' 

I UNIT 

t=O~ ( ;;;, 

~ 

i'l 

I --4., 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

~, STAf~S COUAf OF APPEALS I 

iAICi OF CfJLUMI!IA ~IROUIT 

1 

ocr 17 JD12 

J 

~liOrttv~o-

-

mntteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peal~ 

for tbe 

iJBt~trttt of QColumbta QCtrtutt 

GARY E. JOHNSO N;JAMESP.GRAY CaseNo.12- 12-1418 

and GARY JOHNS ON 2012, INC., 

Petitioners 

vs. 

FEDERAL ELECTI 

and UNITED STAT 

Respondents. 

ON COMMISSION, 

ES OF AMERICA 

EMERGENCY 

MAN 

MOTION FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION, WRIT OF 

DAMUS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §900 1, et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Petitioners Gary E. 

ray and Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. respectfully file the following 

or a mandatory injunction, Writ of Mandamus, or other 

Johnson, James P. G 

emergency motion :D 

appropriate relief, di recting Defendant to immediately disburse to Petitioners 

$747,115.34 in pre-general election campaign funding to which Petitioners are 

statutorily entitled. 

Petitioners fil e the present motion on the grounds that the funding to which 

Petitioners are entitl ed is only available prior to the general election, which is 

scheduled to take pl ace in mere three weeks' time, on November 6, 2012. Defendant 

denied Petitioners' a pplication for said funds, and unless the funds are received in 

time to be spent prio r to the election, Petitioners will be irreparably harmed. Oral 

argument is also req uested. 

1 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 1 of 16
1 

2 

3 

4 

I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioners seek the appropriate relief that would direct Defendant to 

5 immediately disburse to Petitioners pre-general election campaign funding in the 

6 amount of$747,115.34, to which Petitioners are statutorily entitled. Specifically, 

7 Petitioners Johnson and Gray, as the respective Presidential and Vice-Presidential 

8 nominees of the Libertarian party, qualify as third party candidates to receive a 

9 certain amount of pre-general election funding under 26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)(A). 

1 0 Without regard to the plain language of this statute, Defendant has refused to provide 

11 said funding to Petitioners. An immediate judicial determination of this dispute is 

12 thus necessary, as the funds to which Petitioners are entitled apply only to pre13 election activity, and the general election is scheduled for November 6, 2012. 

14 For these and other reasons set forth more fully below, Petitioners request the 

15 issuance of a mandatory injunction or in the alternative, a writ of mandate, or other 

16 appropriate relief directing Defendant to immediately disburse to Petitioners the 

17 statutorily proscribed amount of pre-general election funding to which Petitioners are 

18 entitled. 

19 

20 

II. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

21 Petitioner Gary E. Johnson is the former Governor of the State ofNew Mexico, 

22 a resident of that state, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party for the office of 

23 President of the United States. (Declaration of Gray at~ 3.) Petitioner James P. Gray 

24 is a retired judge of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 

25 Orange, and is the nominee of the Libertarian Party for Vice President of the United 

26 States. (Declaration of Gray at~ 3.) Their campaign committee is Petitioner Gary 

27 Johnson 2012, Inc., and it is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Declaration of Gray at~ 

28 2 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 2 of 16
1 3.) The names of Johnson and Gray will appear this November as candidates for 

2 President and Vice President on the ballots of not less than 4 7 states, and 

3 confirmation of the same has been received from those states, and from the District of 

4 Columbia. (Declaration of Gray at~ 3 .) These jurisdictions have 495 combined votes 

5 in the electoral college. (Declaration of Gray at~ 3.) 

6 Defendant Federal Election Committee is the government agency with the 

7 obligation under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26. U.S.C. §9001, et 

8 seq. to disburse pre-general election federal funds to candidates. (Declaration of Gray 

9 at~ 2.) 

