UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) OPPOSITION 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: March 9, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 89
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................1 

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................6 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................6 

II. BCRA’S SOFT MONEY RESTRICTIONS FUNCTION AS CONTRIBUTION 

LIMITS AND ARE SUBJECT TO INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY..................................7 

III. McCONNELL’S HOLDING THAT TITLE I IS CONSTITUTIONAL 

REGARDLESS OF HOW THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES SPEND 

THEIR FUNDS IS DISPOSITIVE HERE ........................................................................10 

IV. THE RISK OF CORRUPTION FROM UNLIMITED SOFT MONEY 

CONTRIBUTIONS JUSTIFIES BCRA’S LIMITS AS APPLIED TO PLAINTIFFS.....13 

A. Background: The Constitution Was Designed to Limit the Power of 

Political Parties, and Corruption Involving Political Parties Later Helped 

Instigate the Enactment of the Campaign Finance Laws.......................................13 

 

B. Even If They Do Not Solicit Soft Money Donations Themselves, 

Officeholders Can Become Obliged to Large Donors to Their Parties .................16 

C. Overall, FECA Confers Advantages on Political Parties Relative to 

Other Entities ........................................................................................................ 24 

V. PLAINTIFFS’ APPROACH WOULD CREATE AN UNWORKABLE 

CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS THAT RELIES ON THEIR 

UNVERIFIABLE PLEDGES TO AVOID CERTAIN KINDS OF BEHAVIOR ............26 

VI. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION 

BASED ON THE USES THEY INTEND FOR THEIR FUNDS.....................................32 

A. Plaintiffs’ Invented “Unambiguously Campaign Related” Standard 

Is Inapplicable Here ...............................................................................................32 

B. Much of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Activity Will Affect Federal Elections...................36 

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................44 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 89
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970)..........................................................................7

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990) ..................................................2 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)............................................................1, 7-9, 24, 27-28, 32-35 

California Med. Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182 (1981)............................................. 24-25, 28, 34, 44 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................7 

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001)...............................................................31 

Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981) ..................................9, 35 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Dep’t of Agric., 311 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2004)..................................7 

Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................7 

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .............................................................................................13 

FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003) ..........................................................................................9 

FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 

533 U.S. 431 (2001) (“Colorado II”)......................................................................... 1-2, 21 

FEC v. Malenick, Civ. No. 02-1237, 2005 WL 588222 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2005) ...........................35 

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (“MCFL”) ......................30, 35 

FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197 (1982) ....................................................1, 8, 24 

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) (“WRTL”)................9, 25, 35, 39, 42 

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)......................................................9, 35 

Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)..................................................................29 

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)..................31 

Goland v. United States, 903 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1990) ...............................................................28 

Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981)...............................29 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 89
iii

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) .................................................................................... 28-29 

McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003)................................................................................. passim 

McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003)....................................................... passim 

Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000)........................................................9, 18, 24 

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) ...................................36

Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 (1983).....................................9 

United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957)................................................ 3, 15-16 

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)...........................................................13 

Statutes and Regulations 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81-88 (“BCRA”)...................................................... passim 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-55 (“FECA”) ............................. passim 

Tillman Act, Ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864 (1907).................................................................................1, 15

2 U.S.C. § 431(4)(B)........................................................................................................................4 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20) .........................................................................................................................11 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)......................................................................................................................5 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(i)..................................................................................................................4 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(ii)...........................................................................................................4, 39 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(iii)..............................................................................................................13 

2 U.S.C. § 431(21) ...........................................................................................................................5 

2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1).................................................................................................................9, 25 

2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(B)................................................................................................................25 

2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C)................................................................................................................25 

2 U.S.C. § 441a(d) ...................................................................................................................15, 25 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 89
iv

2 U.S.C. § 441b......................................................................................................................2, 9, 35 

2 U.S.C. § 441b(b) ...........................................................................................................................4 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(a) ............................................................................................................................3 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(a)(2)......................................................................................................................11 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)................................................................................................................4, 11, 41 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(2) .......................................................................................................................4 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(e)(i) ......................................................................................................................35 

11 C.F.R. § 300.2(i) .........................................................................................................................4 

11 C.F.R. § 300.31...........................................................................................................................4 

11 C.F.R. § 300.32...........................................................................................................................4 

Miscellaneous 

Richard Briffault, The Political Parties and Campaign Finance Reform, 

100 COLUM. L. REV. 620, 651 (2000)................................................................................21 

Cal. Sec’y of State, Statewide Special Election Nov. 8, 2005, http://vote2005.sos.ca.gov/ .........35 

147 Cong. Rec. S2887-88 (Mar. 26, 2001)....................................................................................38 

Federal Election Commission: 

Concurring Statement of Comm’rs Weintraub & McDonald, 

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/413243.pdf ..................................................... 35-36 

Concurring Opinion of Vice-Chairman Toner & Comm’r Mason, 

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/413244.pdf ...........................................................36 

FEC, Contribution Limits 2009-2010, 

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml........................................4 

FEC Advisory Op. 2005-10, 

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/2005-10.pdf (Aug. 22, 2005) ...............................35 

Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Petersen, et. al, In re November Fund, 

http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/29044223819.pdf (Jan. 22, 2009) ........................36 

Statement of Reasons of Chair Weintraub, et al., In re Council for Responsible 

Gov’t, Inc., http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000006C6.pdf (Jan. 16, 2003) ..........36 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 89
v

The Federalist, No. 85 (Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961) ..................................................14 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................7 

Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System (1970) ..........................................................14, 15 

Rasmussen Reports, Most Say Political Donors Get More Than Their Money’s Worth, 

Feb. 9, 2009........................................................................................................................22 

E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government (1942)...........................................................................14 

S. Rep. No. 105-167 (1998).......................................................................................................3, 20 

G. Washington, Farewell Address, reprinted in Documents of American History, 

169 (H. Commager ed. 1946) ............................................................................................14 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 89
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeks to relitigate the decision in McConnell v. 

FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), upholding Title I of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which 

limits the raising and spending of “soft money” by political parties. The record in McConnell

amply demonstrated that the political parties had raised hundreds of millions of dollars in soft 

money, circumvented the “hard money” contribution limits, and undermined the Federal Election 

Campaign Act’s ability to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. Plaintiffs offer 

no evidence that McConnell’s factual basis or reasoning have been undercut by changed 

circumstances, and the governmental interests recognized by the Supreme Court continue to 

justify the provisions Plaintiffs challenge. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion 

for summary judgment. 

BACKGROUND 

 More than a century ago, Congress enacted the first campaign finance statute to help 

ensure that elected leaders shape public policy based on the wishes of their constituents or their 

best judgment of what serves the national interest, not on the inducements of money. Tillman 

Act, Ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864 (1907). Since then, Congress has reacted to repeated cycles of scandal 

and disillusionment with “careful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws, in a 

‘cautious advance, step by step,’” to which the Supreme Court has accorded “considerable 

deference.” FEC v. Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 209 (1982). 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-55 (“FECA”), is meant to 

reduce the “opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial 

contributions,” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27 (1976) (per curiam), by limiting the size of 

contributions that may be made to candidates. In light of the central role played by political 

parties as intermediaries between donors and candidates, see FEC v. Colorado Republican Fed. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 89
2

Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 451-52 (2001) (“Colorado II”), FECA has long imposed limits 

on contributions made to political party committees. FECA also incorporates previously enacted 

prohibitions against corporate and labor union spending on federal elections, to prevent unions 

and corporations from converting their aggregated wealth into political “war chests” that can 

distort and corrupt democratic processes. 2 U.S.C. § 441b; see Austin v. Michigan Chamber of 

Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 660 (1990). 

Some thirty years after enacting FECA, Congress determined that the statute no longer 

lived up to its intended purpose and amended it significantly in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81. In the years leading up to BCRA, 

political parties, corporations, unions, and other wealthy donors and organizations systematically 

exploited a breach in FECA’s statutory scheme known as “soft money” — the term used for 

contributions raised outside the framework of FECA’s source and contribution limits and 

disclosure requirements. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 122-23. Funds raised pursuant to the 

source-and-amount limitations are known as “federal funds” or “hard money,” while funds raised 

outside these limitations — i.e., funds raised from corporate or union sources or in excess of the 

contribution limits — are known as “non-federal funds” or “soft money.” 

 The concept of soft money derived from the fact that party committees engage in certain 

activity in connection with state and local elections that is not necessarily related to federal 

elections. In practice, however, the parties had raised and spent hundreds of millions of soft 

dollars for activities that, while purportedly for nonfederal purposes, in reality were intended to 

support the parties’ candidates for federal office and were indistinguishable from the types of 

activities that parties and candidates are required to use their hard money to fund. Indeed, in the 

2000 election cycle, soft money constituted 42% of the national parties’ total budget. See 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 89
3

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 124. The soft money loophole had thus grown from a narrow exception 

to FECA’s limitations into a huge and ever-growing means of circumventing those limitations. 

In 1998, after an extensive investigation, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

issued a report detailing the influence that soft money had come to wield in the electoral process. 

Id. at 129; S. Rep. No. 105-167 (1998). The report concluded that the parties’ ability to solicit 

and spend soft money had destroyed FECA’s source-and-amount limitations. See McConnell, 

540 U.S. at 129-32. The report also noted that state and local parties had played a crucial role in 

the soft-money system, as the national parties had made a practice of transferring funds to the 

state and local parties to conduct putatively non-federal activities “‘that in fact ultimately 

benefit[ed] federal candidates.’” Id. at 131 (quoting S. Rep. 105-167 at 4466 (alteration in 

original)). In sum, the national, state, and local political parties, as well as federal candidates 

themselves, had all become players in a system that was designed to evade FECA’s contribution 

limits and that permitted large and corporate donors the corrupting influence of which FECA was 

intended to deprive them. 

In response to the conduct detailed in the Senate report and elsewhere, Congress enacted 

BCRA: “the most recent federal enactment designed ‘to purge national politics of . . . the 

pernicious influence of “big money” campaign contributions.’” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 115 

(quoting United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567, 572 (1957)). Title I of BCRA, 

entitled “Reduction of Special Interest Influence,” closed the soft-money loophole. Specifically, 

BCRA section 101(a) prohibited national political parties and their officers from soliciting, 

receiving, or disbursing soft money. BCRA § 101(a) (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441i(a)); 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 133 (“[Section 101(a)] takes national parties out of the soft-money 

business.”). The statute imposes no limits on how the national party committees may spend their 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 89
4

money; it simply requires that all money spent by the national parties must be raised in 

accordance with FECA’s longstanding requirements. At the same time, Congress substantially 

raised the limits on contributions of hard money to national party committees and indexed those 

limits for inflation, making it easier for those committees to raise hard money.1

Other provisions in Title I are carefully drawn to complement the national party soft 

money ban by eliminating additional existing and potential loopholes involving, among others, 

state, district, and local party committees (“state and local” party committees). As Congress 

recognized, state and local party committees had been a primary vehicle through which the 

national parties had circumvented FECA. The national parties had transferred millions of dollars 

in soft money to their state and local counterparts, which had used those funds largely to support 

federal election activity, and under fewer restrictions than were applicable to the national parties. 

Title I prevents those committees from continuing the same abuse of soft money that the national 

parties had accomplished. Thus, with one important exception,2

 BCRA section 101(b) also 

prohibits state and local parties from receiving soft money for “federal election activity.” 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(b). 

Federal election activity, in relevant part, is defined as: 

 

1

 As of the 2009-2010 election cycle, the individual contribution limits had been raised to 

$2,400 per election per candidate, $30,400 per national party per year, and $115,500 in the 

aggregate for the two-year election cycle. See FEC, Contribution Limits 2009-2010, 

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml (last visited Mar. 9, 2009). 

Corporations and unions may not make contributions or expenditures except through their 

“separate segregated funds.” See 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(4)(B), 441b(b). 

2

 In the “Levin Amendment,” Congress provided an exception to the requirement that state 

and local parties spend only federal funds for certain “Federal election activity.” See McConnell, 

540 U.S. at 162-64; 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(2); 11 C.F.R. §§ 300.2(i), 300.31, 300.32. Under the 

Amendment, the federal election activity described in 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(i) & (ii) can be 

financed by state and local party committees with either federal funds or a combination of 

federal and “Levin funds.” Individuals can donate as much as $10,000 per year in Levin funds to 

a state or local political party. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 89
5

(i) voter registration activity during the period . . . 120 days before . . . 

a regularly scheduled Federal election . . . ; 

(ii) voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or generic campaign 

activity3

 conducted in connection with an election in which a 

candidate for Federal office appears on the ballot (regardless of 

whether a candidate for State or local office also appears on the 

ballot); [or] 

(iii) a public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate 

for Federal office . . . and that promotes or supports . . . or attacks 

or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the 

communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a 

candidate) . . . . 

2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(i)-(iii). Through these provisions, BCRA eliminated the receipt of soft 

money by national political party committees and the receipt of soft money by state and local 

parties for federal election activity. State and local parties remain free to receive funds under 

applicable state and local law for all other activities, and all political parties remain free to spend 

an unlimited amount of hard money for any activity. 

 Immediately after BCRA was passed, eleven complaints challenging the Act’s 

constitutionality were filed in this Court. One such complaint was Republican National 

Committee v. FEC, which named as plaintiffs the RNC, Mike Duncan, and several state and local 

party affiliates. Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, Compl., Civ. No. 02-874 (D.D.C. filed May 7, 

2002); see also McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 220, 225 (D.D.C. 2003). Together, the 

complaints challenged, inter alia, the constitutionality of BCRA Title I’s prohibition on federal 

parties’ receipt of soft money and state and local parties’ receipt of soft money to engage in 

federal election activity. 

 

3

 “Generic campaign activity” is “campaign activity that promotes a political party and 

does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(21). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 89
6

 All of the BCRA complaints were consolidated before this Court with McConnell v. 

FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.). When the case reached the Supreme Court, it upheld BCRA 

Title I in its entirety. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 188-89. The Court held that BCRA section 

101(a) was constitutional because “there [was] substantial evidence to support Congress’ 

determination that large soft-money contributions to national political parties give rise to 

corruption and the appearance of corruption,” id. at 154, and that the state and local party limits 

were also “closely drawn to match the important governmental interests of preventing corruption 

and the appearance of corruption,” id. at 173. The Court observed, inter alia, that “all large softmoney contributions to national parties [were] suspect.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 155. 

