1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

PURSUING AMERICA’S GREATNESS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civ. No. 15-1217 (TSC) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ANSWER 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

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

to the Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by plaintiff Pursuing 

America’s Greatness (“PAG”). Any allegation not specifically responded to below is DENIED. 

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

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

Commission issued FEC Advisory Opinion 2015-04 (Collective Actions PAC), 2015 WL 

4480266 (July 16, 2015) (“CAP Advisory Opinion”), that the CAP Advisory Opinion applied an 

FEC regulation, 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a)-(b), but DENY the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

2. This paragraph summarizes plaintiff’s complaint, the allegations of which speak 

for themselves, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, DENY that the 

FEC has interpreted and applied a law in a manner that “abridges the freedom of speech and 

association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” 

3. The first sentence of this paragraph states legal conclusions and does not require a 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that political committees may make 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 17
2

independent expenditures and exercise First Amendment rights of speech and association. The 

phrase “independent political activities” is too vague to permit a response. The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in the second 

sentence of this paragraph. 

4. This paragraph states a legal conclusion and does not require a response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that political committees may make independent 

expenditures. 

5. ADMIT that PAG indicates on its FEC Statement of Organization that it is 

located in Arkansas. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit 

or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

6. ADMIT that, on or about March 11, 2015, PAG registered with the FEC as a 

political committee that has not been authorized by any candidate. ADMIT that PAG stated that 

it “intends to make independent expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow v. FEC, it therefore intends to raise 

funds in unlimited amounts. This committee will not use those funds to make contributions, 

whether direct, in-kind, or via coordinated communications, to federal candidates or 

committees.” FEC, Statement of Organization (PAG) at 1, 2, 5 (Mar. 11, 2015), 

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/823/15950859823/15950859823.pdf. The Commission is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in the second sentence of 

this paragraph. 

7. ADMIT that, as of the date of this filing, http://pagpac.com is the address of a 

website and that the website states that it is “PAID FOR BY PURSUING AMERICA’S 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 17
3

GREATNESS.” The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny whether that website is maintained by PAG. 

8. ADMIT that, as of the date of this filing, www.ilikemikehuckabee.com is a 

website and that the Facebook Page “I Like Mike Huckabee” is located at 

https://www.facebook.com/ilikemikehuckabee. The Commission is without knowledge or 

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

9. ADMIT that, as of the date and time of this filing, the “I Like Mike Huckabee” 

Facebook Page indicates that it has 181,456 “likes.” The Commission is without knowledge or 

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

10. ADMIT that Governor Mike Huckabee is a candidate for President of the United 

States in 2016. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

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

the allegations in this paragraph. 

12. ADMIT that, as of the date of this filing, the www.ilikemikehuckabee.com 

website and “I Like Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page do not include separate sections requesting 

contributions to PAG or other entities. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

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

13. ADMIT that a Twitter “handle” is another way of saying Twitter “username,” and 

that, according to Twitter, “[a] username is how [someone is] identified on Twitter, and is always 

preceded immediately by the @ symbol.” Twitter, The Twitter Glossary, 

https://support.twitter.com/articles/166337 (last visited October 1, 2015). ADMIT that 

@nytimes is the Twitter username of the New York Times and that @POTUS is the Twitter 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 17
4

username of President Obama. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient 

to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

14. ADMIT that Collective Actions PAC (“CAP”) has registered with the FEC as a 

political committee that has not been authorized by any candidate. ADMIT that CAP stated that 

it “intends to make independent expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow v. FEC, it therefore intends to raise 

funds in unlimited amounts. This committee will not use those funds to make contributions, 

whether direct, in-kind, or via coordinated communications, to federal candidates or 

committees.” FEC, Amended Statement of Organization (CAP) at 1, 2 (June 15, 2015), 

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/703/15031431703/15031431703.pdf. ADMIT that the second 

sentence of CAP’s advisory opinion request states: “Our goal, at the moment, is to help Sen. 