10 The general election for the offices of President and Vice President of the 

11 United States is scheduled to take place on November 6, 2012. (Declaration of Gray 

12 at~ 10.) On May 8, 2012, in order to further their campaign efforts, Petitioners 

13 applied via letter to Defendant for public pre-general election funding, as eligible 

14 third party candidates under 26 U.S.C. §9004(a)(2)(A). (Declaration of Gray at~ 10, 

15 Exhibit 1.) At Defendant's request, Petitioners applied for the same funding under 

16 cover of a separate letter on June 11,2012. (Declaration of Gray at~ 11, Exhibit 2.) 

17 Also at Defendant's request, Petitioners subsequently sent Defendant a Letter 

18 Agreement in connection with their funding applications. (Declaration of Gray at~ 

19 11, Exhibit 3.) 

20 On August 6, 2012, Defendant notified Petitioner of its Initial Determination 

21 on Eligibility and Entitlement, concluding that Petitioners were not entitled to pre22 election public funds. (Declaration of Gray at~ 12, Exhibit 4.) On September 18, 

23 2012, less than two months before the general election, Defendant released its Final 

24 Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement, which echoed its earlier conclusion that 

25 Petitioners do not meet the eligibility requirements to qualify for the requested 

26 funding. (Declaration of Gray at~ 12, Exhibit 5.) 

27 

28 3 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 3 of 16
1 Officially determined by Defendant on September 18, 2012, to be ineligible for 

2 pre-general election campaign funding just weeks before the general election, 

3 Petitioners filed suit in this court to obtain a judicial determination of the dispute 

4 between the parties, and to direct Defendant to disburse the requested funds. 

5 (Declaration of Gray at ~ 13.) Due to the exigency of Petitioners' situation, this 

6 emergency motion is brought. 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

III. 

COMPELLING REASONS JUSTIFY PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR RELIEF AS 

DEFENDANT HAS WRONGFULLY DENIED PRE ELECTION FUNDING TO 

WHICH PETITIONERS ARE STATUTORILY ENTITLED. 

The Presidential Election Fund Act ("the Act") was enacted in the late-1960's 

13 to provide for federal funding of presidential general election campaigns. 

14 (Declaration of Gray at~ 4.) The Act provides for funding for not only the two 

15 major-party candidates, but for third party candidates as well. (Declaration of Gray at 

16 ~ 4.) Funding is available, under specified circumstances, both prior to the general 

17 election and, separately, after the general election. (Declaration of Gray at~ 4.) In the 

18 instant case, Petitioners have applied to receive the former, which is referred to herein 

19 as "pre-general election funding," (or simply "pre-election funding.") (Declaration of 

20 Gray at~ 4.) 

21 On May 5, 2012, Petitioner Johnson received the nomination of the Libertarian 

22 Party for President of the United States, and Petitioner Gray received the nomination 

23 of the Libertarian Party for Vice President of the United States. (Declaration of Gray 

24 at~ 5.) The Libertarian Party, which was founded in 1971, is the third-largest 

25 political party in the United States. (Declaration of Gray at~ 5.) In the 30 states of the 

26 union where voters are allowed to register by party, over 282,000 are currently 

27 registered Libertarians. (Declaration of Gray at ~ 5.) Hundreds of Libertarians have 

28 4 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 4 of 16
1 won election throughout the country at the state and local levels, and thousands of 

2 candidates have appeared on ballots seeking election. (Declaration of Gray at~ 5 .) Its 

3 nominees for President and Vice President have appeared on ballots in every 

4 presidential election from 1972 onwards. (Declaration of Gray at ~ 5.) Millions of 

5 votes have been cast for these candidates. (Declaration of Gray at~ 5.) 