ARGUMENT 

 While framed as an as-applied challenge, Plaintiffs’ claims in this action seek to revisit 

the Supreme Court’s conclusion in McConnell that BCRA’s limits on soft money are 

constitutional. Plaintiffs attempt to create the illusion that “soft money” is qualitatively different 

from hard money, and that they have a constitutional right to raise unlimited contributions. But 

money is fungible, and in fact, soft money is nothing more than a donation that exceeds FECA’s 

contribution limits or comes from a source that the statute prohibits. Congress, therefore, was 

amply justified in placing an effective limit on contributions made to party committees whose 

activities influence federal elections. This Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to turn back the 

clock to FECA’s pre-BCRA state. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 89
7

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); 

Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The Court must view the record in 

the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving the non-movant the benefit of 

all favorable inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the record and the benefit of any 

doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. Defenders of Wildlife v. Dep’t of 

Agric., 311 F. Supp. 2d 44, 53 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 

157-59 (1970)). 

II. BCRA’S SOFT MONEY RESTRICTIONS FUNCTION AS CONTRIBUTION 

LIMITS AND ARE SUBJECT TO INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY 

 As Plaintiffs concede (Pls.’ Br. 17), McConnell understood Title I’s soft money 

restrictions as limits on contributions, not expenditures, and thus employed intermediate scrutiny 

when it upheld them. The same provisions are at issue here and warrant the same level of 

scrutiny. 

 The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the kind of argument Plaintiffs make here, 

i.e., that a contribution limit should be scrutinized as an expenditure limit because it may reduce 

the total funds an organization has available to spend on particular kinds of activity. In Buckley, 

the Court explained that the “overall effect of the Act’s contribution ceilings is merely to require 

candidates and political committees to raise funds from a greater number of persons and to 

compel people who would [have] otherwise contribute[d] amounts greater than the statutory 

limits to expend such funds on direct political expression.” 424 U.S. at 21-22. In McConnell,

when determining the appropriate level of scrutiny, the Court found it irrelevant that BCRA’s 

soft money provisions prohibit national political parties from both receiving and spending 

nonfederal money and limit state and local parties’ spending of soft money for certain federal 

election activity. The Court observed that “neither provision in any way limits the total amount 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 89
8

of money parties can spend. Rather, they simply limit the source and individual amount of 

donations.” 540 U.S. at 139 (citation omitted). Thus, “for purposes of determining the level of 

scrutiny, it is irrelevant that Congress chose . . . to regulate contributions on the demand rather 

than the supply side.” Id. at 138 (citing Nat’l Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. at 206-11). 

Instead, the determinative factor is whether the provision creates any burden on speech that 

would be greater than a simple, direct limit on contributions: 

The relevant inquiry is whether the mechanism adopted to implement the 

contribution limit, or to prevent circumvention of that limit, burdens speech 

in a way that a direct restriction on the contribution itself would not. That is 

not the case here. 

Id. at 138-39. 

 Unlike a “limitation upon expenditures for political expression, a limitation upon the 

amount that any one person or group may contribute to a candidate or political committee entails 

only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication.” 

Buckley, 424 U.S. at 20. Contribution limits leave contributors free to become members of 

associations and assist with their various efforts on behalf of candidates, and also “to assist to a 

limited but nonetheless substantial extent in supporting candidates and committees with financial 

resources.” Id. at 28. As a result, the Court has concluded that “contribution limits impose 

serious burdens on free speech only if they are so low as to ‘preven[t] candidates and political 

committees from amassing the resources necessary for effective advocacy.’” McConnell, 

540 U.S. at 135 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21). Thus, a contribution limit is valid if it 

satisfies the “lesser demand” of being “closely drawn” to match a “sufficiently important 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 89
9

interest.” Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 387-88 (2000); FEC v. Beaumont, 539 

U.S. 146, 162 (2003); see also Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25.4 

 Plaintiffs do not challenge the current $30,400 limit on hard money contributions to 

national parties (see supra p. 4 n.1),5 but only its application to donations made to national 

parties ostensibly for certain purposes. The premise of the underlying contribution limit, 

however, is that large contributions to a party may influence the conduct of officeholders 

affiliated with that party. Once the validity of that premise is conceded, Congress is entitled to 

considerable deference in deciding whether donations purportedly made for nonfederal purposes 

should be exempted from the limits, or whether those donations also create an unacceptable risk 

of actual or apparent corruption of officeholders. The Court’s ultimate task, then, is to determine 

whether the contribution limits are “so radical in effect as to render political association 

ineffective” for the parties. Shrink Missouri, 528 U.S. at 397. The political parties thrived 

 

4

 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion (Pls.’ Br. 29), the provisions they challenge do not 

“prohibit[]” any campaign activities. The Supreme Court’s application of strict scrutiny in FEC 

v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007), is thus irrelevant here, because that case 

involved 2 U.S.C. § 441b, a direct prohibition on independent corporate campaign spending that 

does not function as a contribution limit. Plaintiffs’ further suggestion (see Pls.’ Br. 17 n.14) that 

this Court should overturn the applicable standard of review, is unjustifiable. Thurston Motor 

Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535 (1983) (“[O]nly [the Supreme] Court may 

overrule one of its precedents.”). Plaintiffs’ reliance (Pls.’ Br. 18) on Citizens Against Rent 

Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), is also misplaced. That case, which involved a 

municipal restriction on contributions to a ballot measure committee, is clearly distinguishable 

from the long line of cases applying lesser scrutiny to contribution limits involving candidate 

elections. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 790 (1978), the Court 

explained that that the “risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections . . . 

simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.” Indeed, the Court later quoted this 

very passage in Citizens Against Rent Control when it continued to rely on the distinction 

between limits involving candidate elections and those involving ballot measures. 454 U.S. at 

298. 

5

 Notably, this is much greater than the $5,000 limit on contributions an individual can 

give to other political committees (i.e., PACs). 2 U.S.C § 441a(a)(1). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 89
10

before they began accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money contributions, they 

have done so after BCRA’s effective date, and there is no basis for finding that they will not 

continue to do so if Plaintiffs’ claims are rejected. (See Def. FEC’s Statement of Genuine Issues 

(“FEC Fact Resp.”) ¶ 23 (noting that RNC has engaged in activities at issue since BCRA was 

enacted).) 

III. McCONNELL’S HOLDING THAT TITLE I IS CONSTITUTIONAL 

REGARDLESS OF HOW THE NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES SPEND 

THEIR FUNDS IS DISPOSITIVE HERE 

McConnell rejected the premise of Plaintiffs’ case — that political parties should be able 

to raise soft money as long as they will spend it on activities that, in their view, do not 

sufficiently influence federal elections. 540 U.S. at 138-39, 154-56. The Court’s reasoning and 

holding are dispositive here: 

 Plaintiffs and THE CHIEF JUSTICE contend that [section 101(a)] is 

impermissibly overbroad because it subjects all funds raised and spent by 

national parties to FECA’s hard-money source and amount limits, including, 

for example, funds spent on purely state and local elections in which no 

federal office is at stake. Such activities, THE CHIEF JUSTICE asserts, 

pose “little or no potential to corrupt . . . federal candidates and 

officeholders.” This observation is beside the point. Section [101(a)], like 

the remainder of [§ 101], regulates contributions, not activities. As the 

record demonstrates, it is the close relationship between federal 

officeholders and the national parties, as well as the means by which parties 

have traded on that relationship, that have made all large soft-money 

contributions to national parties suspect. 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 154-55 (second and third emphases added; footnote and citations 

omitted). In making these points, the Court explicitly acknowledged that 30% of the nonfederal 

funds the RNC had raised in 2001 was spent on “purely state and local election activity.” Id. at 

154 n.50. Despite this fact, the Court found the ban on all soft-money contributions justified by 

the extensive evidence demonstrating the influence that soft-money donors to the national parties 

wielded over the federal officeholders affiliated with those parties. See id. at 150; see generally 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 89
11

id. at 143-54. The Court therefore upheld the soft-money prohibition, finding that “large softmoney contributions to national political parties give rise to corruption and the appearance of 

corruption,” id. at 154 — regardless of how the money is spent. 

The Court then addressed the prohibition on officers of national parties soliciting soft 

money for state and local parties, 2 U.S.C. § 441i(a)(2), one of the provisions that Duncan 

challenged in McConnell and again contests here. Rejecting Duncan’s claim, the Court held that 

the prohibition on officer solicitation “follows sensibly from the prohibition on national 

committees’ receiving soft money.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 157-58. Thus, the Court held that 

the officer solicitation prohibition was constitutional for the same reasons as the national party 

prohibition. Id. 

The Court further held that prohibiting state and local parties from receiving soft money 

for “federal election activity,” 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(20), 441i(b), was a necessary corollary to the 

national party soft-money ban. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 161. The Court noted the evidence that 

the national limit would be “wholly ineffective” without the state and local limit, id. at n.53 

(internal quotation mark omitted), and so held that the latter “promotes an important 

governmental interest by confronting the corrupting influence that soft-money donations to 

political parties already have.” Id. at 165; see also id. at 156 n.51 (“close relationship” between 

federal officeholders and state and local party committees makes those parties “effective 

conduits for donors desiring to corrupt federal candidates and officeholders”). Accordingly, the 

Court upheld the state and local limit on the grounds that “[p]reventing corrupting activity from 

shifting wholesale to state committees and thereby eviscerating FECA clearly qualifies as an 

important governmental interest.” Id. at 165-66. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 89
12

In reaching that conclusion, the Court discussed the state and local parties’ contention 

that some conduct meeting the “federal election activity” statutory definition is activity relating 

only to state and local elections. See id. at 166-68. Rejecting this contention, the Court found 

that the statutory definition of “federal election activity” — particularly “voter registration, voter 

identification, GOTV, and generic campaign activity” — “clearly capture[s] activity that benefits 

federal candidates” and that “funding of such activities creates a significant risk of actual and 

apparent corruption.” Id. at 167-68. The Court held that section 101(b) “is a reasonable 

response to that risk,” and therefore constitutional. Id. 

Finally, the Court addressed the state and local parties’ arguments regarding the 

prohibition on receiving soft money for advertising that promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes a 

federal candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(iii). The Court found that, as to the substantial 

influence of such advertising on federal elections, “[t]he record on this score could scarcely be 

more abundant.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 169-70. Because the evidence regarding such 

influence was clear, the Court held that the statutory limit is “closely drawn to the anticorruption 

interest it is intended to address,” id., and does not unconstitutionally limit state and local parties’ 

“ability to engage in effective advocacy,” id. at 173. 

Although Plaintiffs style their case as an as-applied challenge, their various counts cover 

numerous categories of activity, and these activities were at the heart of Plaintiffs’ case in 

McConnell. There, both their factual allegations and legal arguments relied heavily on these 

same kinds of activities in Plaintiffs’ failed attempt to convince the courts that Title I 

unconstitutionally infringed their rights by regulating activity that was not sufficiently connected 

to federal elections. (See Def. FEC’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 20) at 

12-15.) Thus, when McConnell rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court clearly understood 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 89
13

these kinds of disbursements would have to be financed under the new BCRA rules. McConnell

did not, of course, decide as-applied challenges that were not before it. See Wisconsin Right to 

Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410 (2006). But the reasoning used by the Court in McConnell

rejecting the facial challenge to Title I is inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ particular as-applied 

challenge here.6

IV. THE RISK OF CORRUPTION FROM UNLIMITED SOFT MONEY 

CONTRIBUTIONS JUSTIFIES BCRA’S LIMITS AS APPLIED TO PLAINTIFFS 

A. Background: The Constitution Was Designed to Limit the Power of Political 

Parties, and Corruption Involving Political Parties Later Helped Instigate 

the Enactment of the Campaign Finance Laws 

 

 Far from giving political parties special constitutional rights, the Constitution’s Framers 

consciously created a constitutional framework designed to restrain the power of political parties 

because they viewed parties as a potential threat to representative governance. “Partisan politics 

bears the imprimatur only of tradition, not the Constitution.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 369 

n.22 (1976) (plurality). Commenting on the political beliefs of leaders like Washington, Adams, 

Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson, the historian Richard Hofstadter has written: 

 

6

 When the Court in McConnell left open the possibility for some as-applied challenges to 

Title I, it did not suggest that any such challenge would be successful based on the nature of the 

disbursements that parties wished to make with soft-money donations. Regarding state and local 

parties, the Court found it “largely inconsequential” that BCRA might reduce the money 

available to them; rather, the relevant question was whether the impact of the new provisions “is 

‘so radical in effect as to . . . drive the sound of [the recipient’s] voice below the level of 

notice.’” 540 U.S. at 173 (quoting Shrink Missouri, 528 U.S. at 397). In responding to the 

argument that some state laws might make it impossible for state and local candidates to receive 

hard-money donations at all, the Court stated, “[t]he fact that a handful of States might interfere 

with the mechanism Congress has chosen for such solicitations is an argument that may be 

addressed in an as-applied challenge.” Id. at 157 n.52. The Court also noted that a “nascent or 

struggling minor party can bring an as-applied challenge if § 323(a) prevents it from ‘amassing 

the resources necessary for effective advocacy.’” Id. at 159 (quoting Buckley, 424 U.S. at 21). 

None of these types of as-applied challenges identified in McConnell turn on how donations are 

spent. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 19 of 89
14

If there was one point of political philosophy upon which these men, who 

differed on so many things, agreed quite readily, it was their common 

conviction about the baneful effects of the spirit of party. 

Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System at 3 (1970). 

Alexander Hamilton was among those who agreed that the elimination of 

parties was a possible goal in a well-designed and well-run state. “We are 

attempting by this Constitution,” he said to the New York ratifying 

convention in 1788, “to abolish factions, and to unite all parties for the 

general welfare.” 

Id. at 17; see also The Federalist, No. 85 (Hamilton) at 521 (Rossiter ed., 1961). George 

Washington warned that although political parties can play a useful role, if their power is not 

checked they can destroy the government through corruption: “I have already intimated to you 

the danger of parties in the State. . . . It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, 

which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion.” 

G. Washington, Farewell Address, reprinted in Documents of American History, 169, 172 

(H. Commager ed. 1946). 

 These concerns led the framers to structure the Constitution to try to minimize the 

influence of parties. 

[T]he authors of the Constitution set up an elaborate division and balance 

of powers within an intricate governmental structure designed to make 

parties ineffective. It was hoped that the parties would lose and exhaust 

themselves in futile attempts to fight their way through the labyrinthine 

framework of the government . . . . This is the antiparty part of the 

constitutional scheme. To quote Madison, the “great object” of the 

Constitution was “to preserve the public good and private rights against 

the danger of such a faction [party] and at the same time to preserve the 

spirit and form of popular government.” 

