1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

______________________________

      )

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and )

JACK E. ROBINSON,     )

           )

Petitioners,    )

      )    

v.       ) Civil Action No. __________

      )

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

      )

    Respondent.    )

______________________________)

PETITION PURSUANT TO 2 U.S.C. § 437g TO SET ASIDE

FINAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION

Introduction

Petitioners seek to set aside Respondent’s final determination that they violated federal

campaign finance law by filing a report 81 days late and thereby owe a $6,050 civil money

penalty.  Alternatively, Petitioners request that this Court vacate and remand for a full and fair

consideration by Respondent under the “best efforts” statute.  

Parties

1. Petitioner Jack E. Robinson (“Robinson”) was a candidate within the meaning of

2 U.S.C.  § 431(2) in the December 8, 2009 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate special

election in Massachusetts to fill the seat formerly held by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.  Robinson

lost the Republican primary to the eventual winner of the January 19, 2010 special general

election – Sen. Scott P. Brown.  Robinson’s address is P.O. Box 2587, Duxbury, Massachusetts

02331.  

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 7
2

2. Petitioner Robinson Committee, LLC (“Robinson Committee”) is a Massachusetts

limited liability company and is a political committee within the meaning of 2 U.S.C. § 431(4).  

Robinson Committee serves as the principal federal campaign committee for Robinson.  The

address of Robinson Committee is P.O. Box 2587, Duxbury, Massachusetts 02331.  Robinson is

the treasurer of Robinson Committee.  (Robinson and Robinson Committee are collectively

hereinafter referred to as “Robinson.”)

3. Respondent Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is an independent

administrative agency of the United States government empowered with exclusive jurisdiction

to administer, interpret, and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (2

U.S.C. §§ 431‐55) (the “Act”).  The FEC’s address is 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20463.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This action arises under the Act.  This Court has exclusive subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(iii).  

5. Venue of this action is proper in this Court pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §

437g(a)(4)(C)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e).

Administrative Background

6. Robinson’s 2009 Year‐End Report (“Report”), covering campaign finance activity

from November 19, 2009 through December 31, 2009, was required by 2 U.S.C. § 434(a) to be

filed no later than January 31, 2010.

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 7
3

7. Robinson mailed the Report to the Secretary of the Senate on April 15, 2010.  

The Report was received by the Secretary of the Senate (and deemed filed) on April 22, 2010.  

Thus, the Report was filed 81 days late.1

8. By letter dated March 29, 2010, the FEC notified Robinson that on March 25,

2010 the FEC found that it had reason to believe (“RTB”) that Robinson violated 2 U.S.C. §

434(a) by failing to file timely the Report on or before January 31, 2010.  Based on the FEC’s

schedule of civil money penalties at 11 C.F.R. § 111.43, the amount of the civil money penalty

calculated was $6,050.

9. By letter dated April 16, 2010, Robinson submitted a timely written response

challenging the RTB pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 111.35(a).

10. By letter dated June 8, 2010, the FEC notified Robinson that on June 4, 2010 an

FEC reviewing officer had reviewed the RTB and Robinson’s written response thereto, and

recommended to the FEC that the RTB determination should be upheld.

11. By letter dated June 18, 2010, Robinson submitted a timely written response to

the reviewing officer’s recommendation challenging the recommendation pursuant to 11 C.F.R.

§ 111.36(f).

12. By letter dated July 23, 2010, the FEC notified Robinson that on July 22, 2010 the

FEC adopted the reviewing officer’s recommendation and made a final determination that

Robinson had violated 2 U.S.C. § 434(a) and owed a civil money penalty of $6,050.

 

1

  Unlike House committees, Senate committees do not electronically file their FEC reports directly with

the FEC.  Rather, they must manually file the reports with the Secretary of the Senate, who then

forwards the reports to the FEC.  Thereafter, the reports become publicly available on the internet at

www.fec.gov.

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 7
4

13. Because this petition is being filed within 30 days of receipt by Robinson of the

FEC’s final determination as described in paragraph 12 above, this action is timely pursuant to 2

U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C)(iii) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.38.  

Factual Background

14. As described in Robinson’s several letters to the FEC, the Report was filed 81

days late because Robinson’s senate campaign was funded entirely by personal funds within

the meaning of 2 U.S.C. § 431(26) and, as a result, Robinson could not accurately complete the

Report until he had tallied up all of the personal funds expended (exceeding $500,000) – which

in turn could not be accurately accomplished until Robinson completed and filed his 2009 tax

returns (which occurred on April 15, 2010).  

15. Robinson could not accurately complete the Report until he filed his 2009 taxes

for another reason – the FEC had sent him several Requests for Additional Information and

various Notices (“Requests”) regarding the Report and other campaign finance reports due in

2009 and 2010 regarding the special senate election, such as:  

Request         Date Filed by FEC

Request for Additional Information     January 7, 2010

Notice of Failure to File       February 17, 2010

Request for Additional Information     February 23, 2010

Request for Additional Information     March 23, 2010

16. In light of these additional Requests, Robinson could not in good conscience file

the Report knowing that it possibly contained incomplete and inaccurate information.  