6 The scheme for pre-general election funding for third party candidates is set 

7 forth in 26 U.S.C.§9004 (a)(2)(A) 1 which provides, in its entirety, that, "[t]he eligible 

8 candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be entitled to payments 

9 under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an amount which bears the same ratio to 

10 the amount allowed under paragraph (1) for a major party as the number of popular 

11 votes received by the candidate for President of the minor party, as such candidate, in 

12 the preceding presidential election bears to the average number of popular votes 

13 received by the candidates for President of the major parties in the preceding 

14 presidential election." (Declaration of Gray at~ 6.) Petitioner Johnson is an "eligible 

15 candidate" within the ambit of this section, as that term is defined in §9002( 4) and 

16 §9003(a) and©). (Declaration of Gray at~ 6.) For the same reason, we aver that the 

17 definition of §9002(7) of"minor party" is only relevant to §9004(a)(2)(B) and not 

18 relevant to (a)(2)(A). (Declaration of Gray at~ 6.) 

19 On May 8, 2012, through counsel, Petitioners applied by letter to Defendant for 

20 public funds for the general election, asserting their entitlement to such funding under 

21 §9004(a)(2)(A). (Declaration of Gray at~ 10.) It should be noted that this provision 

22 imposes no additional requirement relating to the same presidential candidate having 

23 run in the presidential election four years earlier. It should also be noted that the 

24 

25 1

All further statutory references are to 26 U.S.C., unless otherwise noted. 

26 

27 

28 5 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 5 of 16
1 following section, §9004 (a)(2)(B), as distinct from subsection (A), provides funding 

2 to candidates who do meet such an additional criteria. The funding provided in 

3 subsection (B) is derived from an entirely different mathematical calculation than the 

4 funding authorized by subsection (A), and would necessarily result in much greater 

5 funding-a much larger amount- than under subsection (A). 

6 On June 11, 2012, at Defendant's request, Petitioners sent a separate letter, 

7 again requesting pre-general election campaign funding. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 11, 

8 Exhibit 2.) Subsequently, on June 27, 2012, also at the FEC's request, Petitioners 

9 sent Defendant a Letter Agreement in connection with their application. (Declaration 

10 of Gray at ,-r 11, Exhibit 3.) The request made by Petitioners included a request for an 

11 extension of time, and subsequently Defendant granted this time extension. 

12 (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 11.) On August 6, 2012, Defendant notified Petitioner of its 

13 Initial Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement, which concluded that Petitioners 

14 were not entitled to pre-election public funds. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 12, Exhibit 

15 4.) Not until September 18, 2012, less than two months before the general election, 

16 did Defendant release its Final Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement, which 

17 echoed its earlier conclusion that Petitioners do not meet the eligibility requirements 

18 to qualify for the requested funding. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 12, Exhibit 5.) 

19 In 2008, the Democrat nominee for president received 69,498,215 votes; the 

20 Republican nominee for president received 59,498,240; the Libertarian nominee for 

21 president received 523,713 votes. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 7.) The average of the 

22 two major party votes is 64,498,228. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 7.) The Libertarian 

23 nominee thus received 523,713/64,498,228, or .81% of the average vote of the major 

24 party candidates. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 7.) This election cycle, the major party 

25 candidates will each receive $92,241,400.00. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 8.) Based on 

26 these figures, Petitioners are entitled to receive .81% of that number, which is 

27 $747,115.34. (Declaration of Gray at ,-r 8.) Defendant has failed to distribute any 

28 6 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 6 of 16
) 

1 funds to Petitioners, and has taken the position that Petitioners are ineligible for 

2 funding, notwithstanding the plain language of §9004(a)(2)(A). (Declaration of Gray 

3 at~ 8.) 

4 The only reason Respondent FEC uses to support its position turns on the 

5 meaning of "minor party" in 26 U.S.C. §9004. Without question, "minor party" is a 

6 defined term elsewhere in the chapter. However, as we alluded to above, we submit it 

7 does not apply under that definition in subsection (a)(2)(A) the way it does in the 

8 other subsections of §9004. Our reasoning is simple. Subsection (a)(2)(A) ONLY 

9 applies to applicants who do NOT meet the technical definition, i.e., a political party 

10 whose candidate in the prior election received more than 5%, but less than 25% of the 

11 vote.2 To impose this definition on subsection (a)(2)(A) would completely render it 