Bernie Sanders in his bid to win the Democratic nomination for President.” (Compl. Exh. 1 at 

1.) The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 

remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

15. ADMIT that CAP requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in a letter dated 

June 3, 2015. This paragraph summarizes CAP’s advisory opinion request, which speaks for 

itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that CAP’s 

advisory opinion request stated that it manages, for example, “www.RunBernieRun.com, and the 

corresponding Facebook Page and Twitter account” (Compl. Exh. 1 at 1); that CAP would not 

“ask for, or accept, donations. It also won’t solicit donations for [CAP]” (id.); that CAP “has a 

number of large donors who . . . hope to reach millions of voters and believe being active online 

is the way to achieve our goal” (id.); and that the question presented by CAP’s advisory opinion 

request was whether CAP could use “Senator [Bernie] Sanders’s name in the names of the 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 17
5

Committee’s websites or social media accounts if the Committee does not use those sites or 

accounts to solicit contributions to itself,” CAP Advisory Opinion, 2015 WL 4480266, at *1. 

16. ADMIT that the CAP Advisory Opinion is dated July 16, 2015 and that it was 

issued on or around that date. This paragraph summarizes the CAP Advisory Opinion, which 

speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the 

CAP Advisory Opinion contains the quoted sentence and that the Commission concluded that 

CAP could “not use Senator Sanders’s name in the names of the Committee’s websites or social 

media pages” even though CAP did not intend to solicit contributions to itself, for the reasons 

stated in the CAP Advisory Opinion, CAP Advisory Opinion, 2015 WL 4480266, at *1-3, but 

DENY that the remainder of this paragraph sets forth completely and accurately the reasons for 

the Commission’s decision, including its suggestions (a) that the Commission’s analysis 

exclusively focused on whether the names of CAP’s websites or social media pages “clearly 

express[ed] opposition to Senator Sanders,” and (b) that the “the titles/names of these webpages 

and social media accounts [we]re deemed offensive by the government.” 

17. ADMIT that political committees, including PAG, must comply with, inter alia, 

52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. ADMIT that FECA provides statutory 

penalties for violation of its provisions. ADMIT that organizations may be subject to such 

penalties if they violate FECA provisions or FEC regulations. DENY the remaining allegations 

in this paragraph, including the allegation that “organizations . . . now face the prospect of 

potential civil and criminal penalties if they speak through websites, Facebook pages, or other 

social media platforms.” 

18. The allegation that a decision by PAG on July 17, 2015 to “cease[] any further 

work on updating, maintaining, promoting or changing” the www.ilikemikehuckabee.com 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 5 of 17
6

website and “I Like Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page would suffice to bring these websites into 

compliance with 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4), 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, and the CAP Advisory Opinion is 

a legal conclusion and does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, DENY. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

19. ADMIT that PAG’s identification of its projects could lead to it being found to be 

in violation of FECA’s provisions or FEC regulations. DENY that the Commission has failed 

“to faithfully apply the First Amendment, FECA, FEC regulations, and controlling judicial 

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

the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

20. DENY. 

21. ADMIT that PAG has registered with the FEC as a political committee that has 

not been authorized by any candidate. ADMIT that PAG stated that it “intends to make 

independent expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow v. FEC, it therefore intends to raise funds in unlimited 

amounts. This committee will not use those funds to make contributions, whether direct, in-kind, 

or via coordinated communications, to federal candidates or committees.” FEC, Statement of 

Organization (PAG) at 1, 2, 5 (Mar. 11, 2015), 

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/823/15950859823/15950859823.pdf. DENY the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

22. This paragraph summarizes PAG’s complaint, the allegations of which speak for 

themselves, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, DENY that PAG is 

entitled to any of the relief it seeks. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 6 of 17
7

23. ADMIT that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. § 706 provide jurisdiction in the 

district court. DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph, including that 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 grants the Court jurisdiction. 

24. ADMIT that venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and that there 

is no real property at issue. ADMIT that PAG indicates on its FEC Statement of Organization 

that it is located in Arkansas, but the Commission is otherwise without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny whether PAG is “organized and resides in Arkansas.” 

25. ADMIT that PAG has registered with the FEC as a political committee that has 

not been authorized by any candidate and indicates on its FEC Statement of Organization that it 

is located in Arkansas. ADMIT that PAG stated that it “intends to make independent 

expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

decision in SpeechNow v. FEC, it therefore intends to raise funds in unlimited amounts. This 

committee will not use those funds to make contributions, whether direct, in-kind, or via 

coordinated communications, to federal candidates or committees.” FEC, Statement of 

Organization (PAG) at 1, 2, 5 (Mar. 11, 2015), 

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/823/15950859823/15950859823.pdf. The Commission is without 

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

26. ADMIT. 

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

the allegations in this paragraph. 