E.E. Schattschneider, Party Government, at 7 (1942) (citing The Federalist, No. 10 (Madison); 

alteration by Schattschneider). “[T]he Fathers hoped to create not a system of party government 

under a constitution but rather a constitutional government that would check and control parties.” 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 20 of 89
15

Hofstadter, at 53. Therefore, although political parties have come to play an important role in 

the nation’s democracy, which justifies Congress’s decision to give them certain special 

advantages (see, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d)), there is no basis for concluding that the Constitution 

forecloses reasonable limits on contributions to the parties. 

 In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, concerns about corruption and political parties 

led to the first efforts to regulate campaign finance. After the Civil War, great aggregations of 

wealth amassed during the industrial revolution flooded the parties, which in turn used their 

officeholders to satisfy the parties’ contributors. Congress responded to this perceived threat to 

democracy with its first efforts to regulate campaign financing, beginning in 1907 with the 

Tillman Act. Fifty years later, the Supreme Court in Automobile Workers reviewed the history 

of these initial legislative efforts. After explaining that the “concentration of wealth consequent 

upon the industrial expansion in the post-Civil War era had profound implications for American 

life,” 352 U.S. at 570, the Court focused on the corruption associated with political parties’ 

becoming indebted to their large contributors. The Court quoted Elihu Root’s speech of 1894, 

where he stated, “I believe that the time has come when something ought to be done to put a 

check to the giving of $50,000 or $100,000 by a great corporation toward political purposes upon 

the understanding that a debt is created from a political party to it.” Id. at 571 (emphasis added; 

citations omitted). In 1906, the Court continued, the “feeling of articulate reform groups was 

reflected at a public [congressional] hearing,” by one leader who explained: “[T]his thing has 

come to the breaking point. We have had enough of it. We don’t want any more secret purchase 

of organizations, which nullifies platforms, nullifies political utterances and the pledges made by 

political leaders in and out of Congress.” Id. at 573 (citation omitted); see also id. at 577-78 

(“We all know that large contributions to political campaigns . . . put the political party under 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 21 of 89
16

obligation to the large contributors, who demand pay in the way of legislation . . . .”) (quoting 

Senator Bankhead). 

B. Even If They Do Not Solicit Soft Money Donations Themselves, Officeholders 

Can Become Obliged to Large Donors to Their Parties 

 Relying on Automobile Workers and other cases, McConnell recounted much of the 

above history, 540 U.S. at 115-17, and specifically noted the “special relationship and unity of 

interest” between national parties and federal candidates and officeholders, id. at 145. “This 

close affiliation has placed national parties in a unique position, ‘whether they like it or not,’ to 

serve as ‘agents for spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders.’” 

Id. (quoting Colorado II, 533 U.S. at 452) (emphasis added). Although the Court noted the role 

that officeholders had played in raising soft money for their political parties, the Court also found 

that, “[e]ven when not participating directly in the fundraising, federal officeholders were well 

aware of the identities of the donors: National party committees would distribute lists of 

potential or actual donors, or donors themselves would report their generosity to officeholders.” 

Id. at 147 (emphasis added). “‘[F]or a member not to know the identities of these donors, he or 

she must actively avoid such knowledge as it is provided by the national political parties and the 

donors themselves.’” Id. (quoting McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 487-88) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) 

(emphasis added); see also id. (citing McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 853-55 (Leon, J.)). Thus, 

Plaintiffs’ alleged intentions (e.g., Pls.’ Br. 6) not to involve officeholders directly in raising soft 

money is of no functional or constitutional significance; Plaintiffs provide no evidence that 

would suggest that donors themselves would suddenly remain quiet about their own generosity.

 At some point, an outside interest group’s contributions to a political party and its 

candidates can become large enough to engender an overall sense of indebtedness from the party 

and its officeholders, regardless of the specific contributions any single Member of Congress 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 22 of 89
17

may have received. The Supreme Court found that “[t]he evidence connects soft money to 

manipulations of the legislative calendar, leading to Congress’ failure to enact, among other 

things, generic drug legislation, tort reform, and tobacco legislation.” 540 U.S. at 150 (citations 

omitted). For example, as former Senator Simon explained: 

It is not unusual for large contributors to seek legislative favors in 

exchange for their contributions. A good example of that which stands out 

in my mind because it was so stark and recent occurred on the next to last 

day of the 1995-96 legislative session. Federal Express wanted to amend 

a bill being considered by a Conference Committee . . . . This was clearly 

of benefit to Federal Express, which according to published reports had 

contributed $1.4 million in the last 2-year cycle to incumbent Members of 

Congress and almost $1 million in soft money to the political parties. I 

opposed this in the Democratic Caucus, arguing that even if it was good 

legislation, it should not be approved without holding a hearing, we should 

not cave in to special interests. One of my senior colleagues got up and 

said, “I’m tired of Paul always talking about special interests; we’ve got to 

pay attention to who is buttering our bread.” I will never forget that. This 

was a clear example of donors getting their way, not on the merits of the 

legislation, but just because they had been big contributors. I do not think 

there is any question that this is the reason it passed. 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 482 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.).7

 After reviewing evidence like this, the 

Court in McConnell rejected a “crabbed view of corruption” and instead embraced “common 

 

7

 “Once elected to legislative office, public officials enter an environment in which 

political parties-in-government control the resources crucial to subsequent electoral success and 

legislative power. Political parties organize the legislative caucuses that make committee 

assignments.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 156 (quoting Expert Report of Donald P. Green, Yale 

University). Thus “officeholders’ reelection prospects are significantly influenced by attitudes of 

party leadership,” id. (citation omitted), and an individual Member’s stature and responsibilities 

vary dramatically depending on whether his party is in the majority or in the minority. See

Green Rept. at 8 [DEV 1-Tab 3]. (“DEV” and “Tab” cites refer to the volumes and tab numbers 

of Defendants’ Exhibit Volumes submitted to this Court in McConnell. Copies of nonconfidential exhibits are contemporaneously being filed on DVD, with courtesy copies to 

Chambers.) Party officials both inside and outside Congress will naturally seek to cultivate an 

attitude that each party member has an important stake in the success of the larger organization. 

It was thus reasonable for Congress and the Supreme Court to conclude that a Member of 

Congress is likely to look favorably upon his party’s large-scale benefactors, and that substantial 

contributions to the party will therefore create risks of “undue influence on an officeholder’s 

judgment, and the appearance of such influence,” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 150 (citing Colorado 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 23 of 89
18

sense, . . . the realities of political fundraising,” and the need to prevent corruption and the 

“appearance of corruption.” 540 U.S. at 152. In particular, the Court rejected the notion that 

only a “direct contribution to the candidate” can “threaten to create . . . a sense of obligation” 

from a candidate to a donor, id. at 144, or that only “contributions made at the express behest of” 

a candidate created a concern about corruption, id. at 152. Rather, the Court explained that 

persons seeking influence with officeholders and candidates have shown a history of exploiting 

loopholes in the Act, and that indirect attempts to use money to gain influence can create actual 

corruption, or the appearance of corruption, that can justify congressional efforts to protect the 

integrity of the democratic process. See generally id. at 143-154.8

 

 Moreover, despite Plaintiffs’ alleged plans not to return to all of the pre-BCRA 

fundraising practices, the record in McConnell makes clear that “[m]any in the corporate world 

view large soft money donations as a cost of doing business.” Id. at 147 n.46 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the record was replete with evidence that big donors gave 

largely to secure influence, not for ideological reasons — a fact proven most pointedly by the 

pattern of top donors’ giving to both major national parties. Id. at 148.9 Often this giving was 

 

II, 533 U.S. at 441), similar to those posed by a sizeable contribution to the candidate himself. 

Plaintiffs concede (Pls.’ Br. 40), for example, that the RNC’s chairman will be grateful to soft 

money donors, but provide no plausible reason why its officeholders would not share that sense 

of gratitude. 

8

 As the Supreme Court has made clear, avoiding the appearance of corruption is an 

important governmental interest; if the government leaves “the perception of impropriety 

unanswered,” the “cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the 

willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works only if the people 

have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and 

their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.” 

Shrink Missouri, 528 U.S. at 390 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

9

 See, e.g., McConnell, 540 U.S at 147 n.46 (many corporate donors “‘view large soft 

money donations as a cost of doing business’”) (quoting Hasbro CEO Alan Hassenfeld); 

Bumpers Decl. ¶¶ 18-23 [DEV 6-Tab 10] (explaining that soft money donations can buy access 

to officeholders and get phone calls to officeholders returned, and that there is often “an 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 24 of 89
19

not in response to particular solicitations, but made at the suggestion of professional lobbyists as 

part of a broader plan to obtain influence. As lobbyist Daniel Murray explained (emphasis 

added), 

I advise my clients as to which federal office-holders (or candidates) they 

should contribute and in what amounts, in order to best use the resources 

they are able to allocate to such efforts to advance their legislative agenda. 

Such plans also would include soft money contributions to political parties 

and interest groups associated with political issues.

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 495 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); see also id. (“‘To have true political 

clout, the giving and raising of campaign money for candidates and political parties is often 

critically important.’”) (quoting lobbyist Wright Andrews). 

 Nothing in Plaintiffs’ allegations or evidence suggests that Plaintiffs could or would do 

anything to change the behavior of lobbyists. When the Supreme Court discussed the “evidence 

in the record showing that national parties have actively exploited the belief that contributions 

purchase influence or protection to pressure donors into making contribution,” it quoted the 

statement of a CEO who specifically referred to heavy-handed solicitations by lobbyists. 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 148 n.47. If a corporation had given a lot of money to one side, the CEO 

explained, “‘the other side,’” i.e., the opposing national party committee, might have “‘a friendly 

 

expectation of reciprocation where donations to the party are made”); Simpson Decl. ¶¶ 8-12 

[DEV 9-Tab 38] (“Big labor and big business use large soft money donations to corrupt the 

system to the detriment of the little guy”; “[l]arge donors of both hard and soft money receive 

special treatment”; recounting instances in which Senators’ votes and legislative priorities were 

affected by fear of losing future donations); McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 496 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

J.) (“‘Large soft money contributions in fact distort the legislative process. They affect what gets 

done and how it gets done.’”) (quoting Senator Rudman); id. at 484-85 (poll of senior executives 

shows that pressure is placed on business leaders to make large contributions, and that main 

reasons such contributions are made are fear of adverse legislative consequences and to obtain 

access to lawmakers); Hickmott Decl. ¶ 9 [DEV 6-Tab 19] (“[C]orporations, labor unions and 

individuals make soft money contributions to national political parties and federal candidate 

PACs, including joint fundraising committees, to influence the legislative process for their 

business purposes.”). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 25 of 89
20

lobbyist call and indicate that someone with interests before a certain committee has had their 

contributions to the other side noticed.’” Id. (quoting Wade Randlett). Thus, if Plaintiffs prevail, 

lobbyists will have every incentive to again raise soft money and advise their clients to make 

large soft money donations to the political parties. These incentives are strong and exist 

independent of any solicitations that parties or officeholders may make. 

The amount of influence that a lobbyist has is often directly correlated to the 

amount of money that he or she and his or her clients infuse into the 

political system. . . . Those who are most heavily involved in giving and 

raising campaign finance money are frequently, and not surprisingly, the 

lobbyists with the most political clout. 

Id. at 495 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 869-70 (Leon, J.) (quoting Andrews). None of this predictable 

behavior would be quelled by the absence of officeholders from direct fundraising. 

 Even when solicitations are made by party officials rather than officeholders, the 

solicitations can place tremendous pressure on prospective donors. Solicitations from party 

leaders are potentially coercive because party leaders are so closely connected to federal 

officeholders. See McCain Decl. ¶ 21 [DEV 8-Tab 29]. The Thompson Committee, for 

example, found that Clinton Administration Deputy White House Chief of Staff Harold Ickes 

“ran the DNC on a day-to-day basis,” that he reported its fundraising and expenditures to the 

President and the Vice President, and that the DNC’s national chairman, Don Fowler, was 

effectively subordinate to Ickes. S. Rep. No. 105-167 at 34; see also Kolb Decl. Exh. 6 at 4 

[DEV 7-Tab 24] (51% of corporate executives surveyed agreed that “many business executives 

fear adverse legislative consequences to themselves or their industry if they turn down requests 

for campaign contributions from high-ranking political leaders and/or political operatives”). 

 The “party’s involvement does not sterilize the system” because “[e]lected officials know 

exactly who the big party contributors are.” Rudman Decl. ¶ 12 [DEV 8-Tab 34]; accord

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 26 of 89
21

Simpson Decl. ¶ 5 [DEV 9-Tab 38]; Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 [DEV 6-Tab 16]. Donation patterns 

were well-known or easily ascertainable by party officials, officeholders, staff, and opposing 

lobbyists, through FEC reports or other means. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 148 n.47; 251 F. 

Supp. 2d at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), (“‘[T]here is communication among Members about who has 

made soft money donations and at what level they have given, and this is widely known and 

understood by the Members and their staff.’”) (quoting CEO Wade Randlett); id. at 487 (KollarKotelly, J), 853-54 (Leon, J.) (“‘[Y]ou cannot be a good Democratic or a good Republican 

Member and not be aware of who gave money to the party.’”) (quoting Senator Bumpers); id. at 

487-88 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (“‘Legislators of both parties often know who the large 

soft money contributors to their parties are.’”) (quoting Senator McCain); id. at 487-88 (KollarKotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (donor’s “‘lobbyist informs the Senator that a large donation was just 

made’”) (quoting Senator Boren). Congressional staffers also know the identities of the big soft 

money donors. See id. at 482 (“‘Staffers who work for Members know who the big donors are, 

and those people always get their phone calls returned first and are allowed to see the Member 

when others are not.’”) (quoting Senator Simpson). Thus, “[p]arty committees do not so much 

dilute and ‘cleanse’ private interest money as centralize it and focus it on the President and the 

congressional leadership.” Richard Briffault, The Political Parties and Campaign Finance 

Reform, 100 COLUM. L. REV. 620, 651 (2000); see also Colorado II, 533 U.S. at 455 (“[P]arties 

continue to organize to elect candidates, and also function for the benefit of donors whose object 

is to place candidates under obligation, a fact that parties cannot escape.”). These concerns about 

the national parties are equally acute for the state and local parties. 