12 meaningless and write it out of the statute. Section 9004 is entitled "Entitlement of 

13 eligible candidates to payments", and is the one section in the law authorizing 

14 funding for candidates who have won their party's nomination. Subsection (a) (1) 

15 governs payments to major-party candidates. Subsection (a)(2)(B) covers candidates 

16 who ran in the "preceding presidential election and received 5 percent or more but 

17 less than 25 percent of the total number of popular votes .. ", e.g., a "minor party" so 

18 defined in 26 U.S.C. §9002(6). Subsection (a) (3) covers candidates who will 

19 retroactively receive funding because they receive more than 5% of the votes cast in 

20 this election. The remaining subsection, (a)(2)(A), covers candidates who do not fit 

21 these other categories, such as Petitioners here, who are not of a major party, and 

22 whose party fielded a candidate in the previous election. Governor Johnson is such a 

23 candidate. Thus, subsection (a)(2)(A) was intended to apply to him, but "minor 

24 

25 

2

"The term 'minor party' means, with respect to any presidential election, a political party whose 

candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of 

26 

such party, 5 percent or more but less than 25 percent of the total number of popular votes received by 27 

all candidates for such office." 26 U.S.C. §9002 (6). 

28 7 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 7 of 16
) 

1 party" is used, we submit in the plain meaning of the word. The Libertarian Party is 

2 universally understood in the plain sense of the words to be a "minor party". 

3 The Court must err on the side of giving effect to the statute. To ascribe the 

4 meaning to (a)(2)(A) that the FEC gives would have the effect of making (a)(2)(A) 

5 and (B) both apply in the same way, and would render (a)(2)(A) utterly meaningless. 

6 Such a reading is inconsistent with standard maxims of statutory construction. Thus, 

7 our submission is simply that the Congress used "minor party" inadvertently in 

8 (a)(2)(A) in the common sense of the words instead of in the defined sense used 

9 elsewhere in this Chapter. 

10 Pre-election funding and post-election funding serve entirely different 

11 purposes, and unless Petitioners receive their pre-election entitlement before the 

12 general election, it is of little use, as the election will have already taken place. 

13 (Declaration of Gray at ~ 9.) The amount of the funding to which Petitioners are 

14 presently entitled is so significant that it could make the difference between winning 

15 and losing. (Declaration of Gray at~ 9.) Even more likely is the impact the receipt by 

16 Petitioners before the general election of pre-election funding would have on 

17 Petitioners' subsequent entitlement to post-general election funding. (Declaration of 

18 Gray at~ 9.) Post general-election funding requires that the Johnson/Gray ticket 

19 receive a certain threshold percentage of votes in the general election, and the 

20 likelihood of Petitioners meeting this threshold is dramatically greater if they receive 

21 the pre-election funding, to which they are entitled, in time to spend it to support their 

22 candidacy. (Declaration of Gray at~ 9.) 

23 Thus, an actual dispute exists between Petitioners and Defendant, in that 

24 Petitioners claim they are entitled to pre-general election funding as set forth above, 

25 while Defendant claims that Petitioners are ineligible for such funding, and a judicial 

26 determination on this issue is necessary. (Declaration of Gray at~ 9.) Unless an 

27 injunction issues mandating that Defendant disburse the pre-general election funding 

28 8 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 8 of 16
1 to which Petitioners are statutorily entitled, they will be gravely and irreparably 

2 harmed and no amount of money could adequately compensate them. Accordingly, 

3 Petitioners are entitled to a mandatory injunction directing the immediate payment of 

4 the pre-election funds for which they have applied, such that payment be received in 

5 advance of the general election this November. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

As enumerated above, Defendant wrongfully determined that Petitioners are 

10 ineligible for statutorily proscribed pre-general election campaign funding. As such, 

11 Petitioners respectfully request a judicial declaration that they are entitled to pre12 general election campaign funding, and for a mandatory injunction, or other 

13 appropriate relief directing the FEC to immediately disburse to Petitioners the sum of 

14 $747,115.34. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 Gary E. Johnson 

James P. Gray 

22 Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. 