28. ADMIT that, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30108, CAP requested an advisory opinion 

from the FEC in a letter dated June 3, 2015. ADMIT that CAP’s advisory opinion request is 

attached as an exhibit to the Complaint, but DENY that it is Exhibit 2. This paragraph 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 7 of 17
8

summarizes CAP’s advisory opinion request, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the question presented by CAP’s advisory 

opinion request was whether CAP could use “Senator [Bernie] Sanders’s name in the names of 

the Committee’s websites or social media accounts if the Committee does not use those sites or 

accounts to solicit contributions to itself.” CAP Advisory Opinion, 2015 WL 4480266, at *1. 

29. ADMIT that the Commission accepted CAP’s advisory opinion request, 

designated the matter Advisory Opinion Request 2015-04, and posted it to the FEC’s website for 

public comment. 

30. ADMIT that the Commission issued a draft advisory opinion in response to 

CAP’s advisory opinion request in a memorandum dated July 13, 2015 prepared by the FEC’s 

Office of General Counsel. This paragraph summarizes the draft advisory opinion, which speaks 

for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the draft 

advisory opinion concluded that CAP could “not use Senator Sanders’s name in the names of the 

Committee’s websites or social media pages” for the reasons stated in the draft advisory opinion. 

31. ADMIT. 

32. This paragraph states a legal conclusion (based on hypothetical facts) and does 

not require a response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that 52 U.S.C. § 30108(c) 

permits “any person involved in any specific transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in 

all its material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory 

opinion is rendered” to rely upon an FEC advisory opinion in good faith. 

33. ADMIT that the Commission’s issuance of the CAP Advisory Opinion is 

complete. DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 8 of 17
9

34. This paragraph states a legal conclusion and does not require a response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that the www.ilikemikehuckabee.com website and “I Like 

Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page share the relevant material characteristics with the websites and 

social media accounts at issue in the CAP Advisory Opinion, given that the manner and degree 

of a special project’s fundraising is immaterial. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny whether PAG operates and maintains the 

www.ilikemikehuckabee.com website and “I Like Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page. 

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

the allegations in this paragraph. 

36. ADMIT that, as a political committee, PAG must comply with, inter alia, 52 

U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. ADMIT that FECA provides statutory penalties 

for violation of its provisions. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient 

to admit or deny whether PAG believes its activities are “wholly permissible and protected.” 

DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

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

whether the materials attached as Exhibit 4 to the Complaint exemplify PAG’s intended future 

communications. To the extent that this paragraph suggests that the materials attached as Exhibit 

4 have not yet been publicly “communicated,” DENY. 

38. ADMIT that, as of the date of this filing, the www.ilikemikehuckabee.com 

website and “I Like Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page presently exist. The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

39. DENY. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 9 of 17
10

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

whether PAG has the “necessary time to plan and carry out its activities.” The phrase 

“Presidential primary season” is too vague to allow a response. DENY the remaining allegations 

in this paragraph. 

41. ADMIT that, as a political committee, PAG must comply with, inter alia, 52 

U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. ADMIT that FECA provides statutory penalties 

for violation of its provisions. ADMIT that PAG’s identification of its projects could lead to it 

being found to be in violation of FECA’s provisions or FEC regulations. The allegations that 52 

U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 are “speech restrictions” and that PAG’s activities 

are “materially indistinguishable” from “speech that the FEC has concluded . . . is 

impermissible” are legal conclusions and do not require responses. To the extent responses are 

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

deny whether “PAG believes” that 52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) and 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 “violate the 

First Amendment and FECA.” 

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

whether PAG believes that it will be subject to an FEC or U.S. Department of Justice 

investigation. The allegation that such beliefs, if held, are “reasonable” is a legal conclusion and 

does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that PAG’s 

identification of its projects could lead to it being found to be in violation of FECA’s provisions 

or FEC regulations. This paragraph summarizes the CAP Advisory Opinion, which speaks for 

itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, DENY that PAG’s 

summary sets forth completely and accurately the effect of the CAP Advisory Opinion, including 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 10 of 17
11

the suggestion that whether the “content” of a “website, Facebook page, or Twitter account” 

“clearly opposes” a candidate is relevant in the context of PAG’s challenge. 

43. DENY. 

Text beneath “Count 1” heading. DENY. 

44. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required, ADMIT that PAG may make independent expenditures in 

support of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy for President of the United States. 