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 4 of 7
5

Robinson was required to wait until he had all of the relevant financial data available, which

occurred only when he completed and filed his 2009 taxes on April 15, 2010.  

17. Because Robinson mailed the Report the same day that he mailed his 2009 taxes,

Robinson qualified to receive the benefit of the “best efforts” provision found in 2 U.S.C. §

432(i) and 11 C.F.R. § 111.35(b)(3)(ii) (24‐hour window).

18. Even though the Report was filed 81 days late, the harm to the public interest

was nonexistent because (1) Robinson’s campaign was entirely self‐funded, and (2) Robinson

lost the special Republican primary to the ultimate general election winner – Sen. Scott Brown.  

Once the primary was over in early December 2009, the public’s interest in Robinson’s

campaign finances was nonexistent because the public’s focus turned entirely to the campaign

finances of the two general election candidates – Sen. Brown and his Democratic opponent

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.   

19. No harm to the public interest occurred by virtue of the late filing of the Report

(even if filed 81 days late) under the unique circumstances created by the special senate

election in Massachusetts that occurred in December 2009 (primary) and January 2010

(general).

20. Robinson has been a federal candidate for public office since 2000 and has been

required to file numerous FEC reports as a result thereof.  Prior to this matter, in his 10‐year

FEC reporting history Robinson has never received an RTB or been assessed a civil money

penalty.  Robinson’s lack of negative FEC compliance history also weighs in favor of receiving a

“best efforts” determination.  

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 5 of 7
6

Issue Presented

21. Robinson is entitled to a “best efforts” determination with respect to the late

filing of the Report, and the FEC’s failure to make such a determination was arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law.

Summary

22. The FEC’s final determination in this case, under the unique circumstances

present, amounts to no more than “nit‐picking.”  Although the Report was filed 81 days late,

Robinson used his best efforts to file the Report as soon as he came into possession of all the

financial information necessary to accurately complete the Report by virtue of completing and

mailing his 2009 tax returns on the same day that he mailed the Report.  Apparently, only a

low‐level FEC compliance clerk was interested in the Report because the public had no interest

in Robinson’s campaign finances once he lost the Republican primary to Sen. Brown on

December 8, 2009.  These facts, combined with Robinson having no prior FEC enforcement

history, warrant that the FEC’s decision be set aside or, in the alternative, vacated and

remanded for a full and fair consideration by the FEC under the “best efforts” statute.  

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court:

A. Declare that the FEC’s final determination that Petitioners violated 2 U.S.C. §

434(a) for failing to file the 2009 Year‐End Report and the FEC’s assessment of a civil money

penalty of $6,050 were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law;

B. Declare that Petitioners did not violate 2 U.S.C. § 434(a) and do not owe any civil

money penalty; or, in the alternative,  

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 6 of 7
7

C. Vacate the FEC’s final determination and remand to the FEC for a full and fair

“best efforts” consideration.

       Respectfully submitted,  

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and  

JACK E. ROBINSON,   

By their attorney,    

       /s/ Jack E. Robinson      

       Jack E. Robinson (BBO #559683)

       ROBINSON LAW OFFICES

       300 First Stamford Place, Suite 201

       Stamford, CT 06902

       (203) 425‐4500

       (203) 425‐4555 (fax)

       Robinsonesq@aol.com

Dated:   August 9, 2010

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1-1 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) 

2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local

rule 40.1(a)(1)).

I. 160, 410, 470, 535, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.

II. 195, 196, 368, 400, 440, 441-446, 540, 550, 555, 625, 710, 720, 730, *Also complete AO 120 or AO 121

740, 790, 791, 820*, 830*, 840*, 850, 890, 892-894, 895, 950. for patent, trademark or copyright cases

III. 110, 120, 130, 140, 151, 190, 210, 230, 240, 245, 290, 310, 

315, 320, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 362, 365, 370, 371,

380, 385, 450, 891.

IV. 220, 422, 423, 430, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 610,

620, 630, 640, 650, 660, 690, 810, 861-865, 870, 871, 875, 900.

V. 150, 152, 153.

3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this

district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.

4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?

YES NO 

5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? (See 28 USC

§2403)

YES NO

 If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party? 

YES NO

6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284? 

 YES NO 

7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the united states and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)). 

 YES NO 

A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?

Eastern Division Central Division Western Division 

B. If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies, 

residing in Massachusetts reside?

Eastern Division Central Division Western Division 

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,

submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)

YES NO 

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)

ATTORNEY'S NAME 

ADDRESS 

TELEPHONE NO.

(CategoryForm-08.wpd -2/8/08) 

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

JACK E. ROBINSON

Robinson Law Offices, 300 First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT 06902

203-425-4500

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 1-2 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1