UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 

 

 ) 

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC ) 

INSTABILITY CAUSED BY ) 

DEMOCRATS, et al., ) 

 ) Civ. No. 1:14-397 (AJT-IDD) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) ANSWER 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 

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

to plaintiffs’ complaint (Docket No. 1). Any allegation not specifically responded to below is 

DENIED. 

The complaint’s three introductory paragraphs (pp. 1-2) and the headings used 

throughout the complaint are statements of law to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required: Admit that these portions of the complaint summarize or characterize 

certain provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-57, which 

speak for themselves. Deny plaintiffs’ characterizations of the operation and effect of these 

FECA provisions and deny that the provisions are unconstitutional. 

The Commission responds as follows to the numbered paragraphs of the complaint: 

1. Admit that this is a constitutional challenge to a federal statute and that this Court 

generally has jurisdiction over such challenges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Should this Court follow the reasoning of Wagner v. FEC, 717 F.3d 1007 (D.C. 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 232
2

Cir. 2013), jurisdiction over the claims of plaintiff Niger Innis would potentially 

be available only pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h, and not under section 1331. Deny 

that this Court has jurisdiction over this case to the extent plaintiffs lack standing 

and to the extent plaintiffs’ claims are moot. 

2. Admit that to the extent jurisdiction exists in this Court, venue is proper under 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). 

3. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, admit that plaintiff Stop Reckless 

Economic Instability caused by Democrats (“Stop PAC”) registered with the FEC 

as a nonconnected political committee, but the Commission is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to admit or deny whether Stop PAC is in fact 

nonconnected. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, admit that Stop PAC has 

informed the FEC that its address is in Alexandria, Virginia, but the Commission 

is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny whether Stop 

PAC’s principal place of business is in Alexandria, Virginia. As to the second 

sentence of this paragraph, deny that Stop PAC filed its registration form with the 

FEC on February 24, 2014, and admit the remainder of the sentence. Plaintiff 

Stop PAC registered with the Commission on March 11, 2014, although the 

registration form was dated February 24, 2014. 

4. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, admit that Niger Innis is a resident of 

North Las Vegas, Nevada. Deny the second sentence of this paragraph insofar as 

the election for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives 

from Nevada’s fourth congressional district took place on June 10, 2014, and 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 233
3

Innis did not receive the nomination. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the third sentence of this paragraph. 

5. Admit. 

6. As to the first sentence of this paragraph, admit that plaintiff Tea Party Leadership 

Fund (“Tea Party Fund”) has listed Alexandria, Virginia as its address on the 

registration form it filed with the FEC; however, the Commission is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny whether the Tea Party 

Fund’s principal place of business is in Alexandria, Virginia. Admit the second 

sentence of this paragraph. 

7. Admit. 

8. Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. As to the second sentence of this 

paragraph, admit that the Commission is charged with civilly enforcing FECA, as 

amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. L. 

No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002). 

9. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that FECA permits the formation of a 

“political committee” as defined by 2 U.S.C. § 431(4). 

10. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that in FECA the term “person,” as defined 

by 2 U.S.C. § 431(11), generally includes a political committee. 

11. Admit. 

12. This paragraph and its subparagraphs are statements of law to which no response 

is required. To the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph and 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID# 234
4

its subparagraphs summarize certain provisions of FECA, which speak for 

themselves. 

13. This paragraph and its subparagraphs are statements of law to which no response 

is required. To the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph and 

its subparagraphs summarize a provision of FECA, which speaks for itself. 

14. This paragraph and its subparagraphs are statements of law to which no response 

is required. To the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph and 

its subparagraphs summarize certain provisions of FECA, which speak for 

themselves. 

15. This paragraph and its table contain statements of law to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph and its 

table attempt to summarize provisions of FECA, which speak for themselves. 

Deny this paragraph and its table to the extent they suggest that FECA’s 

contribution limits for multicandidate political committees apply to political 

committees that have received contributions from only 50 persons. Deny this 

paragraph and its table to the extent they suggest that a political committee must 

be registered with the FEC for “more than” six months before becoming a 

multicandidate political committee. 

16. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph summarizes a provision 

of FECA, which speaks for itself. 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 4 of 14 PageID# 235
5

17. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph summarizes a provision 

of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which speaks for itself. 

18. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph attempts to 

summarize provisions of FECA, which speak for themselves. Deny this 

paragraph to the extent it suggests that the amount of time that a political 

committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may become a multicandidate 

political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that the 

contribution limits applicable to political committees are “discriminatory” and 

that a multicandidate political committee is “identically situated” to a political 

committee that is not a multicandidate political committee. 

19. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph attempts to 

summarize provisions of FECA, which speak for themselves. Deny this 

paragraph to the extent it suggests that the amount of time that a political 

committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may become a multicandidate 

political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that a 

multicandidate political committee is “identically situated” to a political 

committee that is not a multicandidate political committee. 

20. Deny the first sentence of this paragraph. See Response to Paragraph 3. As to the 

second sentence of the paragraph, admit that Stop PAC has more than 150 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID# 236
6

contributors and has made contributions to at least five candidates for federal 

office, including plaintiff Innis. 

21. Admit the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this paragraph 

is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response to 

the second sentence of this paragraph is required: Admit that Stop PAC is not a 

multicandidate political committee and may contribute up to $2,600 per election 

to any federal candidate. 

22. Admit that Stop PAC contributed $2,600 to Niger Innis. Admit that Innis ran for 

the Republican nomination for Congress in Nevada’s fourth congressional district 

and did not receive the nomination. 

23. Admit that Nevada’s congressional primary election was held on June 10, 2014. 

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

this paragraph. The Commission notes that Stop PAC reported to the FEC on 

April 15, 2014, that it had $1,845 in cash on hand as of March 31, 2014. 

25. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required: Admit that Stop PAC may not contribute more 

than a total of $2,600 to Innis in connection with the June 10, 2014 Nevada 

primary election. Admit that multicandidate political committees are permitted to 

contribute $5,000 per election to any federal candidate, but deny that Stop PAC 

will qualify as a multicandidate political committee on August 24, 2014. See

Response to Paragraph 3. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remainder of this paragraph. 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 6 of 14 PageID# 237
7

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

this paragraph. 

27. Admit that Innis has accepted Stop PAC’s contribution of $2,600. The 

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

remainder of this paragraph. 

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

this paragraph. 

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

whether Stop PAC’s contributors live in or near Nevada. Deny the remainder of 

this paragraph. 

30. Admit. 

31. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no response is required. To 

the extent a response is required: Admit that Innis could face civil penalties under 

2 U.S.C. § 437g if he solicited a contribution in excess of $2,600 from Stop PAC 

in connection with the Nevada primary election. Admit that Innis could face 

criminal penalties under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d) if he “knowingly and willfully” 

violated FECA. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient 

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

32. Admit that the Tea Party Fund registered as a political committee with the FEC on 

May 9, 2012, and that it has made contributions to federal candidates. The 

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

remainder of this paragraph. 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID# 238
8

33. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no responses are required. To 

the extent responses are required: Admit that the Tea Party Fund is a 

multicandidate political committee and is thus subject to FECA’s contribution 

limits for multicandidate political committees, which speak for themselves. Deny 

this paragraph to the extent it suggests that the length of time a political 

committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may become a multicandidate 

political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that a political 

committee must be registered with the FEC for “more than” six months before 

becoming a multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent 

it suggests that a political committee may become a multicandidate political 

committee solely due to the amount of time it has been registered with the FEC. 

34. Admit. 

35. Admit that the first sentence of this paragraph was accurate as of April 30, 2014. 

Admit that if the Tea Party Fund were to contribute an additional $5,000 to 

plaintiff Alexandria Republican City Committee (“Alexandria Committee”) in 

2014, the Tea Party Fund then would have contributed a total of $10,000 to the 

Alexandria Committee in 2014. The Commission is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to admit or deny the remainder of this paragraph. 

