you're not aware of any writing? 

5 A I'm not aware of any writing, no. 

6 Q Are there any other steps that the RNC 

7 takes -- 

8 A None that I'm aware of. 

9 Q -- in connection with federal dollars 

10 fund-raisers? 

11 A None that I'm aware of. 

12 Q Does the political director of RNC interact 

13 with the Finance Division in organizing the current 

14 fund-raisers? 

15 A No. Let me just -- not under my watch in 

16 the time I have been here, that has not happened. I 

17 can't speak to what's occurred in the past. I'm 

18 unaware of that. 

19 Q Just to make clear, you're not aware that 

20 it happened? 

21 A I'm not aware that has happened, right. 

22 MR. VALENTINI: I think that's all I have 

111

1 for today. 

2 MR. BOPP: I have a cross-question. 

3 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF 

4 BY MR. BOPP: 

5 Q You were asked a question about whether you 

6 have instituted a policy here at the RNC whereby 

7 people in the building, at the request of the donor, 

8 are not going to arrange a meeting with a federal 

9 officeholder, and your -- you said no to that 

10 question, as I understood it. 

11 A That's correct. 

12 Q Now, are you aware, however, that there is 

13 such a policy that you have continued -- 

14 A Yes. 

15 Q -- as the chairman? 

16 A Yes, there is. There's preexisting policy 

17 with respect to that particular issue, but I have not 

18 issued any new policy or any correction or update to 

19 that policy. 

20 Q So that policy continues? 

21 A That policy continues, yes. 

22 MR. BOPP: No more questions. 

112

1 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT 

2 FEC 

3 BY MR. DEELEY: 

4 Q When did you become aware of that policy? 

5 A When I arrived here as chairman. I was 

6 made aware of litigation and potential litigation and 

7 just general operations of the building. 

8 Q And how did you become aware of the policy? 

9 A Counsel informed me. 

10 Q And how do other people become aware of the 

11 policy? 

12 A I'm not aware of how other people in the 

13 building become aware of it. 

14 Q And do you take any steps to make people 

15 aware of it? 

16 A How do you mean? 

17 Q Do you do anything in furtherance of the 

18 policy? 

19 A As chairman, personally? 

20 Q Yes. 

21 A No, I have not taken any affirmative steps 

22 in that regard as chairman. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 29 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

113

1 MR. DEELEY: Nothing further. 

2 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT 

3 VAN HOLLEN 

4 BY MR. VALENTINI: 

5 Q Just to make clear, that policy has not 

6 been memorialized in any writing, correct? 

7 A I was not handed a piece of paper in my 

8 discussion with counsel. That does not mean there 

9 does not exist a piece of paper at some point in time, 

10 but I'm not familiar with one being in existence. 

11 Q But to your knowledge, such a piece of 

12 paper does not exist, correct? 

13 A I don't know. I don't know if it does or 

14 doesn't. 

15 Q You've never seen one, correct? 

16 A I have not seen it, no. 

17 MR. VALENTINI: That's all I have. 

18 MR. BOPP: We're concluded. 

19 

20 (Whereupon, the signature not having been waived, the 

21 deposition concluded at 4:26 p.m.) 

22

114

1 * * * 

2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT 

3 

4 I, Michael Steele, do hereby acknowledge I have read 

5 and examined the foregoing pages of testimony, and the 

6 same is a true, correct and complete transcription of 

7 the testimony given by me, and any changes and/or 

8 corrections, if any, appear in the attached errata 

9 sheet signed by me. 

10 

11

12 ______ ____________________________________ 

13 Date Michael Steele 

14 

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

115

1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC 

2 I, Tammy S. Newton, the officer before whom 

3 the foregoing proceedings was taken, do hereby certify 

4 that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct 

5 record of the proceedings; that said proceedings were 

6 taken by me stenographically and thereafter reduced to 

7 typewriting under my supervision; and that I am 

8 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any 

9 of the parties to this case and have no interest, 

10 financial or otherwise, in its outcome. 

11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 

12 hand and affixed my notarial seal this 2nd day of 

13 June, 2009. 

14 My commission expires: 

15 8/01/2012 

16 

17 ____________________________ 

18 Notary Public in and for the 

19 District of Columbia 

20

21

22

116

1 Heather Sidwell, Esquire 

Republican National Committee 

2 310 First Street, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20003 

3 

4 Re: RNC V FEC 

5 Dear Ms. Sidwell: 

6 Enclosed please find your copy of the deposition of 

Michael Steele, along with the original signature 

7 page. As agreed, you will be responsible for 

contacting the witness regarding reading and signing 

8 the transcript. 

