1

13309327.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

and 

CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL 

FREEDOM, 

917-B King Street 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

 Intervenor-Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Civ. A. No. 1:11-cv-00766 (ABJ) 

ANSWER OF INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT 

CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM

By leave of the Court, the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) intervenes in this 

action as a party Defendant, and submits this Answer: 

1. Admitted that Plaintiff is challenging the validity of a regulation of the Federal 

Election Commission (“FEC”), 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9), that implements § 201 of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”), codified at 2 U.S.C. § 434(f). Admitted that the 

regulation is important to the ability of corporations to engage freely in electioneering 

communications. Otherwise denied. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 26 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 5
2

13309327.1 

2. Admitted that BCRA § 201 only requires disclosure of “contributors who 

contributed.” “Contribution” is defined by statute. 2 U.S.C. § 431(8). Otherwise, the provision 

speaks for itself and Plaintiff’s characterizations are denied. 

3. Admitted that the challenged FEC regulation speaks of “contributors” and 

“contributions,” as does BCRA § 201. Neither the regulation nor the statute requires disclosure 

of all “donors” or “donations.” Otherwise, the provision speaks for itself and Plaintiff’s 

characterizations are denied. 

4. Denied. 

5. Denied. 

6. Admitted that corporations such as CFIF spent millions of dollars on 

electioneering communications during the 2010 congressional campaign and did not disclose 

donors or donations. Otherwise, denied. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7. – 8. Admitted. 

PARTIES 

9. Admitted. 

10. The first sentence describing Plaintiff is admitted. Otherwise, denied. 

11. The first sentence is admitted. Otherwise denied. 

12. Admitted. 

12.1 CFIF avers that it is a nonpartisan, nonprofit corporation organized under the laws 

of the Commonwealth of Virginia and tax-exempt under § 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. Its headquarters address is 917-B King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. CFIF’s 

mission is to protect and defend individual freedoms and rights guaranteed by the U.S. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 26 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 5
3

13309327.1 

Constitution. Its goals, principles, and activities are more fully described at its Internet website 

http://www.cfif.org. 

 a. During the 2010 congressional elections, CFIF spent approximately $2.5 

million on ads that were “electioneering communications.” CFIF expects to spend money on 

similar ads during future elections. 

 b. During 2010, CFIF disclosed its spending on such ads but, as authorized 

by the challenged regulation, did not disclose the sources of its funding. 

 c. CFIF receives a substantial portion of its funds on condition that the 

donors will not be identified. CFIF does not engage in speech that requires it to disclose its 

donors. If the price of engaging in electioneering communications were disclosing its donors, 

CFIF would stand silent and refrain from such speech. 

FACTS 

13. – 14. Admitted. 

15. The statutory definition of “electioneering communication” speaks for itself. 

16. – 17. The statutory provisions and cases cited speak for themselves. 

18. Admitted that WRTL held that the First Amendment protects the right of 

corporations to engage in electioneering communications and precluded a ban on such 

communications unless they are “express advocacy” or its “functional equivalent.” Averred that 

Citizens United expands the First Amendment right of corporations to engage in electioneering 

communications. 

19. Admitted that the FEC issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 31, 

2007. It speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 26 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 5
4

13309327.1 

20. Admitted that the FEC promulgated revised regulations on December 26, 2007. 

The quoted language is included in the regulations. The regulations speak for themselves. 

Otherwise denied. 

21. – 22. Admitted that the December 26, 2007, Explanation and Justification 

included the quoted language. It speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. 

23. Admitted that limiting burden on speakers and speech was a stated purpose of the 

December 26 regulations. Otherwise denied. 

24. Denied. Averred that the challenged regulation is consistent with and reasonably 

implements the statute, and that its avoidance of unnecessary burden was required by the First 

Amendment. 

25. – 28. Denied. 

29. – 31. Admitted that the challenged regulation has facilitated core First 

Amendment speech by corporations by protecting them from needless and unlawful disclosure 

burden. In particular, admitted that CFIF spent approximately $2.5 million on electioneering 

communications and did not disclose its donors. Averred that CFIF would not have engaged in 

that speech if the law had required the disclosures now asserted by Plaintiff. Admitted that other 

nonprofit corporations spent substantial sums and did not disclose their donors as a result of the 

challenged regulation. Otherwise denied. 

32. CFIF lacks information sufficient to admit or deny and therefore denies. 

COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

33. – 36. The foregoing responses are incorporated by reference. Denied that the 

challenged regulation is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to BCRA. Otherwise denied. 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 26 Filed 08/01/11 Page 4 of 5
5

13309327.1 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

37. Denied that Plaintiff should receive any relief. The Complaint should be 

dismissed with prejudice. 

June 16, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Thomas W. Kirby 

Jan Witold Baran (D.C. Bar No. 233486) 

 E-mail: jbaran@wileyrein.com

Thomas W. Kirby (D.C. Bar No. 915231) 

 E-mail: tkirby@wileyrein.com

Caleb P. Burns (D.C. Bar No. 474923) 

 E-mail: cburns@wileyrein.com

Andrew G. Woodson (D.C. Bar No. 494062) 

 E-mail: awoodson@wileyrein.com

WILEY REIN LLP 

1776 K St. NW 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

202.719.7000 

Counsel for Center for Individual Freedom 

Case 1:11-cv-00766-ABJ Document 26 Filed 08/01/11 Page 5 of 5