UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Republican National Committee, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant,

and

The Democratic National Committee, 430 South 

Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C., 20003,

Intervening Defendant.

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

THREE-JUDGE COURT

INTERVENING DEFENDANT DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE’S

[PROPOSED] ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The [proposed] intervening defendant, the Democratic National Committee (the 

“DNC”), by its undersigned counsel, answers each numbered paragraph of the plaintiffs’ 

complaint as follows:

ANSWER

Introduction

1. The DNC admits that this is an action challenging § 101 of the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA” or “Act”) on constitutional grounds, that BCRA § 

101 added a new § 323 to the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), and that the 

challenged provisions are codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441i. Plaintiffs’ contention that this action 

constitutes an as-applied challenge is a conclusion of law or legal characterization, to which 

no response is required. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 1 of 10
- 2 -

2. Plaintiffs’ contention that this action constitutes an as-applied challenge is a 

conclusion of law or legal characterization, to which no response is required. The DNC 

admits the allegations of this paragraph in all other respects. 

3. The provisions of BCRA and FECA speak for themselves, and therefore no 

response is required.

4. The provisions of BCRA and FECA speak for themselves, and therefore no 

response is required.

5. The Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), speaks for 

itself. This paragraph otherwise contains characterizations of that decision and conclusions 

of law, to which no response is required. 

6. This paragraph contains characterizations of the Supreme Court’s decisions in 

McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652 

(2007), which speak for themselves; it also contains conclusions of law, to which no response

is required. 

7. This paragraph contains characterizations of legal precedent from other 

jurisdictions. That precedent speaks for itself and requires no response. The paragraph also 

contains conclusions of law, to which no response is required. 

8. The first sentence of this paragraph contains conclusions of law, to which no 

response is required. With respect to the remainder of the first sentence and with respect to 

the second sentence, the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of plaintiffs’ allegation that they plan to engage in certain activities and that 

they will not proceed as planned without the relief requested in the complaint. The DNC

otherwise denies the allegations in this paragraph.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 2 of 10
- 3 -

Jurisdiction and Venue

9. Admitted.

10. Admitted.

Parties

11. The DNC admits that the RNC “ha[s] the general management of the Republican 

Party, subject to direction from the national convention.” The second sentence of this 

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

12. The DNC admits that Plaintiff California Republican Party is the state Republican 

Party of California. The second sentence of this paragraph contains conclusions of law, to 

which no response is required.

13. This paragraph contains only conclusions of law, to which no response is 

required.

14. The DNC admits that Robert M. (Mike) Duncan is the National Committeeman of 

the Kentucky Republican Party and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee

(“RNC”), in which capacity he is the RNC’s chief executive officer. 

15. Admitted.

Facts

16. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal 

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. The DNC admits that 

there are no federal candidates on the 2009 ballot in New Jersey. In all other respects, the 

DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 3 of 10
- 4 -

17. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. The DNC admits that 

there are no federal candidates on the 2009 ballot in Virginia. In all other respects, the DNC

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

18. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

19. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

20. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph.

21. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal 

under BCRA and not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 4 of 10
- 5 -

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

22. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the activities alleged in this paragraph are criminal

under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

23. The DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in this paragraph.

24. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are 

criminal under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

25. Plaintiffs’ contentions that the intended activities alleged in this paragraph are 

criminal under BCRA but not “unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal 

candidate,” are conclusions of law, to which no response is required. In all other respects, 

the DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in this paragraph.

26. The DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in this paragraph.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 5 of 10
- 6 -

27. The DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in this paragraph.

28. The DNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in the first sentence. In all other respects, the DNC denies the 

allegations in this paragraph.

Count 1

RNC & Duncan—New Jersey Account

29. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

Count 2

RNC & Duncan—Virginia Account

32. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

33. Denied.

34. Denied.

Count 3

RNC & Duncan—Redistricting Account

35. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

36. Denied.

37. Denied.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 6 of 10
- 7 -

Count 4

RNC & Duncan—Grassroots Lobbying Account

38. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

39. Denied.

40. Denied.

Count 5

RNC & Duncan—State Elections Accounts

41. Denied.

42. Denied.

Count 6

RNC & Duncan—Litigation Account

43. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

44. Denied.

45. Denied.

Count 7

Duncan—Solicitation for State Candidates and Parties

46. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

47. Denied.

48. Denied.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 7 of 10
- 8 -

Count 8

CRP—PASO Activities for California Initiatives

49. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

50. Denied.

51. Denied.

Count 9

CRP—Non-targeted “Federal Election Activity”

52. In response to this paragraph, the DNC incorporates its responses contained in all 

of the preceding paragraphs of this answer.

53. Denied.

54. Denied.

Finally, the DNC denies any and all allegations of the Complaint not expressly 

admitted herein to which a response is required.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

1. Principles of claim preclusion bar the plaintiffs from asserting any of the claims 

set forth in the complaint. 

Second Affirmative Defense

2. Principles of issue preclusion bar the plaintiffs from re-litigating any factual or 

legal issues relevant to the claims set forth in the complaint; those factual and legal issues 

should be deemed conclusively adjudicated for purposes of this action.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 8 of 10
- 9 -

Third Affirmative Defense

3. Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are not currently ripe for adjudication.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

4. Some or all of plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based upon these answers and affirmative defenses, the DNC respectfully requests 

that the Court enter a judgment:

(a) Dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, on the merits, and with prejudice;

(b) Denying plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief in their entirety;

(c) Awarding such other and further relief as the Court may find to be just and 

equitable.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 9 of 10
- 10 -

Dated: January 29, 2009. Respectfully submitted,

PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Robert F. Bauer

Robert F. Bauer (D.C. Bar No. 938902)

RBauer@perkinscoie.com

Kate Andrias (D.C. Bar No. 983674)*

607 Fourteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-2003

Telephone: 202.628.6600

Facsimile: 202.434.1690

Attorneys for Democratic National Committee

Joseph E. Sandler (D.C. Bar No. 255919)

sandler@sandlerreiff.com

SANDLER REIFF & YOUNG PC

300 M Street, S.E., Suite 1102

Washington, D.C. 20003

Telephone: 202.479.1111

Facsimile: 202.479.1115

Of Counsel to the Democratic National 

Committee

* Application for admission to the District Court for the District of Columbia pending.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 31 Filed 02/19/2009 Page 10 of 10