“[T]he federal candidates who benefit from state party use of these funds 

will know exactly whom their benefactors are; the same degree of 

beholdenness and obligation will arise; the same distortions on the 

legislative process will occur; and the same public cynicism will erode the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 27 of 89
22

foundations of our democracy — except it will all be worse in the public’s 

mind because a perceived reform was undercut once again by a loophole 

that allows big money into the system.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 165 (quoting Senator Rudman).10

Plaintiffs’ fundraising procedures ensure that this knowledge of donors’ largesse will 

continue in the future. Plaintiffs frequently arrange meetings, receptions, dinners, and other 

events, at which their major donors mingle with federal candidates and officeholders, from 

candidates for the House of Representatives to the sitting President of the United States. (FEC 

Fact Resp. ¶ 24.) An attending donor has an opportunity to inform these federal candidates and 

officeholders about the donor’s opinion on legislation or issues. (Id.) Because only major 

donors attend these events (the public at large is not invited), the candidates and officeholders 

who attend know that, by definition, each attendee who expresses such an opinion has given a 

significant sum to the party. (Id.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ organizational structure ensures that 

federal officeholders have access to information regarding large donations. “[T]he role of the 

RNC is to be a political arm of Republicans either seeking office or in office” (FEC Fact Resp. 

¶ 1 (quoting Josefiak Dep. 197:1-18)), and so the RNC is “inextricably intertwined with federal 

officeholders and candidates” (id. (quoting McConnell, 540 U.S. at 155)). The CRP and RPSD 

reserve positions in their leadership structures for federal officeholders (id. ¶¶ 2-3), positions in 

 

10 Plaintiffs contend (Pls.’ Br. 26 n.16) that BCRA does not reduce the appearance of 

corruption because trust in government has remained low subsequent to its passage. Even 

assuming that BCRA has not single-handedly been able to boost confidence in government, 

however, such measurements were only a subset of the public opinion evidence presented in 

McConnell, and Plaintiffs do not make any effort to call into question the more specific findings 

that contributions above the federal limits appear corrupt to broad majorities of the American 

public. See, e.g., McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 512-14, 517 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Recent polls 

continue to confirm that the public generally believes that federal officeholders can be influenced 

by large contributions. See, e.g., Rasmussen Reports, Most Say Political Donors Get More Than 

Their Money’s Worth, Feb. 9, 2009 (FEC Exh. 25) (majority believes member of Congress can 

be influenced by contributions of $50,000 or less). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 28 of 89
23

which these officeholders learn of large donations as a matter of course (id. ¶ 24). Given these 

procedures and interlocking arrangements, federal candidates and officeholders will inevitably 

know who the respective parties’ largest donors are — the same donors who have frequent 

opportunities, not open to others, to ask federal candidates and officeholders to take action in 

accordance with the donors’ views. 

 Finally, Plaintiffs do not suggest that their officeholders will cease raising hard money for 

the RNC, and Plaintiffs concede that certain hard money donors currently receive preferential 

treatment and will continue to do so. Plaintiffs state that the “RNC will not facilitate meetings 

between officeholders and contributors, encourage officeholders to meet with contributors, or 

provide any other opportunities for access, different than or beyond that provided to contributors 

of federal funds.” (Pls.’ Br. 23 (emphasis added).) But it defies common sense and the record 

from McConnell to suggest that when the RNC provides big donors special access to 

officeholders, that the legislators can strike from their consciousness, for example, that a donor 

has given not only $30,000 in hard money to the RNC, but another $100,000 or $500,000 in soft 

money. “‘[D]onors do not really differentiate between hard and soft money; they often 

contribute to assist or gain favor with an individual politician.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 

476 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 822 (Leon, J.) (quoting Senator Simpson).11 

 

11 Though now restricted in whole or in part to dollar amounts that reduce the danger of 

corruption, Plaintiffs continue to provide access to contributors of federal funds based on the size 

of the contribution: At the RNC, for example, donors who give $15,000 receive “intimate 

luncheons, dinners, and meetings with key policymakers”; donors who give $30,400 “enjoy 

exclusive private functions with elected Republican leaders”; and donors who commit to raising 

$60,800 receive “at least one . . . exclusive event during the year,” as well as other “intimate 

events with key GOP policymakers.” (FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 24 (quoting FEC Exh. 7).) And the 

RNC sets its highest donation tier to correspond to the legal contribution limit; when the 

contribution limits rise, the RNC increases the size of the donation required to reach the top tier. 

(Id.) If the RNC were permitted to accept million-dollar donations, it is difficult to believe it 

would not establish additional “benefits” (i.e., access to candidates and officeholders) beyond the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 29 of 89
24

 The examples described above are simply illustrative. Voluminous record evidence in 

McConnell describes donors’ use of large soft-money donations to obtain access to federal 

officeholders and thereby attempt to affect legislative outcomes. That evidence is exhaustively 

catalogued in Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion (see 251 F. Supp. 2d at 481-512) and dwarfs the 

evidence of corruption that the Court in Buckley (see 424 U.S. at 27 & n.28) and Shrink Missouri 

(see 528 U.S. at 393-394) found sufficient in upholding the contribution limits at issue in those 

cases. In sum, there is every reason to believe that wealthy interests will use any and all 

available opportunities for buying influence, with or without the active fundraising of 

officeholders.12

C. Overall, FECA Confers Advantages on Political Parties Relative to 

Other Entities 

 Plaintiffs argue (Pls.’ Br. 29) that in some ways they are worse off than corporations and 

unions, but they fail to view the big picture. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, 

“differing structures and purposes” of different entities “may require different forms of 

regulation in order to protect the integrity of the electoral process.” California Med. Ass’n v. 

FEC, 453 U.S. 182, 201 (1981); accord, e.g., Nat’l Right to Work, 459 U.S. at 210-11. Overall, 

political parties are subject to fewer restrictions than other entities. 

 

current top level (which would be quite minimal in comparison). In any event, it is beyond 

dispute after McConnell that soft money contributors will secure access to, and influence over, 

federal officeholders, without regard to whether access is provided by the political parties 

themselves. 

12 In McConnell, the Plaintiffs’ own expert, David Primo, testified that, assuming that 

money does buy access to or influence of federal officeholders, soft money is more likely to buy 

access or influence “simply by virtue of the numbers.” Primo Cross Tr. (Oct. 23, 2002) at 162, 

McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.), Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003); accord Krasno 

& Sorauf Expert Rep. at 15 [DEV 1-Tab 2] (“[T]he much greater size of the [soft money] 

individual donations at issue here pose a proportionately larger risk of influencing their 

beneficiaries than do contributions of hard money.”); Andrews Decl. ¶ 18 [DEV 6-Tab 1]; 

Wirthlin Cross Tr. (Oct. 21, 2002) at 57, McConnell, Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 30 of 89
25

 In McConnell, the Court noted that “BCRA actually favors political parties in many 

ways.” 540 U.S. at 188. Specifically, compared with “nonparty political committees,” political 

parties can accept much higher contributions from individuals, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(B),(C), and 

can make contributions that “greatly exceed the contribution limits that apply to other donors” in 

the form of coordinated expenditures, 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d). McConnell, 540 U.S. at 188. In turn, 

the Court had previously noted that nonparty political committees have “far fewer restrictions” 

than corporations and unions because the former can make unlimited expenditures on political 

speech. California Med., 453 U.S. at 200. Putting these two comparisons together, political 

parties have the most favorable set of restrictions among these entities. And to the extent the 

parties are regulated differently, the Supreme Court has noted why that difference is appropriate: 

Other entities “do not select slates of candidates for elections[, or] . . . determine who will serve 

on legislative committees . . . . Political parties have influence and power in the Legislature that 

vastly exceeds that of any interest group.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 188. 

Plaintiffs ignore this bigger picture when they cite (Pls.’ Br. 29) FEC v. Wisconsin Right 

to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007) (“WRTL”), for the proposition that political parties are 

disadvantaged relative to corporations and unions. WRTL permits corporations and unions to use 

their general funds only for communications that are not the functional equivalent of express 

advocacy, see WRTL, 127 S. Ct. at 2667, but for all spending on FECA expenditures, political 

parties have a distinct advantage. Corporations and unions must finance their expenditures with 

hard-money donations raised in increments of $5,000 or less to their PACs, while national 

political parties can raise over $30,000 from each donor. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1); see also

FEC Fact Resp. ¶¶ 18 (noting that RNC and DNC are subject to identical contribution limits), 26 

(discussing “527” organizations; redacted from public version, filed under seal). And because 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 31 of 89
26

Congress and the Supreme Court have presumed that all money spent by political parties is 

campaign-related, see infra p. 33, parties have a distinct fundraising advantage for spending at 

the core of their mission. Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that WRTL renders political parties 

“disadvantaged” is contrary to the overall statutory scheme, under which national political 

parties possess significant advantages over all other entities. 

V. PLAINTIFFS’ APPROACH WOULD CREATE AN UNWORKABLE 

CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS THAT RELIES ON THEIR UNVERIFIABLE 

PLEDGES TO AVOID CERTAIN KINDS OF BEHAVIOR 

 Another fundamental flaw in Plaintiffs’ case is its reliance on their vague and 

unenforceable intention to reduce opportunities for corruption. While acknowledging (Pls.’ 

Br. 21) that McConnell upheld Title I in part because of the past fundraising practices of the 

national parties, Plaintiffs nevertheless attempt (id. 21-24) to distance themselves from the 

corrupting effects of those practices — and McConnell’s precedent — by resting their case on 

the steps they will purportedly take to minimize corruption and its appearance. Thus, even under 

their own theory, Plaintiffs’ case turns on their ability to show, at a minimum, not only that their 

proposed spending is far removed from influencing federal elections, but also that the behaviors 

they intend to adopt will eliminate the corruption concerns identified in McConnell. For several 

reasons, this unprecedented attempt to prevail in an as-applied challenge based on ill-defined, 

inadequate changes in behavior must fail. 

 First, as discussed above, the record in McConnell demonstrates that the changes 

Plaintiffs intend to make would do little to prevent real or perceived corruption. Large moneyed 

interests will take advantage of opportunities to buy influence regardless of whether they are 

formally solicited. Even if officeholders do not themselves solicit soft-money donations, they 

will be aware of and appreciate such donations to their parties. Donors can feel tremendous 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 32 of 89
27

pressure to give even if the solicitations come from party officials rather than officeholders. And 

when Plaintiffs facilitate special access for donors who give both hard and soft money, the 

officeholders are unlikely to selectively forget what they know about the donors’ soft money 

generosity. 

 Second, Plaintiffs have insufficient control over their donors and officeholders to ease the 

corruption concern. Donors who give large amounts of soft money to the parties will be free to 

share this information with officeholders — to obtain meetings, to remind officeholders of their 

generosity at meetings arranged by the party (purportedly because of hard money donations), or 

to equip their lobbyists when sent out to seek special favors. Likewise, although Plaintiffs assert 

that they will not facilitate extra access for soft-money donors, they do not purport to represent 

or control the behavior of the hundreds of federal officeholders and candidates who are members 

of their party. Given the complete lack of evidence suggesting that Plaintiffs could do anything 

to prevent a relapse of the donor and officeholder behaviors demonstrated in McConnell, 

Plaintiffs’ intentions to reduce their own role as facilitators of access is of no constitutional 

significance. 

 Third, Plaintiffs’ suggested constitutional test for exemptions from facially valid 

contribution limits would introduce an unworkable, vague standard that would defeat the purpose 

of those limits. In addressing constitutional challenges to other FECA provisions, the Supreme 

Court has recognized the value of bright-line rules in preventing evasion of the statute’s anticorruption purposes and in furnishing clear guidance to regulated entities. In Buckley the Court 

“assumed” that “most large contributors do not seek improper influence over a candidate’s 

position or an officeholder’s action.” 424 U.S. at 29 (emphasis added). The Court held, 

however, that the difficulty of isolating suspect contributions and Congress’s interest in guarding 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 33 of 89
28

against the inherent appearance of abuse justified universal application of the $1,000 individual 

contribution limit. Id. at 29-30. The Court’s analysis clearly portends the likely failure of 

as-applied challenges to the contribution limits by well-intentioned contributors who might seek 

to prove that their own contributions, though in excess of the statutory caps, would be made 

without any intent to receive special influence in return.13 The Court did not invite the lower 

courts to replace the fixed-dollar contribution limits with new multi-part tests to apply whenever 

a particular individual seeks to demonstrate that his or her contribution is sufficiently wellintentioned to avoid regulation. See California Med., 453 U.S. at 198-99 (specific contributions 

to a political committee are subject to general FECA restrictions even if they were purportedly to 

be used for administrative support, rather than for affecting elections directly); Goland v. United 

States, 903 F.2d 1247, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1990) (contributions are subject to FECA restrictions 

even if contributor keeps his identity secret by using straw donors, thereby allegedly precluding 

opportunity to exert undue influence). 

More generally, many prophylactic statutory rules, including the Act’s contribution 

limits, cannot depend upon an in-depth analysis of the extent to which the interests underlying 

them are served in each particular situation. In Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000), for 

example, the Supreme Court made clear that the rule at issue would simply cease to function if it 

were made susceptible to as-applied challenges. In that case, a statute banned “unwelcome 

demonstrators” from coming closer than eight feet to people entering health care facilities. The 

Court specifically recognized that the statute’s “prophylactic approach . . . will sometimes inhibit 

a demonstrator whose approach in fact would have proved harmless.” Id. at 729. The Court in 

 

13 The Court rejected an exception for contributions from “immediate family members,” 

even though the Court accepted the proposition that the “risk of improper influence is somewhat 

diminished” in that circumstance. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 53 n.59. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 34 of 89
29

Hill nonetheless upheld the statute, explaining that the very exercise of engaging in a case-bycase factual analysis would thwart the rule’s effectiveness and limit free expression (id.): 

But the statute’s prophylactic aspect is justified by the great difficulty of 

protecting, say, a pregnant woman from physical harassment with legal rules 

that focus exclusively on the individual impact of each instance of behavior, 

demanding in each case an accurate characterization (as harassing or not 

harassing) of each individual movement within the 8-foot boundary. Such 

individual characterization of each individual movement is often difficult to 

make accurately. A bright-line prophylactic rule may be the best way to 

provide protection, and, at the same time, by offering clear guidance and 

avoiding subjectivity, to protect speech itself. 

 Similarly, in Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995), the Court upheld 

Florida Bar rules prohibiting lawyers from sending targeted direct mail solicitations to victims 

and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. Id. at 620. The Court did not 

question the claims of those challenging the rules that the injuries or grief of some victims are 

“relatively minor,” but stressed instead that making case-specific judgments would entail 

“drawing difficult lines” as to the severity of different kinds of “grief, anger, or emotion.” Id. at 

633. In such cases, the Court has upheld objective, prophylactic rules that it acknowledged 

would regulate speech that might not implicate the government interests involved in order to 

pretermit the practical difficulty and chilling effect of case-by-case analysis. See also Heffron v. 

Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 654 (1981) (rejecting both as-applied 

and facial challenges and explaining that “any such exemption [from a rule fixing the physical 

location of First Amendment activity] cannot be meaningfully limited to [the plaintiff], and as 

applied to similarly situated groups would prevent the State from furthering its important 

concern”). 

 Here, Plaintiffs present the same kind of unworkable line-drawing exercise by relying on 

vague steps they intend to take to reduce the opportunity for corruption. Plaintiffs allege (Pls.’ 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 35 of 89
30

Br. 23) that the RNC will not “facilitate” meetings between officeholders and contributors; but 

might they passively participate in the meetings or, conversely, try to prevent them from 

happening? Plaintiffs allege (id.) that they will not “encourage” officeholders to meet with 

contributors or provide other access in a manner “different than or beyond that provided to 

contributors of federal funds”; but will they acquiesce in such meetings or, conversely, 

discourage them? Will the answer differ depending upon how much special access contributors 

are already getting because of their hard-money contributions? Plaintiffs’ conclusory assertion 

(id.) that an appearance of corruption “is simply not present” here is unsupported by specific 

evidence about their future practices, silent regarding the relevance and variety of the 

officeholders’ and donors’ behavior beyond the control of Plaintiffs (see supra pp. 26-28), and 

disconnected from any constitutional yardstick for evaluating these facts. In sum, Plaintiffs’ 

proposal for as-applied constitutional challenges would enmesh the courts in formless ad hoc

inquiries into subtle forms of behavior generally occurring behind closed doors.14 

 Plaintiffs also provide no suggestion for how their as-applied victory could be enforced 

or monitored. If an agent of the RNC errs and facilitates a meeting between an officeholder and 

a soft-money donor, does the RNC have to forfeit the money in its new soft-money accounts? 

Does it matter how generous the donor has been, how important the meeting was, or whether the 

 

14 Plaintiffs’ proposed exemption differs not just in degree, but in kind, from the as-applied 

exemption the Court established in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 

253-54 (1986) (“MCFL”). In MCFL, the Court held that the pre-BCRA prohibition on the use of 

corporate treasury funds for campaign-related expenditures cannot constitutionally be applied to 

a narrow class of corporations having specified characteristics. Id. at 263-64; see also

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 209-211. The exemption turns on an objective and readily administrable 

assessment of the organization’s structure and overall activities. Specifically, the inquiry 

involves several threshold, bright-line inquiries: whether the corporation engages in any 

business activity, whether anyone has a claim on its assets or earnings, whether the corporation 

was established by a business corporation or a labor union, and whether it has a policy not to 

accept any contributions from such entities. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 210-11. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 36 of 89
31

public finds out? How is the Commission to become aware of purposeful or inadvertent failures 

of Plaintiffs to live up to their promised code of conduct? The Court should be especially wary 

of blessing an arrangement that creates additional incentives to hide special access for large 

donors. Cf. Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 123 (2001) (rejecting construction 

of statute that would introduce “complexity and uncertainty” and thereby “undermin[e] . . . the 

[statute’s] . . . purposes and ‘breed[ ] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it’”).15

 As discussed above, see supra pp. 22-23, Plaintiffs already provide their major donors 

with substantial access to federal candidates and officeholders — access that increases as the size 

of the donation increases. The RNC has no written policy, and gives no written guidance to its 

employees, against providing donors with preferential access to federal candidates and 

officeholders. (FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 24.) To the extent the RNC has an unwritten “policy” on this 

issue, it is the same policy that was in effect prior to BCRA, when the trading of soft money for 

access ran rampant. (Id.) Thus, if the RNC were granted the right to solicit soft money, such 

solicitations, in combination with the manifestly ineffective anti-access policy, would recreate 

precisely the situation that existed prior to BCRA’s enactment. It was this situation that the 

McConnell Court held Congress was justified in ending, and so it cannot be Plaintiffs’ 

constitutional right to bring it back. 

 

15 Plaintiffs’ position is reminiscent of the argument defendants sometimes make when 

claiming that a case has become moot: that the voluntary cessation of certain practices has ended 

any concern about their behavior. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. 

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). The Supreme Court has explained that the “‘heavy 

burden of persua[ding]’ the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to 

start up again lies with the party asserting mootness.” Id. (citation omitted). That same burden 

should apply here concerning Plaintiffs’ alleged changes in fundraising practices and facilitating 

access to officeholders. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 37 of 89
32

 Plaintiffs’ proposed constitutional methodology is particularly unworkable because it 

requires the Court to assess both the relative nexus between their spending and federal elections 

and the sufficiency of their anti-corruption code of conduct as it relates to each type of category 

of spending Plaintiffs have created. (We explain infra pp. 36-44 why Plaintiffs’ arguments about 

the federal impact of their spending are flawed.) Because their challenge marries several 

categories of spending with several proposed behavioral limits, Plaintiffs’ methodology would 

essentially allow any political party to litigate the validity of a huge number of 

spending/behavioral permutations — and would require the courts to rule on all of these 

hypothetical campaign finance regimes that Congress could have, but has not, enacted. Such an 

approach is almost certain to prove incapable of workable administration, and it would dismantle 

the careful legislative balancing of interests that culminated in BCRA. 

VI. PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION 

BASED ON THE USES THEY INTEND FOR THEIR FUNDS 

A. Plaintiffs’ Invented “Unambiguously Campaign Related” Standard 

Is Inapplicable Here 

Throughout their brief, Plaintiffs rely upon their erroneous argument that all campaign 

finance restrictions are unconstitutional unless they are “unambiguously campaign related.” This 

assertion grossly misinterprets Buckley and its progeny. Plaintiffs distort Buckley by contending 

that the decision enshrined the phrase “unambiguously-campaign-related” as a stand-alone 

constitutional “requirement” (Pls.’ Br. 9) that all campaign finance provisions must pass. On the 

contrary, this phrase was merely part of the Court’s explanation that its statutory construction of 

“expenditure” in one part of the Act’s disclosure provisions would resolve “serious problems of 

vagueness,” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 76 — a problem that not even Plaintiffs have suggested exists 

concerning contribution limits. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 38 of 89
33

 In particular, Plaintiffs’ contention (Pls.’ Br. 9-10, 15 n.11) that Buckley applied an 

“unambiguously campaign related” requirement to the definition of “contribution” is flatly 

contradicted by the plain language of that case and others. Initially, Buckley held that the 

definition of “contribution” raises lesser constitutional concerns than that of “expenditure.” 

While expenditure limits are subject to strict scrutiny because they “place substantial and direct” 

limits on speech, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 58, limits on contributions entail “only a marginal 

restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication,” id. at 20, and will be 

upheld if they are “closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest,” McConnell, 540 

U.S. at 136 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Next, Buckley found it unnecessary to 

narrowly construe “contribution” as it did “expenditure,” and instead stated that the term 

includes 

not only contributions made directly or indirectly to a candidate, political 

party, or campaign committee, and contributions made to other 

organizations or individuals but earmarked for political purposes, but also 

all expenditures placed in cooperation with . . . a candidate . . . . So defined, 

“contributions” have a sufficiently close relationship to the goals of the Act, 

for they are connected with a candidate or his campaign. 

424 U.S. at 78 (emphases added); see also id. at 24 n.24 (“Funds provided to a candidate or 

political party or campaign committee either directly or indirectly through an intermediary 

constitute a contribution.”). 

Buckley thus concluded that all donations received by a candidate or political party have 

a “sufficiently close relationship” to campaigns to fall legitimately within the scope of the Act, 

id. at 78, and, contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Court did not employ an “unambiguously 

campaign related” analysis in reaching this conclusion. Indeed, the only qualifier the Court 

added was that funds would have to be “earmarked for political purposes” if donated to 

individuals or organizations other than political committees, and even that qualifier is much 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 39 of 89
34

broader than Plaintiffs’ “unambiguous campaign related” label. Moreover, in California 

Medical, the petitioner argued that contributions to political committees earmarked for 

administrative support could not be regulated because such contributions lacked potential to 

corrupt the political process. 453 U.S. at 198 n.19. The Court rejected that argument and 

explained that donations “earmarked for administrative support” and other non-political purposes 

can be constitutionally regulated as contributions because exempting such donations “could 

corrupt the political process in a manner that Congress, through its contribution restrictions, has 

sought to prohibit.” Id. 

 In McConnell, the Court reaffirmed its holdings in Buckley and California Medical and 

rejected a “crabbed view of corruption.” 540 U.S. at 152. In facially upholding the very 

contribution limits at issue here, the Court specifically rejected the suggestion that limits on 

contributions can be upheld only if they involve a direct relationship with a candidate. 

[W]e upheld [in Buckley] FECA’s $25,000 limit on aggregate yearly 

contributions to candidates, political committees, and party committees out 

of recognition that FECA’s $1,000 limit on candidate contributions would 

be meaningless if individuals could instead make huge contributions to the 

candidate’s political party. Likewise, in California Medical Assn. v. 

Federal Election Comm’n, we upheld FECA’s $5,000 limit on contributions 

to multicandidate political committees. It is no answer to say that such 

limits were justified as a means of preventing individuals from using parties 

and political committees as pass-throughs to circumvent FECA’s $1,000 

limit on individual contributions to candidates. Given FECA’s definition of 

“contribution,” the $5,000 and $25,000 limits restricted not only the source 

and amount of funds available to parties and political committees to make 

candidate contributions, but also the source and amount of funds available to 

engage in express advocacy and numerous other noncoordinated 

expenditures.

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 152 n.48 (last emphasis added) (quotation marks and internal citations 

omitted). Thus, the Court again held that limits on contributions to political parties (and other 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 40 of 89
35

political committees) are constitutional even if the funds received are eventually used for a 

variety of “noncoordinated expenditures” that do not include express advocacy.16 

Plaintiffs also rely heavily on MCFL and WRTL in their “unambiguously campaign 

related” argument, but those cases involved 2 U.S.C. § 441b’s direct limits on corporate 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications, not contributions. Moreover, 

while those cases limited the scope of section 441b, nothing in them undermines McConnell’s 

holding that Buckley’s “express advocacy limitation, in both the expenditure and the disclosure 

contexts, was the product of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional command.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 191-92. Thus, Buckley’s interpretation of the term independent 

“expenditure” (when made by individuals or groups other than political committees) to mean 

spending that is “unambiguously related” to the campaign of a candidate, 424 U.S. at 79-80, has 

no bearing on the Act’s contribution limits, which, as discussed supra p. 33, requires no 

narrowing construction to avoid vagueness.17

 

16 Cf. FEC v. Malenick, Civ. No. 02-1237, 2005 WL 588222 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2005) 

(California Medical stands for proposition that classifying funds as “contributions” under Act is 

not function of subjective intent of contributor as to how money will be spent). 

17 Plaintiffs also rely (Pls.’ Br. 11 n.7) on Bellotti and Citizens Against Rent Control for 

their “unambiguously campaign related” theory, but those cases neither used that phrase nor had 

anything to do with any candidate campaigns; they concerned pure issue speech regarding 

citizen initiatives and referenda. See Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 790 (distinguishing referendum from 

candidate campaign); Citizens Against Rent Control, 454 U.S. at 297 (same). Neither Citizens 

Against Rent Control nor Bellotti even mentioned Buckley’s “expenditure” construction, much 

less applied it to ballot initiative funding issues. 

 Likewise, Plaintiffs’ reliance (Pls.’ Br. 16 n.13) on FEC Advisory Opinion 2005-10 is 

mistaken. In that opinion, the Commission permitted two members of Congress to raise 

nonfederal funds for a state committee formed to support or oppose state ballot initiatives in a 

special election in which no candidates — state or federal — were on the ballot. See FEC 

Advisory Op. 2005-10 (“AO 2005-10”), http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/2005-10.pdf (Aug. 22, 

2005); Cal. Sec’y of State, Statewide Special Election Nov. 8, 2005, http://vote2005.sos.ca.gov/ 

(last visited March 5, 2009). The Commission found that the specific language of 2 U.S.C. 

§ 441i(e)(1) did not encompass elections where there were no candidates of any kind on the 

ballot. See AO 2005-10 at 2-3; Concurring Statement of Comm’rs Weintraub & McDonald, AO 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 41 of 89
36

Finally, Plaintiffs cite North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, in which the court 

invalidated state statutes that defined when an organization would be considered a political 

committee and that restricted communications made by entities other than political committees. 

See 525 F.3d 274, 281, 288 (4th Cir. 2008). The Fourth Circuit, however, specifically noted that 

these holdings were inapplicable to organizations that “have the support or opposition of 

candidates as their primary purpose.” See id. at 289 (citing Buckley). Political parties are the 

paradigmatic example of such organizations, because 

[w]hile contributions made to political parties may not be passed through 

directly to candidates, the “special relationship and unity of interest” 

between political parties and candidates makes parties logical “agents for 

spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders.” 

 

Id. at 292 (quoting McConnell, 540 U.S. at 145-47; internal citations omitted).18 Thus, Leake

does not support Plaintiffs’ attempt to apply their invented doctrine to political parties. 

B. Much of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Activity Will Affect Federal Elections 

 As explained supra pp. 10-12, in McConnell the Court rejected the argument that Title I 

is “impermissibly overbroad because it subjects all funds raised and spent by national parties to 

FECA’s hard-money source and amount limits, including, for example, funds spent on purely 

 

2005-10, at 4, http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/413243.pdf; Concurring Opinion of ViceChairman Toner & Comm’r Mason, AO 2005-10, at 1, 

http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/413244.pdf. That purely statutory interpretation is irrelevant to 

this case and does not embrace or support Plaintiffs’ unambiguously-campaign-related theory. 

18 One of the statements of FEC Commissioners to which Plaintiffs cite (Pls.’ Br. at 16 

n.13) similarly related to a determination regarding political committee status — a determination 

that is irrelevant in the context of political parties. See Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman 

Petersen, et. al, In re November Fund, MUR 5541, at 5 n.21, 

http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/29044223819.pdf (Jan. 22, 2009) (distinguishing political parties 

and citing McConnell). The other Commissioner statement on which Plaintiffs rely cites the 

Buckley language only in construing the statutory definition of “expenditure,” just as Buckley

itself did. See Statement of Reasons of Chair Weintraub, et al., In re Council for Responsible 

Gov’t, Inc., MURs 5024, 5146, 5154, at 2, http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000006C6.pdf (Dec. 