280 South 400 West 

23 Suite 200 

Salt Lake City, UT 84101 

24 

25 October 16, 2012 

26 

27 

28 

Respectfully submitte , 

Paul Rolf Jensen* 

Counsel of Record 

JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, APC, Trial Lawyers 

650 Town Center Drive, 12th Floor 

Costa Mesa, California (714) 662-5538 

(714) 662-5528 

Counsel to Gary E. Johnson, James P. Gray and 

Gary Johnson 2012, Inc. 

9 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 9 of 16
UNtTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CI~T 

OCT 17 2012 

RECEIVED ,. 

llnittb &tate~ ~ourt of ~peal~ 

for tbt 

lli~tritt of ~olumbia ~irmit 

GARYE.JOHNSON;JAMESP.GRAY CaseNo.12- 12..:..1418 and GARY JOHNSON 2012, INC., _----..,;=--~~---

Petitioners 

vs. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Respondents. 

DECLARATION OF PETITIONER JAMES P. GRAY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY 

MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

I, James P. Gray, declare the following: 

1. I am the 2012 Libertarian Party candidate for the office of Vice President of 

the United States, and a Petitioner in the action herein. I submit this 

declaration in support of Petitioners' Emergency Motion for a Mandatory 

Injunction, Writ of Mandamus, or Other Appropriate Relief directing 

Defendant to immediately disburse to Petitioners $747,115.34 in pre-general 

election campaign funding to which Petitioners are statutorily entitled.. The 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 10 of 16
following is based on my personal knowledge and my information and . I 

belief. 

2. Defendant Federal Election Commission is an independent regulatory 

governmental agency created by Congress to administer and enforce the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §9001, et seq. The 

Commission's headquarters are located at 999 East Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20463. 

3. Petitioner Gary E. Johnson is the former Governor of the State of New 

Mexico, a resident of that state, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party for 

the office of President of the United States. I am a retired judge of the 

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, and a 

resident of that County, and the nominee of the Libertarian Party for Vice 

President of the United States. Our campaign committee is Petitioner Gary 

Johnson 2012, Inc., and it is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. As of this 

writing, 4 7 states and the District of Columbia have approved our 

campaign's request that our names appear on the ballot. (The matter is in 

litigation in two states, Oklahoma and Michigan, and a third sate, 

Pennsylvania, has yet to respond.) 270 electoral college votes (out of a 

possible 538) are required for election; our names will be on ballots in states 

with at least 495 votes. 

2 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 11 of 16
4. The Presidential Election Fund Act ("the Act") was enacted in the late1960's to provide for federal funding of presidential general election 

campaigns. The Act provides for funding for not only the two major-party 

candidates but for third party candidates as well. Funding is available, under 

specified circumstances, both prior to the general election and, separately, 

after the general election. This lawsuit involves only the former, which is 

referred to herein as "pre ... general election funding". 

5. On May 5, 2012, Petitioner Johnson received the nomination of the 

Libertarian Party for President of the United States, and I received the 

nomination of the Libertarian Party for Vice President of the United States. 

The Libertarian Party, which was founded in 1971, is the third-largest 

political party in the United States. In the 3 0 states of the union where 

voters are allowed to register by party, over 282,000 are currently registered 

Libertarians. Hundreds of Libertarians have won election throughout the 

country at the state and local levels, and thousands of candidates have 

appeared on ballots seeking election. Its nominees for President and Vice 

President have appeared on ballots in every presidential election from 1972 

onwards. Millions of votes have been cast for these candidates. 