45. This paragraph quotes, summarizes, or characterizes portions of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30102(e)(4), 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, and FEC advisory opinions, which speak for themselves, and 

requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the cited materials 

contain the quoted phrases, but DENY that the quoted selections and summaries set forth 

completely and accurately the full content of these provisions and advisory opinions. 

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

what activities PAG may engage in. ADMIT that, as a political committee, PAG is subject to 

certain disclosure and disclaimer requirements. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to 

which no response is required. The described hypothetical activity is too vague to allow a 

response. 

47. The first sentence of this paragraph summarizes the CAP Advisory Opinion, 

which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT 

that the Commission concluded in the CAP Advisory Opinion that CAP could “not use Senator 

Sanders’s name in the names of the Committee’s websites or social media pages” even though 

CAP did not intend to solicit contributions to itself, for the reasons stated in the CAP Advisory 

Opinion. CAP Advisory Opinion, 2015 WL 4480266, at *1-3. The allegation in the second 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 11 of 17
12

sentence of this paragraph that PAG’s “pro-Huckabee website and Facebook page are materially 

indistinguishable from those that were the subject of the” CAP Advisory Opinion, is a legal 

conclusion and does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that 

the www.ilikemikehuckabee.com website and “I Like Mike Huckabee” Facebook Page share the 

relevant material characteristics with the websites and social media accounts at issue in the CAP 

Advisory Opinion, given that the manner and degree of a special project’s fundraising is 

immaterial. The allegation that the “FEC would conclude that PAG may not maintain a website 

at the URL www.ilikemikehuckabee.com or a Facebook page titled ‘I Like Mike Huckabee’” is a 

legal conclusion and does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT 

that PAG’s identification of its projects could lead to it being found to be in violation of FECA’s 

provisions or FEC regulations. 

48. This paragraph summarizes versions of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a)-(b), which speak 

for themselves, and requires no response. It also states legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT the second and third (parenthetical) 

sentences; that the original version of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14(a)-(b) stated: 

(a) The name of each authorized committee shall include the name 

of the candidate who authorized such committee. Except as 

provided in subsection (b) of this section, any political committee 

which is not an authorized committee shall not include the name of 

any candidate in its name. 

(b)(1) A delegate committee, as defined at 11 CFR 100.5(a)(5), 

shall include the word “delegate(s)” in its name and may also 

include in its name the name of the presidential candidate which 

the delegate committee supports. 

(2) A political committee established solely to draft an individual 

or to encourage him or her to become a candidate may include the 

name of such individual in the name of the committee provided the 

committee’s name clearly indicates that it is a draft committee. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 12 of 17
13

FEC, Explanation and Justification of Regulations Concerning January 8, 1980 Amendments to 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 45 Fed. Reg. 15,080, 15,108 (Mar. 7, 1980); that the 

FEC revised 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 in 1992, FEC, Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of 

Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 57 Fed. Reg. 31,424 (July 15, 1992); and that 

the fourth sentence accurately quotes a portion of a sentence from FEC, Special Fundraising 

Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,267, 

17,267 (Apr. 12, 1994); but DENY the remaining allegations in this paragraph, including the 

characterization that prior to 1992, “the FEC took the position that the PAC naming restriction at 

2 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(4) [sic] meant what it said.” 

49. This paragraph summarizes the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Common Cause v. FEC, 

842 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1988), which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that this paragraph accurately quotes portions of the opinion, but 

DENY that PAG’s characterizations and presentation of selected portions of the opinion sets 

forth completely and accurately the D.C. Circuit’s stated reasons for its decision. 

50. ADMIT that the FEC revised 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 in 1992 through a rulemaking. 

FEC, Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized 

Committees, 57 Fed. Reg. 31,424 (July 15, 1992). This paragraph summarizes the reasons and 

language of the FEC’s 1992 revision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, which speak for themselves, and 

requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the revision provided 

that “no unauthorized committee shall include the name of any candidate in its name. For 

purposes of this paragraph, ‘name’ includes any name under which a committee conducts 

activities, such as solicitations or other communications, including a special project name or 

other designation,” id. at 31,426, that the FEC’s explanation and justification contained the 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 13 of 17
14

quotation in this paragraph’s fifth sentence, but DENY that PAG’s summary sets forth 

completely and accurately the FEC’s explanation and justification for, or the effect of, the 1992 

revision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. 