16, 2003). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 42 of 89
37

state and local elections in which no federal office is at stake.” 540 U.S. at 154 (second 

emphasis added). Again, the Court was fully aware that 30% of the nonfederal funds the RNC 

had raised in 2001 was spent on “purely state and local election activity.” Id. at 154 n.50. Thus, 

although Plaintiffs are correct when they note (Pls.’ Br. 24) that the Court explained that much of 

the activity at issue under Title I in fact “benefits federal candidates,” 540 U.S. at 167, Plaintiffs 

are wrong when they suggest that this factual finding was meant in any way to provide a litmus 

test for future as-applied challenges. 

 In any event, the Court has a much broader view than Plaintiffs of what benefits federal 

candidates: 

Common sense dictates, and it was “undisputed” below, that a party’s 

efforts to register voters sympathetic to that party directly assist the party’s 

candidates for federal office. 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 460 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). It 

is equally clear that federal candidates reap substantial rewards from any 

efforts that increase the number of like-minded registered voters who 

actually go to the polls. See, e.g., id., at 459 (“‘[The evidence] shows quite 

clearly that a campaign that mobilizes residents of a highly Republican 

precinct will produce a harvest of votes for Republican candidates for both 

state and federal offices. A campaign need not mention federal candidates 

to have a direct effect on voting for such a candidate. . . . [G]eneric 

campaign activity has a direct effect on federal elections’” (quoting Green 

Expert Report 14)). 

540 U.S. at 167-68.19 Thus, Congress concluded that capping soft money donations rather than 

eliminating them would represent legislative approval of direct donations by corporations and 

unions to national political parties that would “send[] the campaign finance laws back in time to 

the very beginning of the 20th century before the Tillman Act banned direct corporate donations 

 

19 When the Court discussed the exploding use of soft money just before the enactment of 

BCRA, the Court explained that, “concerning the treatment of contributions intended [to be spent 

on activities] to influence both federal and state elections,” a “literal reading of FECA’s 

definition of ‘contribution’ would have required such activities to be funded with hard money.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 123 (emphasis added). An expenditure that influences federal elections 

does not lose that effect even if it also influences state elections. See id. at 166. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 43 of 89
38

to the parties and before Taft-Hartley banned direct labor contributions to the parties.” 147 

Cong. Rec. S2887-88 (Mar. 26, 2001) (Sen. Feingold). 

 Much of the activity that Plaintiffs intend to pursue affects both federal and nonfederal 

elections. On the other hand, some activity by state and local parties may be financed entirely 

with nonfederal funds, in which case Title I imposes no restrictions. All of these kinds of 

activities were before the Court in McConnell. Specifically: 

1. The RNC wants (Pls.’ Br. 3-5) to create “state accounts” to finance, inter alia,

“GOTV mail, voter registration drives,” and other activities to support the election of state 

candidates, and to set up separate accounts for New Jersey and Virginia state elections in 2009. 

The CRP and RPSD wish to engage in similar activities in California and San Diego Country.20 

Plaintiffs concede (id. 38) that some of these state accounts and resulting activities will be 

conducted “in elections where federal candidates are on the ballot.” Although they assert that 

these activities will not “target” federal candidates, they also concede (id.) that these activities 

“might have the collateral [e]ffect of benefitting federal Republican candidates on the ballot with 

state candidates.” Specifically, all three organizational Plaintiffs have conceded that their voter 

registration activities are designed to maximize the number Republicans registered to vote, and 

that these activities are intended to influence, and do influence, all partisan elections, both state 

and federal. (FEC’s Fact Resp. ¶¶ 42, 45, 62.) All three party Plaintiffs have also conceded that 

GOTV efforts in mixed elections inherently influence all elections that are on the ballot, as it is 

impossible to increase the number of Republican and Republican-leaning voters in state races 

without also increasing the number of those voters in the federal races on the same ballot. (Id. ¶¶ 

 

20 Plaintiff Duncan’s claim regarding a desire to solicit soft money for each of the parties’ 

activities is entirely derivative — i.e., Duncan’s claim fails because none of the underlying 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 44 of 89
39

43, 45, 62; see also Pls.’ Br. 45.)21 As discussed above, McConnell has already held that such 

mixed purpose activity affects federal elections and that what Plaintiffs call a “collateral” effect 

is quite sufficient to justify Title I’s contribution limits: “It is . . . clear that federal candidates 

reap substantial rewards from any efforts that increase the number of like-minded registered 

voters who actually go to the polls . . . . A campaign need not mention federal candidates to have 

a direct effect on voting for such a candidate.” 22 540 U.S. at 167-68 (emphasis added; internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted).23 Plaintiffs appear to rest this portion of their attempt 

(Pls.’ Br. 38, 45) to undermine McConnell — including their New Jersey and Virginia activities 

— on their “unambiguous campaign related” theory; however, as explained supra pp. 32-36, that 

theory lacks merit. 

 

activities is permissible — and so the Commission does not separately address Duncan herein. 

(See also FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 4 (noting that Duncan no longer holds leadership position at RNC).) 

21 As the Supreme Court noted in McConnell, the Commission has interpreted 2 U.S.C. 

§ 431(20)(A)(ii) to allow state and local parties to use nonfederal dollars to engage in voter 

registration and GOTV “during the runup to elections when no federal office is at stake.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 169 & n.63 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 100.24(a)(1)). Thus, Title I would not 

place any limits on state and local parties in Virginia and New Jersey if they intend to engage in 

such activity leading up the gubernatorial races in 2009.

22 As discussed infra pp. 42-44, state and local parties can finance certain kinds of mixed 

federal/nonfederal election activity with a mixture of hard money and “Levin funds,” so CRP 

need not use entirely federal dollars for some of this activity. 

23 The Supreme Court concluded that BCRA’s state money provisions were justified in part 

by a danger that the national parties would use the state parties to circumvent the new limits on 

contributions to the national parties. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 165-66. Plaintiffs suggest (Pls.’ Br. 

25) that that portion of McConnell is at odds with a statement in WRTL about the limits of 

potential circumvention as a government justification in the context of strict scrutiny, but only 

the Supreme Court may overrule one of its precedents. See supra n.4. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ 

suggested overruling ignores not only that WRTL was in the different context of strict scrutiny, 

but also that the holding in McConnell regarding state parties rested on both Congress’s 

prediction of circumvention and its conclusion, “based on the evidence before it,” that “state 

committees function as an alternative avenue for precisely the same corrupting forces” related to 

soft money as the national party committees. 540 U.S. at 164. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 45 of 89
40

2. Plaintiffs claim (Pls.’ Br. 33) that money spent on redistricting is too attenuated to 

be “unambiguously campaign related.” Again, that phrase is not the applicable standard. In any 

event, the record from McConnell demonstrates that “[r]edistricting efforts affect federal 

elections no matter when they are held.” 251 F. Supp. 2d at 468 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

The most important legislative activity in the electoral lives of U.S. House 

members takes place during redistricting, a process that is placed in the 

hands of state legislatures. The chances that a House incumbent will be 

ousted by unfavorable district boundaries are often greater than the chances 

of defeat at the hands of the typical challenger. Thus, federal legislators 

who belong to the state majority party have a tremendous incentive to be 

attuned to the state legislature and the state party leadership. 

Id. at 462 (quoting Green Expert Report at 11-12 [DEV 1-Tab 3]). The importance of 

redistricting to federal officeholders has not been lost on large soft money donors. As one 

memorandum to a high-level Fortune 100 company executive from the company’s own 

governmental affairs staff explained, 

because both parties will be working to influence redistricting efforts during 

the next two years, we anticipate that we will be asked to make soft money 

contributions to these efforts. Redistricting is a key once-a-decade effort 

that both parties have very high on their priority list. Given the priority of 

the redistricting efforts, relatively small soft money contributions in this area 

could result in disproportionate benefit. 

Id. at 508 (quoting memorandum). 

Consistent with the McConnell record, Plaintiffs admit that redistricting “involves 

congressional districts,” and the RNC has conceded that the purpose of its redistricting activities 

is to divide federal and state legislative districts “into a proper format that hopefully would be . . 

. more of a benefit to [the RNC] than the opposition party.” (FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 13 (quoting 

Josefiak Dep. 155:18-21 (FEC Exh. 1)); see also id. (noting CRP and RPSD’s admissions 

regarding federal effect of redistricting activities).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 46 of 89
41

 3. The CRP alleges that it intends to spend funds supporting or opposing ballot 

initiatives. Although Plaintiffs acknowledge (Pls.’ Br. 40) that BCRA’s soft money rules for 

state and local parties only apply to “federal election activity,” Plaintiffs ignore the rules’ details. 

2 U.S.C. § 441i(b). Title I does not prevent CRP from using nonfederal funds to support or 

oppose ballot initiatives. 

 As the Court in McConnell summarized, 540 U.S. at 161-63, state and local parties can 

pay for certain kinds of federal election activity (such as voter registration activity and GOTV) 

with a mix of hard money and a special kind of soft money known as “Levin funds”; public 

communications that promote, attack, support or oppose (“PASO”) a clearly identified federal 

candidate must be paid for entirely with federal dollars; and public communications that refer 

solely to nonfederal candidates and do not otherwise constitute federal election activity can be 

paid for entirely with nonfederal funds. Communications that address only state ballot initiatives 

would not constitute federal election activity, and state and local parties can finance them with 

nonfederal dollars. Thus, if CRP wishes to finance public communications that advocate for or 

against ballot initiatives, it can use nonfederal dollars to do so, as long as those communications 

do not include other messages that constitute federal election activity. Indeed, the CRP 

distributes communications that endorse or oppose state ballot initiatives and identify federal 

candidates, without PASOing those candidates. (FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 63.) If, however, CRP 

combines otherwise unregulated communications with additional content that constitutes federal 

election activity, the unregulated portion cannot immunize the federal election activity from 

regulation. 

 The Court in McConnell upheld these provisions on their face, finding them closely 

drawn to an anticorruption interest, justified despite whatever associational burden they may 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 47 of 89
42

impose, and not so severe as to prevent the parties from engaging in effective advocacy. 540 

U.S. at 166-74. In particular, the Court upheld the provision that requires communications that 

PASO federal candidates to be financed entirely with federal dollars and rejected the argument 

that the PASO standard is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 170 & n.64. 

 Plaintiffs suggest (Pls.’ Br. 42-44) that the Supreme Court’s analysis in WRTL should be 

applied to the PASO standard, but that case is inapplicable here. WRTL addressed an 

expenditure limit for corporations and unions subject to strict scrutiny, while this case involves a 

contribution limit subject to intermediate scrutiny; WRTL dealt with a bright-line definition of 

“electioneering communication” that the Court narrowed to be sure it did not go beyond the 

functional equivalent of express advocacy, while this case deals with the PASO standard, which 

the Court has already determined is not unconstitutionally vague; and WRTL concerned 

regulation of corporate speech, while this case concerns regulation of political parties. The Court 

in McConnell reaffirmed its holding in Buckley that “actions taken by political parties are 

presumed to be in connection with election campaigns.” 540 U.S. at 170 n.64 (citing Buckley, 

424 U.S. at 79). No such presumption existed regarding the corporate plaintiff in WRTL. 

 In sum, CRP can finance public communications taking positions on ballot initiatives 

with nonfederal dollars, but if it includes in those communications messages that PASO federal 

candidates, Congress may lawfully require it to finance those communications with money raised 

within the federal contribution limits. 

 4. The RNC alleges that it intends to engage in additional activities that it contends 

are not “unambiguously” related to a federal campaign and thus not constitutionally subject to 

BCRA’s soft money provisions. As explained supra pp. 32-36, that “test” has not been endorsed 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 48 of 89
43

by the Supreme Court, and the lack of any such “unambiguous” nexus to a particular federal 

campaign does not entitle the RNC to any constitutional exemption. 

 In particular, the RNC intends (Pls.’ Br. 3-5) to pay for “grassroots lobbying” in 

connection with federal legislation, to finance litigation such as this case (see FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 

20), and to maintain its building headquarters (see id. ¶ 21). While the precise contours of what 

the RNC considers to be “grassroots lobbying” are unclear, the record demonstrates that the 

RNC’s request to fund these communications with soft money would open the door to precisely 

the same kind of “issue advertising designed to influence federal elections” about which 

Congress and the Supreme Court were concerned. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 131.24 Indeed, the 

RNC has testified that several of the specific communications that this Court found in McConnell

to be sham issue ads — i.e., “so-called ‘issue ads’” that “were actually electioneering 

advertisements,” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 826 (Leon, J.) — would constitute “grassroots 

lobbying” under the RNC’s definition of that term. (FEC Fact Resp. ¶ 16.) Permitting these ads 

to once again be financed with unlimited, corporate contributions would undo the very heart of 

what BCRA was intended to stop and the Supreme Court upheld. 

As to the miscellaneous other activities, Plaintiffs concede (Pls.’ Br. 40) that the RNC’s 

own party solicitor will be grateful to contributors for such soft money donations and provide no 

reason to conclude that their own officeholders would not share that gratitude. As explained 

supra pp. 16-24, the record in McConnell amply demonstrates that officeholders are generally 

grateful to donors who have given large soft money contributions to their party, and the Supreme 

 

24 In listing the disbursements it has made to “support” candidates, the CRP includes “nonadvocacy issue-oriented mailings.” (See Pls.’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 39.) By 

acknowledging that “issue-oriented” communications are made to “support” candidates, the CRP 

negates the RNC’s putative rationale for permitting such communications to be financed with 

soft money. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 49 of 89
44

Court relied upon this and other aspects of the soft money system when it upheld BCRA and 

concluded that its provisions were constitutional to prevent both corruption and the appearance 

of corruption. Also as explained supra pp. 33-35, the Court had previously held in California 

Medical that donations to political committees for ostensibly non-electoral purposes can still be 

counted as statutory contributions and subjected to limits, both because of the fungibility of 

money and because of the undue influence that large donors can acquire, even by giving funds 

that are not earmarked directly for political purposes. Plaintiffs have offered no reason to reach a 

different result here. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should be denied. 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: March 9, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 50 of 89
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES 

Pursuant to LCvR 7(h) and 56.1, Defendant Federal Election Commission 

(“Commission”) submits the following statement of genuine issues in opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pls.’ Stmnt.”). The Commission reproduces below the 

enumerated paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ Statement, each followed by the Commission’s response. 

