UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION 

THE REAL TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA, 

INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 3:08-cv-00483-JRS 

) 

) 

) ANSWER 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT 

FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (FEC or Commission) submits this answer to 

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.’s (RTAO) Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief. Any allegation not specifically responded to below is DENIED. 

1. The first sentence of this paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterization of the 

complaint, which speaks for itself, but the Commission DENIES that the three 

challenged regulations or enforcement policy “restrict RTAO’s constitutionallyprotected ‘issue advocacy.’” The second and third sentences recite language from a 

judicial decision, which speaks for itself. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in the fourth, fifth, and sixth 

sentences. 

2. This paragraph characterizes the legal claims and relief requested in the complaint. 

This characterization requires no response. 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 9
3. DENY that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims made in this complaint. DENY 

that the Commission’s enforcement policy is reviewable under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, as the policy is not final agency action. 

4. ADMIT that venue is proper in this Court. 

5. ADMIT that RTAO is a nonprofit Virginia corporation. The Commission is without 

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

paragraph. 

6. ADMIT that the Commission is the federal government agency with civil 

enforcement authority over the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and that it is 

located in Washington, DC. ADMIT that the Commission promulgated the 

regulations and explained the enforcement policy at issue in this case, but because of 

this paragraph’s vague use of the term “adopted,” the Commission is unable to admit 

or deny that part of the paragraph. 

7. ADMIT that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is an executive department of the 

United States, with the Attorney General as its head, and that it is headquartered in 

Washington, DC. ADMIT that DOJ has control over all criminal prosecutions in 

which the United States has an interest, including criminal enforcement authority over 

the federal laws at issue in this case. DENY that DOJ has “control over all...civil 

suits in which the United States has an interest.” 

8. ADMIT. 

9. ADMIT that RTAO has registered with the Internal Revenue Service to be considered 

as an organization subject to 26 U.S.C. § 527. To the extent this paragraph contains 

2

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 2 of 9
conclusions of law, no response is necessary. The Commission is without knowledge 

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

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

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

12. This paragraph recites plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation, which speak for 

themselves. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

admit or deny the other allegations in this paragraph. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent this paragraph characterizes plaintiff’s 

Articles of Incorporation or contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

3

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 3 of 9
17. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

21. DENY that RTAO is chilled from proceeding with its activities, and DENY that the 

“Change” ad is express advocacy under 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b). The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

22. DENY that RTAO is chilled from proceeding with its activities. The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

23. DENY that RTAO is chilled from proceeding with its activities. To the extent this 

paragraph characterizes communications between DOJ and Democracy 21, those 

documents speak for themselves. 

24. DENY that RTAO’s fears are reasonable, that the “Change” ad is express advocacy 

under 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b), and that the fundraising communication in the 

4

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 4 of 9
complaint solicits “contributions” under 11 C.F.R. § 100.57. The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of 

law, no response is necessary. 

25. DENY that RTAO’s fears are reasonable, that the “Change” ad is a “prohibited 

electioneering communication” under 11 C.F.R. § 114.15, and that the Commission’s 

regulations are vague or overbroad. The Commission is without knowledge or 

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

To the extent the paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. 

26. DENY. 

27. The Commission incorporates by reference all responses contained in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

28. This paragraph recites 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b), which speaks for itself. 

29. DENY that 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The 

remaining allegations describe judicial decisions, which speak for themselves. 

30. This paragraph describes a judicial decision and contains conclusions of law, to 

which no response is necessary. 

31. This paragraph describes judicial decisions and contains conclusions of law, to which 

no response is necessary. The paragraph also contains plaintiff’s characterization of 

an FEC statement, which speaks for itself. 

32. DENY that 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b) is beyond the Commission’s statutory authority and 

DENY that the regulation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. This paragraph 

5

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 5 of 9
describes judicial decisions and contains conclusions of law, to which no response is 

necessary. 

33. DENY. 

34. The Commission incorporates by reference all responses contained in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

35. This paragraph recites 11 C.F.R. § 100.57(a), which speaks for itself. 

36. DENY that 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. This 

paragraph describes judicial decisions and contains conclusions of law, to which no 

response is necessary. 

37. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterization of a judicial decision, which 

speaks for itself. 

38. DENY that 11 C.F.R. § 100.57 exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority and 

DENY that the regulation is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The remainder of 

this paragraph contains conclusions of law, to which no response is necessary. 

39. DENY. 

40. The Commission incorporates by reference all responses contained in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

41. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of Commission regulations and 

policies, which speak for themselves. DENY that “any flaws” in the Commission’s 

regulations are “fatal to the FEC’s PAC status enforcement policy.” 

42. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of Commission statements as to 

the enforcement of FECA, which speak for themselves. DENY that the FEC’s 

enforcement policy as to political committee status is vague or overbroad. 

6

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 6 of 9
43. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of judicial decisions and 

Commission statements as to the enforcement of FECA, which all speak for 

themselves. DENY that there is “no authority” for the Commission’s enforcement 

policy as to political committee status and the “major purpose” test. 

44. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of Commission statements as to 

the enforcement of FECA, which speak for themselves. 

45. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of Commission statements as to 

the enforcement of FECA, which speak for themselves. DENY that the 

Commission’s enforcement policy is unconstitutional or otherwise impermissible. 

46. This paragraph describes judicial decisions and contains conclusions of law, to which 

no response is necessary. DENY that the Commission’s enforcement policy is 

unconstitutional or otherwise impermissible. 

47. DENY. 

48. The Commission incorporates by reference all responses contained in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

49. This paragraph recites 11 C.F.R. § 114.15, which speaks for itself. 

50. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of judicial decisions and 

Commission regulations, which speak for themselves. DENY that 11 C.F.R. 

§ 114.15(c) is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. 

51. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of judicial decisions, which 

speak for themselves. 

7

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 7 of 9
52. This paragraph contains plaintiff’s characterizations of a judicial decision and 

Commission regulations, which speak for themselves. DENY that 11 C.F.R. § 114.15 

is unconstitutional or beyond the Commission’s statutory authority. 

53. DENY. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff’s claims are not justiciable. 

2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ 

Audra Hale-Maddox, Attorney, ahale-maddox@fec.gov 

VA Bar No. 46929 

Thomasenia P. Duncan, General Counsel, tduncan@fec.gov 

David Kolker, Associate General Counsel, dkolker@fec.gov 

Harry J. Summers, Assistant General Counsel, hsummers@fec.gov 

Holly J. Baker, Attorney, hbaker@fec.gov 

Adav Noti, Attorney, anoti@fec.gov 

Claire N. Rajan, Attorney, crajan@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

September 29, 2008 

8

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 29th day of September, 2008, I will electronically file the 

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification 

of such filing (NEF) to the following: 

Michael Boos, michael.boos@gte.net 

Attorney & Counselor at Law 

4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 313 

Fairfax, VA 22030 

James Bopp, Jr., jboppjr@aol.com 

Barry Alan Bostrom, bbostrom@bopplaw.com 

Clayton James Callen, ccallen@bopplaw.com 

Richard Eugene Coleson, rcoleson@bopplaw.com 

Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom 

1 South 6th St. 

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 

John Richard Griffiths, john.griffiths@usdoj.gov 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 

Post Office Box 883 

Washington, DC 20044 

Debra Jean Prillaman, debra.prillaman@usdoj.gov 

Office Of The U.S. Attorney 

600 East Main Street, Suite 1800 

Richmond, VA 23219 

_____________/s/____________________ 

Audra Hale-Maddox 

VA Bar No. 46929 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

ahale-maddox@fec.gov 

Case 3:08-cv-00483-JRS Document 78 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 9 of 9