36. This paragraph contains statements of law to which no responses are required. To 

the extent responses are required: Admit that the Tea Party Fund may not legally 

contribute as much to the Alexandria Committee and the National Republican 

Senatorial Committee as a political committee that is not a multicandidate 

committee. Deny this paragraph’s characterization of FECA’s contribution limits 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 239
9

as “discriminatory.” Deny this paragraph’s suggestion that the Tea Party Fund or 

any other multicandidate political committee is “identical” in “all material 

respects” to a political committee that is not a multicandidate political committee. 

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

this paragraph. 

38. Admit that Tea Party Fund contributors live in a number of different states. Deny 

the remainder of this paragraph. 

39. This paragraph re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in paragraphs 1-38 of plaintiffs’ complaint, and the Commission therefore 

incorporates by reference its responses to those paragraphs. 

40. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that limits on contributions to candidates 

operate in an area of fundamental First Amendment freedoms, but deny the limits 

impose more than a marginal restriction on First Amendment rights. 

41. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph characterizes the holding 

of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which 

speaks for itself. 

42. Deny. 

43. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that 

the length of time a political committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may 

become a multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 240
10

suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may become a 

multicandidate political committee. 

44. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that 

the length of time a political committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may 

become a multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it 

suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may become a 

multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests 

that multicandidate political committees are “materially identical” to political 

committees that are not multicandidate political committees. 

45. Deny. 

46. Deny. 

47. This paragraph re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in paragraphs 1-46 of plaintiffs’ complaint, and the Commission therefore 

incorporates by reference its responses to those paragraphs. 

48. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph attempts to summarize 

certain provisions of FECA, which speak for themselves. Deny this paragraph to 

the extent it suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may 

become a multicandidate political committee. 

49. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit this paragraph attempts to summarize certain 

provisions of FECA, which speak for themselves. Deny this paragraph to the 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 241
11

extent it suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may 

become a multicandidate political committee. 

50. Deny. 

51. Deny. 

52. This paragraph re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained 

in paragraphs 1-51 of plaintiffs’ complaint, and the Commission therefore 

incorporates by reference its responses to those paragraphs. 

53. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that limits on contributions to candidates 

operate in an area of fundamental First Amendment freedoms, but deny the limits 

impose more than a marginal restriction on First Amendment rights. 

54. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Admit that this paragraph characterizes the holding 

of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which 

speaks for itself. 

55. Deny. 

56. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that 

the length of time a political committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may 

become a multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it 

suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may become a 

multicandidate political committee. 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 242
12

57. This paragraph is a statement of law to which no response is required. To the 

extent a response is required: Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests that 

the length of time a political committee has “existed” is relevant to when it may 

become a multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it 

suggests that a political committee with only 50 contributors may become a 

multicandidate political committee. Deny this paragraph to the extent it suggests 

that multicandidate political committees are “materially identical” to political 

committees that are not multicandidate political committees. 

58. Deny. 

59. Deny. 

THE COMPLAINT’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1-4. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief requested or to any other relief. 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

2. Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. 

3. Plaintiffs lack standing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson* 

Deputy General Counsel – Law 

Kevin Deeley* 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

Harry J. Summers* 

Assistant General Counsel 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 243
13

 Holly J. Baker* 

 Kevin P. Hancock* 

 Attorneys 

 /s/ 

Esther D. Gyory (VA Bar #76826) 

EGyory@fec.gov 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

June 16, 2014 (202) 694-1650 

* Admitted pro hac vice 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID# 244
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 

 

 ) 

STOP RECKLESS ECONOMIC ) 

INSTABILITY CAUSED BY ) 

DEMOCRATS, et al., ) 

 ) Civ. No. 1:14-397 (AJT-IDD) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 16, 2014, 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 to 

the following counsel for plaintiff: 

Dan Backer, Esq. 

DB Capitol Strategies PLLC 

717 King Street, Suite 300 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

DBacker@DBCapitolStrategies.com 

 /s/ 

Esther D. Gyory (VA Bar # 76826) 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Telephone: (202) 694-1650 

Fax: (202) 219-0260 

EGyory@fec.gov 

Case 1:14-cv-00397-AJT-IDD Document 31 Filed 06/16/14 Page 14 of 14 PageID# 245