Many of Plaintiffs’ proposed facts directly or indirectly attempt to call into question 

findings of legislative fact made by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 

(2003). Once resolved by an appellate court, however, issues of legislative fact need not be 

relitigated in lower courts each time they arise. See Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791, 800-01 

(8th Cir. 2005) (legislative fact addressed by the Supreme Court need not be relitigated); A 

Woman’s Choice v. Newman, 305 F.3d 684, 689 (7th Cir. 2002) (same). For each of the 

following facts in which the Supreme Court has resolved the challenged fact, this Court does not 

need to revisit the issue and may simply adopt the finding already made. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 51 of 89
2

1. Plaintiff Republican National Committee (“RNC”) “ha[s] the general management of 

the Republican Party, subject to direction from the national convention.” Rule 1, Rules of the 

Republican Party (2004). It is “[a] national committee of a political party” under 2 U.S.C. § 

441i(a). Complaint ¶ 11. 

FEC RESPONSE 1: The record in McConnell established that the national parties are 

“inextricably intertwined with federal officeholders and candidates,” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 155 

(quoting Congressman Shays), and that “[t]here is no meaningful separation between the national 

party committees and the public officials who control them,” id. (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 

251 F. Supp. 2d 176, 468-69 (D.D.C. 2003) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (internal quotation omitted)). 

“The President typically controls his party’s national committee, and once a favorite has emerged 

for the presidential nomination of the other party, that candidate and his party’s national 

committee typically work closely together.” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 697 (Kollar-Kotelly, 

J.). 

The record in this case is not to the contrary. “[T]he role of the RNC is to be a political 

arm of Republicans either seeking office or in office” (Josefiak Dep. 197:1-18 (FEC Exh. 1)), 

and so the RNC’s activities are inherently geared towards the interests of Republican 

officeholders and candidates. For example, when the President of the United States is a 

Republican, the President nominates the chairperson of the RNC, and there is regular strategic 

coordination between the party and the White House. (See id. 193:2-194:20.) The RNC also 

works with candidates each election cycle to develop “victory plans,” which are joint, 

comprehensive, election-specific strategies (see id. 198:13-199:8), and by selling voter 

preference data to campaigns (see id. 200:10-12) or, on occasion, exchanging donor lists with 

them (see id. 98:8-14). 

In addition to being an “arm” of Republican candidates and officeholders, the RNC is 

tightly connected to state Republican parties. The chairperson of each state Republican party sits 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 52 of 89
3

on the RNC (id. 14:18-15:13) — an arrangement that facilitates near-constant strategic 

communication between the RNC and the states (see id. 200:13-201:1). Thus, the RNC is not 

merely a standalone “national committee.” 

2. Plaintiff California Republican Party is the state Republican Party of California. It is “a 

State . . . committee of a political party” under 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(1). Complaint ¶ 12. 

FEC RESPONSE 2: According to the Court in McConnell, “Congress recognized that” 

there were “close ties between federal candidates and state party committees,” 540 U.S. at 161, 

and concluded — “based on the evidence before it” — that “state committees function as an 

alternative avenue for precisely the same corrupting forces” of soft money as the national party 

committees, id. at 164. 

The CRP’s chairperson serves on the RNC, and all three of the CRP’s RNC members 

regularly convey strategic information among and between the CRP and the RNC. (See

Christiansen Dep. 14:16-18, 15:2-5, 17:14-18 (FEC Exh. 2); see also supra FEC Response ¶ 1.) 

Communication between the RNC and CRP is particularly frequent during election years, when 

the parties discuss strategic topics such as voter registration and voter contact goals. (See

Christiansen Dep. 173:19-174:15 (FEC Exh. 2).) In addition, the CRP’s Board of Directors 

always includes a United States Representative, who serves on behalf of the entire California 

Republican congressional delegation. (Id. 170:6-11.) The CRP, therefore, is inextricably 

intertwined with both the RNC and California’s federal officeholders and candidates. 

3. Plaintiff Republican Party of San Diego is a “local committee of a political party” 

under 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(1). Complaint ¶ 13. 

FEC RESPONSE 3: Congress through BCRA and the Court in McConnell recognized 

that there were “close ties” between federal candidates and “local committees.” 540 U.S. at 161. 

Each Republican United States Representative from San Diego County is an officer of the RPSD 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 53 of 89
4

(Buettner Dep. 11:14-23, 99:14-24 (FEC Exh. 3)), and so the leadership of the RPSD is 

inextricably intertwined with that area’s federal officeholders and candidates. In addition, the 

CRP engages in strategic coordination with local Republican committees, including the RPSD, 

as to key party activities, such as voter registration and voter contact. (See Christiansen Dep. 

175:8-176:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

4. Plaintiff Robert M. (Mike) Duncan is the National Committeeman of the Kentucky 

Republican Party and the RNC Chairman, in which capacity he is RNC’s chief executive officer. 

Complaint ¶ 14. 

FEC RESPONSE 4: Duncan’s term as RNC Chairman ended on January 30, 2009. 

(Josefiak Dep. 29:4-20 (FEC Exh. 1).) Duncan remains a member of the RNC, but he has no 

official leadership role within that organization. (Id. 29:21-30:13.) He has no authority, beyond 

that of any other RNC member, over the actions or decisions of the current RNC Chairman. (See

id.) 

5. Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is the government agency with 

enforcement authority over FECA. Complaint ¶ 15. 

FEC RESPONSE 5: The FEC is the government agency with authority over the 

administration, interpretation, and civil enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-55 (“FECA”), and other federal campaign-finance statutes. The 

Commission is empowered to “formulate policy” with respect to FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 437c(b)(1); 

“to make, amend, and repeal such rules . . . as are necessary to carry out the provisions of 

[FECA],” 2 U.S.C. §§ 437d(a)(8), 438(a)(8); see 2 U.S.C. § 438(d); and to issue written advisory 

opinions concerning the application of FECA and Commission regulations to any specific 

proposed transaction or activity, 2 U.S.C. §§ 437d(a)(7), 437f. 

6. As a national political party committee, the RNC has historically participated and 

participates today in electoral and political activities at the federal, state and local levels. The 

RNC seeks to advance its core principles by advocating Republican positions, electing 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 54 of 89
5

Republican candidates and encouraging governance in accord with Republican views at the 

federal, state and local levels. McConnell, 251 F. Supp.2d at 335 (citations omitted) (Judge 

Henderson’s findings). The RNC “has historically participated and participates today in electoral 

and political activities at the federal, state and local levels.” Id. These activities in state and local 

elections “are substantial both in their importance to the RNC’s mission and in their resource 

commitment.” Id. “Even for elections in which there is no federal candidate on the ballot, the 

RNC trains state and local candidates, donates to state and local candidate campaign committees, 

funds communications calling for the election or defeat of state and local candidates and engages 

in get-out-the-vote activities.” Id. at 336. 

FEC RESPONSE 6: The fact that the RNC spends a small portion of its funds on state 

and local elections is not relevant. As the Supreme Court explained in McConnell, it “is beside 

the point” for purposes of evaluating the soft money restrictions in BCRA. 540 U.S. at 154. For 

example, the Court noted the political parties’ claim that the RNC had spent 30% of the 

nonfederal funds it raised in 2001 on “purely state and local election activity,” id. at 154 n.50, 

and then explained that the record demonstrated that “the close relationship between federal 

officeholders and the national parties, as well as the means by which parties have traded on that 

relationship, . . . have made all large soft-money contributions to national parties suspect.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 154-55 (emphasis added). 

Even if the proposed spending were relevant, the record in McConnell demonstrated that 

prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds ostensibly for the 

same type of activities at issue in this case — the RNC donated only a “small fraction” of its 

federal funds to state and local candidates. 251 F. Supp. 2d at 464 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

Combined, the two national parties donated “less than 4% of their soft money spending and 1.6% 

of their total financial activity in 2000” to state candidates. Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Activities such as training of state and local candidates or direct donations to them 

“constituted a very small portion of the political parties’ nonfederal expenditures during the 2000 

election cycle.” Id.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 55 of 89
6

Moreover, nothing prevents the RNC from spending as much of its money on state and 

local activities as it prefers. The RNC contributed approximately $900,000 to a candidate for 

governor of Virginia in 2005, $300,000 to New Jersey county parties that year, $540,000 to the 

Louisiana Republican Party in 2007, and $450,000 to the Kentucky Republican Party in 2007. 

(See Pl. RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4).) Thus, as to elections “in which there is 

no federal candidate on the ballot,” the RNC has spent a total of approximately $2.2 million on 

such elections since 2003, although that only constitutes approximately 0.2% of the RNC’s 

disbursements during this period. (See id.; contributions and disbursements per election cycle 

available at http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml.) If the RNC were interested in 

committing more of its resources to state and local activity, it was free to spend more of the 

nearly $1.1 billion it raised in that time period on such activity. 

7. “The RNC seeks to advance its core principles by advocating Republican positions, 

electing Republican candidates and encouraging governance in accord with Republican views at 

the federal, state and local levels.” 251 F. Supp. 2d at 335 (Judge Henderson’s findings). 

FEC RESPONSE 7: The fact that the RNC claims to spend money on activities other 

than electing federal candidates is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant. See supra FEC Response 

¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). Even if its proposed spending were relevant, the record in McConnell

demonstrated that prior to BCRA — when the RNC was permitted to receive nonfederal funds 

ostensibly to, inter alia, advance Republican policy positions — “genuine issue advocacy on the 

part of political parties [was] a rare occurrence.” 251 F. Supp. 2d at 451 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

Similarly, the RNC spent only “a minuscule percentage” of its nonfederal budget on state and 

local governmental affairs. Id. at 463. “What is clear from the evidence [in McConnell], 

however, is that regardless of whether or not it is done to advocate the party’s principles, the 

Republican Party’s primary goal is the election of its candidates who will be advocates for their 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 56 of 89
7

core principles.” Id. at 470. The RNC was unable in this case to substantiate that it had spent 

any money on advertisements that it considers “grassroots lobbying” during the last three 

election cycles. (Pl. RNC’s Discovery Responses at 6 (FEC Exh. 4).) 

8. The RNC intends to (a) create a New Jersey Account for state funds (non-federal funds 

subject to state regulation) subject to New Jersey state law, (b) solicit state funds into the account 

under New Jersey state law, and (c) use those funds to support state Republican candidates in the 

November 2009 election. Because New Jersey holds its state elections in odd numbered years, 

there will be no federal candidates on the 2009 ballot. Beeson Aff. ¶ 3. 

FEC RESPONSE 8: The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money on New 

Jersey state candidates this year is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant. See supra FEC Response 

¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). Moreover, the RNC may spend as much of its money on those 

campaigns as it prefers. Indeed, the RNC contributed nearly $900,000 to a candidate for 

governor of New Jersey in 2005 and nearly $300,000 to New Jersey county parties that year. Id.

9. The RNC plans to use funds from the New Jersey Account to make direct contributions 

to New Jersey state and local candidates according to state law limits. At this time, the RNC does 

not know the specific candidates that it will support, as the party rules preclude it from 

supporting pre-primary candidates unless (1) the candidate is unopposed or (2) it receives prior 

written and filed approval of all RNC members from the state in question. The RNC plans to use 

these funds to make independent expenditures advocating the election of the New Jersey 

Republican gubernatorial nominee, specific advertising and direct mail for the entire Republican 

ballot in New Jersey, and for get-out-the-vote (“GOTV”) calls. None of these activities would 

clearly identify any federal candidate. Beeson Aff. ¶ 4. 

FEC RESPONSE 9: See supra FEC Response ¶ 8. 

10. The RNC intends to (a) create a Virginia Account for state funds subject to Virginia 

state law, (b) solicit state funds into the account under Virginia state law, and (c) use those funds 

to support Republican candidates for the November 2009 election. Like New Jersey, Virginia 

also holds its elections for state office in odd numbered years. Therefore, there are no federal 

candidates on the 2009 Virginia ballot. Beeson Aff. ¶ 5. 

FEC RESPONSE 10: The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money on 

Virginia state races is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant, and the RNC is permitted to spend as 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 57 of 89
8

much of its money on Virginia state candidates this year as it prefers. See supra FEC Response ¶ 

6 (quoting McConnell). 

11. The RNC plans to use funds from the Virginia Account to make direct contributions 

to legislative races. Such contributions are especially important to maintain the Republican 

majority in the state assembly before redistricting. The RNC plans to directly coordinate 

campaign activities with the Republican gubernatorial nominee and place GOTV calls. None of 

these activities would clearly identify any federal candidate. Beeson Aff. ¶ 6. 

FEC RESPONSE 11: See supra FEC Response ¶ 10; infra FEC Response 13 

(discussing redistricting). 

12. Virginia is especially important to the RNC’s political strategy for several reasons: 

(1) Virginia has traditionally been a stronghold for Republicans, and the RNC is looking forward 

to recapturing this “red state”; (2) maintaining a Republican majority in the state assembly is 

crucial to influencing the state’s redistricting; (3) the current Democrat frontrunner for governor, 

Terry McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) chairman, has extremely 

high name recognition; (4) the appointment of Governor Tim Kaine as DNC chairman puts a 

national focus on the Virginia gubernatorial race. Beeson Aff. ¶ 7. 

FEC RESPONSE 12: See supra FEC Response ¶ 10; infra FEC Response 13 

(discussing redistricting). 

13. The RNC intends to (a) create a Redistricting Account, for non-federal funds and 

state funds subject to state law, (b) solicit funds into the account under applicable state laws, and 

(c) use those state funds to support the redistricting efforts of various states’ Republican parties 

after the 2010 census. Beeson Aff. ¶ 8. 

FEC RESPONSE 13: The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money on 

redistricting is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant. See supra FEC Response ¶ 6 (quoting 

McConnell). If the manner of spending were relevant, the McConnell record demonstrated that 

“[r]edistricting efforts affect federal elections no matter when they are held,” and that national 

party redistricting efforts “are of value to Members of Congress because the changes in the 

composition of a Member’s district can mean the difference between reelection and defeat.” 251 

F. Supp. 2d at 462, 468 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 58 of 89
9

The most important legislative activity in the electoral lives of U.S. House 

members takes place during redistricting, a process that is placed in the 

hands of state legislatures. The chances that a House incumbent will be 

ousted by unfavorable district boundaries are often greater than the chances 

of defeat at the hands of the typical challenger. Thus, federal legislators 

who belong to the state majority party have a tremendous incentive to be 

attuned to the state legislature and the state party leadership. 