3 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 12 of 16
6. The scheme for pre-general election funding for third party candidates is set· 

forth in 26 U.S.C.§9004 (a)(2)(AY which provides, in its entirety, that, 

"[t]he eligible candidates of a minor party in a presidential election shall be 

entitled to payments under section 9006 equal in the aggregate to an amount 

which bears the same ratio to the amount allowed under paragraph (1) for a 

major party as the number of popular votes received by the candidate for 

President of the minor party, as such candidate, in the preceding presidential 

election bears to the average number of popular votes received by the 

candidates for President of the major parties in the preceding presidential 

election." Petitioner Johnson is an "eligible candidate" within the ambit of 

this section, as that term is defined in §9002(4) and §9003(a) and (c). With 

regard to the term "candidate" in §9002(2), as opposed to "eligible 

candidate" in §9002(4), that term is applicable only to (a)(2)(B) and not 

relevant to (a)(2)(A). For the same reason, we aver that the definition of 

§9002(7) of "minor party" is only relevant to §9004(a)(2)(B) and not 

relevant to (a)(2)(A). 

7. In 2008, the Democrat nominee for president received 69,498,215 votes; the 

Republican nominee for president received 59,498,240; the Libertarian 

nominee for president received 523,713 votes. The average of the two major 

1 All further statutory references are to 26 U.S. C., unless otherwise noted. 

4 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 13 of 16
party votes is 64,498,228. The Libertarian nomtnee thus received 

523,713/64,498,228, or .81% of the average vote of the major party 

candidates. 

8. This election cycle, according to the FEC's website, the major party 

candidates will each receive $92,241,400.00. Based on this, Petitioner 

Johnson and I are entitled to receive .81% of that number, which is 

$7 4 7,115 .34. The FEC has failed to distribute any funds to us, and has taken 

the position that we are ineligible for funding, notwithstanding the plain 

language of §9004 (a)(2)(A). 

9. Pre-election funding and post-election funding serve entirely different 

purposes, and unless Petitioner Johnson and I receive our pre-election 

entitlement before the general election, it is of little use, as the election will 

have already taken place. The amount of funding to which we are presently 

entitled is so significant that it could make the difference between winning 

and losing. Even more likely is the impact the receipt of this pre-election 

funding will have on our entitlement to subsequent post-general election 

funding. Post general-election funding requires that Petitioner Johnson and 

my ticket receive a certain threshold percentage of votes in the general 

election, and the likelihood of us meeting this threshold is dramatically 

5 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 14 of 16
greater if we receive the pre-election funding, to which we are entitled, in 

time to spend it to support our candidacy. 

10. The general election for the offices of President and Vice President of the 

United States is scheduled to take place on November 6, 2012. On May 8, 

2012, through our counsel, Petitioner Johnson and I applied by letter to the 

FEC for public funds for the general election, asserting our entitlement to 

such funding under §9004 (a)(2)(A). A true copy of this letter is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1. 

11. On June 11, 2012, at the Defendant FEC's request, Petitioner Johnson and I 

sent a separate letter to the FEC requesting funding, and a true copy of this 

letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Subsequently, on June 27, 2012, also at 

the FEC's request, we sent the FEC a Letter Agreement in connection with 

our application, and a true copy of this is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The 

request made by Petitioner Johnson and me included a request for an 

extension of time, and subsequently the FEC granted this time extension. 

12. On August 6, 2012, Defendant notified Petitioner Johnson and me of its 

Initial Determination on Eligibility and Entitlement, concluding that we 

were not entitled to pre-election public funds. A true copy is attached hereto 

as Exhibit 4. Not until September 18, 2012, less than two months before the 

general election, did Defendant release its Final Determination on Eligibility 

6 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 15 of 16
and Enforcement, which echoed its earlier conclusion that we did not meet 

the eligibility requirements to qualify for the requested funding. A true copy 

is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 

13. Once we fmally received Defendant's determination that we were ineligible 

for pre-general election campaign funding just weeks before the general 

election, we filed suit in this court to obtain judicial determination of the 

dispute, and to direct Defendant to disburse the requested funds. 

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, this 16th day of 

October, 2012. 

Is/ 

By: __________________________ __ 

7 

USCA Case #12-1418 Document #1400153 Filed: 10/17/2012 Page 16 of 16