51. ADMIT that the FEC revised 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 in 1994 through a rulemaking 

that was prompted by a petition for rulemaking from Citizens Against David Duke. FEC, 

Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by Unauthorized Committees, 

59 Fed. Reg. 17,267 (Apr. 12, 1994). This paragraph summarizes the reasons and language of 

the FEC’s 1994 revision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, which speak for themselves, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the revision provided a new 

exception providing that “[a]n unauthorized political committee may include the name of a 

candidate in the title of a special project name or other communication if the title clearly and 

unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate,” id. at 17,269, that the FEC’s 

explanation and justification contained the quoted selections, but DENY that PAG’s summary 

sets forth completely and accurately the FEC’s explanation and justification for, or the effect of, 

the 1994 revision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. 

52. This paragraph purports to summarize the FEC’s revisions of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14 

and FEC advisory opinions, which speak for themselves, and require no response. To the extent 

a response is required, ADMIT that the FEC revised 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, including in 1992 and 

1994, that unauthorized political committees may not use any candidate’s names in their names, 

and that unauthorized political committees may not use any candidate’s names in the names of 

their special projects, such as a website, unless the title of the project clearly and unambiguously 

shows opposition to the named candidate, but DENY the remaining allegations and 

characterizations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 14 of 17
15

53. ADMIT that the FEC’s explanation and justification for revising 11 C.F.R. 

§ 102.14 in 1994 included the following sentence: “This rule is narrowly designed to further the 

legitimate governmental interest in minimizing the possibility of fraud and abuse in this 

situation.” FEC, Special Fundraising Projects and Other Use of Candidate Names by 

Unauthorized Committees, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,267, 17,268 (Apr. 12, 1994). DENY that this 

sentence sets forth completely and accurately the FEC’s explanation and justification for the 

1994 revision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.14. 

54. DENY. 

Text beneath “Count 2” heading. DENY. 

55. This paragraph incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-54 of the Complaint. The 

Commission likewise incorporates by reference its preceding responses. 

56. DENY. 

57. DENY. 

58. This paragraph quotes from Supreme Court opinions, which speak for themselves, 

and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the decisions cited 

contain the quoted text, but DENY that these quotations set forth completely and accurately the 

applicable law of prior restraint. 

59. This paragraph purports to summarize Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 

(2010), which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that Citizens United contains the quoted selection, but DENY the remaining allegations 

in this paragraph, including the notion that the regulatory scheme under discussion in Citizens 

United was a prior restraint. See Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 335 (the scheme was “not . . . a 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 15 of 17
16

prior restraint on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not 

compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place”). 

60. DENY. 

61. DENY. 

Text beneath “Count 3” heading. DENY. 

62. This paragraph incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-61 of the Complaint. The 

Commission likewise incorporates by reference its preceding responses. 

63. This paragraph quotes, summarizes, or characterizes portions of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30102(e)(4), 11 C.F.R. § 102.14, and FEC advisory opinions, which speak for themselves, and 

requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the cited materials 

contain the quoted phrases, but DENY that the quoted selections and summaries set forth 

completely and accurately the full content of these provisions and advisory opinions. 

64. This paragraph summarizes the CAP Advisory Opinion, which speaks for itself, 

and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that unauthorized 

political committees may not use any candidate’s names in their names and that unauthorized 

political committees may not use any candidate’s names in the names of their special projects, 

such as a website, unless the title of the project clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to 

the named candidate, but DENY the remaining allegations and characterizations in this 

paragraph. 

65-68. These paragraphs quote from the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of 

Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), which speaks for itself, and require no responses. To the extent 

responses are required, ADMIT that Reed contains the text quoted in these paragraphs, but 

DENY that PAG’s characterizations and presentation of selected portions of the opinion sets 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 16 of 17
17

forth completely and accurately the Supreme Court’s stated reasons for its decision. DENY that 

the regulation invalidated in Reed was similar to the name identification requirement PAG 

challenges and otherwise DENY the remaining allegations in these paragraphs. 

69. DENY. 

70. DENY. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

1-5. The Court should deny plaintiff’s requested relief. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) 

Acting General Counsel 

dpetalas@fec.gov 

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

Deputy General Counsel — Law 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

October 1, 2015 

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

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

echlopak@fec.gov 

/s/ Charles Kitcher 

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

Attorney 

ckitcher@fec.gov 

 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

Case 1:15-cv-01217-TSC Document 26 Filed 10/01/15 Page 17 of 17