9 Within 30 days of receipt, please forward the errata 

sheet and original signature page signed to opposing 

10 counsel. 

11 If you would like to change this procedure or if you 

have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. 

12 

Thank you. 

13

Sincerely, 

14

15

16

Tammy Newton 

17 Reporter/Notary 

18 

19

20

21

22

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 30 of 31
Michael Steele June 1, 2009

117

1 DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET

2

3 RE: Esquire Deposition Solutions

4 File No. 18680

5 Case Caption: REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al. 

6 vs. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al.

7 Deponent: MICHAEL STEELE

8 Deposition Date: June 1, 2009

9 To the Reporter:

10 I have read the entire transcript of my Deposition taken

11 in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me. 

12 I request that the following changes be entered upon the 

13 record for the reasons indicated. I have signed my name to 

14 the Errata Sheet and the appropriate Certificate and 

15 authorize you to attach both to the original transcript.

16

17 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

18 ____________________________________________________________

19 Reason for change:__________________________________________

20 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

21 ____________________________________________________________

22 Reason for change:__________________________________________

118

1 Deposition of MICHAEL STEELE

2

3 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

4 ____________________________________________________________

5 Reason for change:__________________________________________

6 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

7 ____________________________________________________________

8 Reason for change:__________________________________________

9 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

10 ____________________________________________________________

11 Reason for change:__________________________________________

12 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

13 ____________________________________________________________

14 Reason for change:__________________________________________

15 Page No._____Line No._____Change to:________________________

16 ____________________________________________________________

17 Reason for change:__________________________________________

18

19

20 SIGNATURE:__________________________________DATE:___________

21 MICHAEL STEELE

22

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-3 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 31 of 31
FEC Exhibit 43 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-4 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-4 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 4
RNC000831

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-4 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 4
RNC000832

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-4 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 4
FEC Exhibit 44 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-5 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-5 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 3
RNC000822

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-5 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 45 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-6 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-6 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 3
RNC000847

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-6 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 46 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-7 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-7 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 4
RNC000844

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-7 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 4
RNC000845

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-7 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 4
FEC Exhibit 47 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 6
RNC000885

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 5 of 6
RNC000887

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-8 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 6 of 6
FEC Exhibit 48 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-9 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-9 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 3
RNC000897

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-9 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 49 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-10 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 18 of 18
FEC Exhibit 50 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-11 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-11 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 51 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-12 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 2
Dear ••• t, 

August 2, 2007 

PRN ATE RECEPTION WITH 

CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER, 

CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 

AUGUST 13TH AT 6:00 PM 

As a recent Chairman's Circle Club member, please join me at a for a private 

reception with San Diego's very own 2008 Presidential Candidate, Congressman Duncan 

Hunter, at a private reception on Monday, August 13 at 6:00 pm in Royal Palm Ballroom 

at the Town & Country Hotel and Convention Center, 500 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, 

CA92108. 

Your longstanding support as a Chairman's Club member has helped build one 

ofthe strongest county Republican organizations in the nation. Every single dollar 

enables us to help elect Republicans who put our ideas in to action, which is why I am 

personally asking you to renew your membership today, and attend this private 

Chairman's Circle reception. 

, your sustained commitment is critical to putting Republican ideas into 

action in San Diego County. With your steadfast support, we can continue to endorse, support 

and elect Republican candidates, build our powerful Republican Neighborhood Precinct 

Organization, and continue our critical voter registration programs. 

Warmest regards, 

/7~~- Tony Krvaric 

CHAIRMAN 

ps: Please renew your Chairman' Circle membership today. If you would 

like to speak to me personally before doing so, contact Ashley and she will 

set it up. I look forward to seeing you on the 13th• 

CRP-RPSD-58 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-12 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Civ. No. 08-1953 (BMK, RJL, RMC) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) NOTICE 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

NOTICE OF FILING UNDER SEAL 

Pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order dated March 10, 2009 (Docket No. 43), 

Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) hereby submits the following 

documents under seal: 

(1) The Commission’s unredacted Supplemented Statement of Undisputed Material 

Facts, which includes material that was redacted from paragraphs 6 and 14 of the 

electronically filed version of that document; and 

(2) FEC Exhibits 43A through 48A, which include material redacted from the 

electronically filed versions of FEC Exhibits 43 through 48, respectively. 

Courtesy copies of the sealed material are being delivered to each Judge’s Chambers, and 

additional copies are being sent by e-mail to counsel for Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Defendant Van 

Hollen. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-13 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: June 18, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 82-13 Filed 06/18/2009 Page 2 of 2