Id. at 462 (quoting Defendants’ expert Donald Green). The importance of redistricting to federal 

officeholders was not lost on large soft money donors. As one memorandum to a high-level Fortune 100 

company executive from the company’s own governmental affairs staff explained, 

because both [national] parties will be working to influence redistricting 

efforts during the next two years, we anticipate that we will be asked to 

make soft money contributions to these efforts. Redistricting is a key oncea-decade effort that both parties have very high on their priority list. Given 

the priority of the redistricting efforts, relatively small soft money 

contributions in this area could result in disproportionate benefit. 

Id. 

The record in this case is consistent with McConnell. The RNC has conceded that the 

purpose of its redistricting activities is to divide federal and state legislative districts “into a 

proper format that hopefully would be . . . more of a benefit to [the RNC] than the opposition 

party.” (Josefiak Dep. 155:18-21 (FEC Exh. 1).) Indeed, the CRP has repeatedly noted in this 

case the effect that redistricting can have on campaigns for the United States House of 

Representatives. (See Pls.’ Stmnt. ¶¶ 36, 38 (“California’s Congressional seats were redistricted 

in 2001 to virtually eliminate partisan competition at general elections . . . .”).) The RPSD has 

noted the same effect. (Id. ¶ 55.) 

14. The Redistricting Account would provide resources for political activity related to 

winning state legislative races; technology and staffing to support the data compilation, analysis, 

and map drawing related to redistricting; and litigation efforts and other legal fees related to 

redistricting. The political components would involve two primary objectives: (1) the hiring of 

political and communications staffers to develop and execute a political strategy related to 

redistricting, and (2) the use of the RNC’s State Elections Accounts to advance redistricting 

goals by supporting state legislative candidates nationwide. The Redistricting Account would 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 59 of 89
10

support data analysis and map drawing primarily in the following ways: (1) the hiring of data 

management and census data experts; and (2) the purchasing of hardware and software to support 

the RNC’s redistricting efforts. The Redistricting Account would also support the legal 

component of the RNC’s redistricting efforts through hiring additional in-house legal staff with 

expertise in redistricting and enabling the RNC to hire outside counsel to assist in redistricting 

related litigation. Beeson Aff. ¶ 9. 

FEC RESPONSE 14: See supra FEC Response ¶ 13. 

15. The RNC intends to (a) create a Grassroots Lobbying Account, for non-federal funds, 

(b) solicit non-federal funds into the account, and (c) use those funds to support grassroots 

lobbying efforts for federal legislation and issues important to the Republican Party’s platform. 

Beeson Aff. ¶ 10. 

FEC RESPONSE 15: See infra FEC Response ¶ 16. 

16. The RNC intends to use the Grassroots Lobbying Account to pay for radio, television, 

and internet grassroots lobbying advertisements on relevant public-policy issues. The first two 

issues the RNC would like to address are issues being debated by the 111th Congress: (1) “card 

check” legislation, which allows unionization without secret-ballot elections for workers; and (2) 

legislation to revive the “Fairness Doctrine,” which would require radio station owners to 

provide equal time on matters of public importance or risk losing their broadcast licenses. The 

following are true and correct copies of ads that RNC intends to broadcast: 

Card Check 

Secret Ballot 

[Text of radio ad]

Today, when workers vote on whether to join a union, they use a secret ballot. Just like 

we use for any public election. But, some in Congress and their labor union allies want to 

change that. The “Employee Free Choice Act” is about anything but free choice. The 

legislation would establish a card check scheme that would strip employees of the right to 

vote in private when deciding whether to join a union. Under the card check scheme, 

secret ballot voting is eliminated. Every worker’s vote is public. There is no protection 

against intimidation or coercion, and no guarantee that workers would be able to vote 

their true wishes. We elect our members of Congress by secret ballot. Why should 

millions of Americans be stripped of that right? Call [insert Representative/Senator 

name] and tell him [her] to stand up to the union special interests. Tell him [her] to 

oppose card check legislation. Viewers see a parent with a child while the parent votes in 

an election. The parent is teaching the child about the role of the secret ballot in 

democracy only to have “union goons” grab the parent away from the child and force the 

parent to vote on whether to form a union in a huge public arena (possibly a game show). 

The child cries out, “Daddy/Mommy, what happened to democracy?” and the evil game 

show host says, “Not when it comes to unions, kid.” 

Fairness Doctrine 

Freedom of Speech 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 60 of 89
11

[Text of radio ad] 

Freedom of speech. One of our most fundamental rights. So, why is it that some in 

Congress want to censor speech on the airwaves? Do they not trust Americans to think 

for themselves? Are they that frightened of their critics? The Fairness Doctrine was killed 

off more than 20 years ago, because it was anything but fair. Yet, some in Congress are 

pushing legislation to bring the doctrine back and require broadcasters to present 

opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Let’s face the facts. 

The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a clear attack on free speech. It would give 

total control of the public airwaves to the government, and allow the government to 

dictate the kind of news and opinions that broadcasters choose to air. The freedom is 

speech is central to our democracy. We must protect it. Call [insert 

Representative/Senator name] and tell him [her] to tell him [her] to oppose any efforts to 

bring back the Fairness Doctrine. 

Beeson Aff. ¶ 11. 

FEC RESPONSE 16: The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money on 

communications that it characterizes as “grassroots lobbying” is “beside the point,” i.e., not 

relevant. See supra FEC Response ¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). If the manner of spending were 

relevant, the McConnell record demonstrated that prior to BCRA — when the RNC was 

permitted to receive nonfederal funds ostensibly to, inter alia, conduct “issue advocacy” — 

“genuine issue advocacy on the part of political parties [was] a rare occurrence.” 251 F. Supp. 

2d at 451 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Moreover, the RNC may spend as much of the funds it raises on 

“grassroots lobbying” as it prefers. 

While the precise contours of what the RNC considers to be “grassroots lobbying” are 

unclear, the record demonstrates that the RNC’s request to fund “grassroots lobbying” with soft 

money would open the door to precisely the same kind of “issue advertising designed to 

influence federal elections” about which Congress and the Supreme Court were concerned. See 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 131. The RNC has testified that several communications that this Court 

found in McConnell to be sham issue ads — i.e., “so-called ‘issue ads’” that “were actually 

electioneering advertisements,” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 826 (Leon, J.) — would 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 61 of 89
12

constitute “grassroots lobbying” under the RNC’s definition of that term. (Compare Josefiak 

Dep. 164:8-22 (FEC Exh. 1) (testifying that RNC’s “Taxed Too Much” ad is grassroots 

lobbying), 170:14-171:19 (same for RNC’s “More” ad), with McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 446 

(Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (including both ads in list of sham issue ads), 826 (Leon, J.) (same); see also 

ODP0029-00041 (FEC Exh. 5) (text of ad); ODP 0023-02326 (FEC Exh. 6) (same).) And the 

CRP includes “non-advocacy issue oriented mailings” in its lists of disbursements that “support” 

candidates. (See Pls.’ Stmnt. ¶ 39.) 

17. The RNC intends to (a) create several State Elections Accounts, for state funds, (b) 

solicit state funds into the accounts, and (c) use those funds exclusively to support state 

candidates in various states. The funds would be solicited and spent in accordance with any 

applicable state law. The RNC intends to support state candidates from this Account in elections 

where only state candidates appear on the ballot and in elections where both federal and state 

candidates appear on the ballot. Beeson Aff. ¶ 12. 

FEC RESPONSE 17: The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money to 

support state candidates is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant, and the RNC may spend as much 

of its money on state campaigns as it prefers. See supra FEC Response ¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). 

18. The RNC plans to use funds from the State Elections Accounts to make direct 

contributions to state and local candidates. Several states permit unlimited contributions to 

candidates and/or corporate contributions to candidates. The RNC is looking to compete on an 

equal playing field in these states. It will also use these funds for independent expenditures for 

Republican state and local candidates, specific advertising and direct mail for the entire 

Republican ballot, and GOTV calls. Beeson Aff. ¶ 13. 

FEC RESPONSE 18: See supra FEC Response ¶ 17. In addition, the RNC already 

“compete[s] on an equal playing field” with its Democratic Party equivalent in all relevant 

financial respects, as the national party committees are subject to identical contribution limits, 

see 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(B), and FECA imposes no restrictions on the amount of funds that a 

national party may spend on any of the activities mentioned in the paragraph. With regard to the 

RNC’s GOTV activities, see infra FEC Response ¶ 45. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 62 of 89
13

The Supreme Court has already held, on the basis of the record in other cases, that the 

“national parties” are in a “unique position” to serve as “‘agents for spending on behalf of those 

who seek to produce obligated officeholders.’” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 145 (quoting FEC v. 

Colorado Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 452 (2001)). “‘[T]he differing 

structures and purposes of different entities may require different forms of regulation in order to 

protect the integrity of the electoral process,’” id., 540 U.S. at 158 (quoting FEC v. Nat’l Right to 

Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 210 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted), and Congress was 

not required to subject the national parties to the exact same rules regarding funding of state and 

local candidates as other entities that are not as well-situated to serve as conduits for undue 

influence on federal officeholders. 

19. All of these activities using funds from the State Elections Accounts will be aimed at 

state candidates and state elections. None of the activities will in any way identify, reference, or 

otherwise depict any federal candidate. Beeson Aff. ¶ 14. 

FEC RESPONSE 19: See supra FEC Response 18; infra FEC Response ¶ 45. 

20. The RNC intends to solicit non-federal funds into a Litigation Account. The RNC 

plans to use funds from the Litigation Account for costs associated with litigation challenging 

BCRA and other miscellaneous litigation not related to federal elections. Beeson Aff. ¶ 15. 

FEC RESPONSE 20: To the extent this paragraph refers to any litigation other than the 

instant case, it is irrelevant, as Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the “litigation account” would 

“be used solely for paying the fees and expenses attributable to this case.” (Compl. ¶ 21 

(emphasis added).) In any event, the fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of its money to fund 

litigation is “beside the point,” i.e., not relevant, and the RNC may spend as much of its money 

on litigation as it prefers. See supra FEC Response ¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). 

21. The RNC intends to solicit non-federal funds into a Building Account exclusively for 

maintenance and upkeep of the RNC’s headquarters. Beeson Aff. ¶ 16. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 63 of 89
14

FEC RESPONSE 21: This assertion is irrelevant, as there is no “Building Account” 

among the activities set forth in Plaintiffs’ complaint. In any event, the RNC raised and lost its 

“building fund” claim in McConnell. See, e.g., McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 332 (Henderson, 

J.), 462-63 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 819 (Leon, J.) (including “building funds” in list of activities 

RNC financed with soft money prior to BCRA). The fact that the RNC hopes to spend some of 

its money to fund maintenance and upkeep of its headquarters is “beside the point,” i.e., not 

relevant, and the RNC may spend as much of its money on its headquarters as it prefers. See 

supra FEC Response ¶ 6 (quoting McConnell). Even if the manner of its spending were 

relevant, the RNC does not even allege that its headquarters activities are unrelated to federal 

elections, nor could it. Cf. Cal. Med. Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182, 198 n.19 (1981) (declining to 

exempt donations for “administrative” purposes from regulation as contributions because 

organization’s receipt of such donations would free its other funds to be used to influence 

elections). 

 22. Before BCRA, non-federal funds were critical to sustaining the RNC’s Building 

Fund. Since then, the RNC has had to divert federal funds to such uses as replacing the 

building’s generator and fixing aging elevators. Every dollar of federal funds used for those 

items takes away from the RNC’s ability to reach out directly to voters and engage new voters in 

the political process. Beeson Aff. ¶ 17. 

FEC RESPONSE 22: See supra FEC Response ¶ 21. 

23. The RNC is ready and able to do all these activities but cannot because it is permitted 

to solicit and use only federal funds. So, unless the RNC obtains judicial relief, it will not create 

any of the above accounts for non-federal and state funds. In addition to the activities listed 

above, the RNC would like to participate in materially similar activities in the future. Beeson 

Aff. ¶ 18. 

FEC RESPONSE 23: FECA imposes no restrictions on the RNC’s ability to spend its 

funds on any of the activities the RNC alleges it would like to undertake; thus, the RNC’s 

assertion that it “cannot” “do all these activities” is an incorrect statement of law. BCRA does 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 64 of 89
15

not “in any way limit[] the total amount of money parties can spend. Rather, [it] simply limit[s] 

the source and individual amount of donations.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 139 (citation omitted). 

Furthermore, as a factual matter, the RNC has engaged in “all these activities” since BCRA: 

supporting state candidates, including in elections where no federal candidates were on the ballot 

(Plaintiff RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 4-5 (FEC Exh. 4)); redistricting (id. at 5); grassroots 

lobbying (Josefiak Dep. 156:22-157:10 (FEC Exh. 1)); and litigation (id. 171:20-172:9). To the 

extent that the RNC has chosen to forego certain activities, that is the result of the RNC’s 

strategic decision to spend its plentiful federal funds on other elections. (See id. 141:10-143:16, 

160:12-20.) 

24. The RNC will not aid contributors to any of the accounts in obtaining preferential 

access to federal candidates or officeholders. For example, the RNC will not, in any manner 

different than or beyond that currently afforded to contributors of federal funds: (1) encourage 

officeholders or candidates to meet with or have other contact with contributors to these 

accounts, (2) arrange for contributors to participate in conference calls with federal candidates or 

officeholders, or (3) offer access to federal officeholders or candidates in exchange for 

contributions. Furthermore, the RNC will not use any federal candidates or officeholders to 

solicit funds for any of the Accounts. Beeson Aff. ¶ 19. 

FEC RESPONSE 24: The fact that the RNC asserts that it will not itself create an 

additional program of preferential access is irrelevant. The record in McConnell demonstrates 

that candidates would nevertheless be aware of who the donors are. Although the Court noted 

the role that officeholders had played in raising soft money for their political parties, the Court 

also found that, “[e]ven when not participating directly in the fundraising, federal officeholders 

were well aware of the identities of the donors: National party committees would distribute lists 

of potential or actual donors, or donors themselves would report their generosity to 

officeholders.” 540 U.S. at 147 (emphasis added). “‘[F]or a member not to know the identities 

of these donors, he or she must actively avoid such knowledge as it is provided by the national 

political parties and the donors themselves.’” Id. (quoting McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 487-

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 65 of 89
16

88) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (emphasis added); see also id. (citing McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 

853-55 (Leon, J.)). 

The RNC’s assertion that it will not provide preferential access as a direct result of 

donations to its desired soft money accounts is especially irrelevant given that the RNC currently 

provides its major donors with substantial preferential access to federal candidates and 

officeholders. Specifically, the RNC organizes private receptions, dinners, and other events at 

which individuals who have made large contributions (i.e., $15,000 or more) to the RNC have an 

opportunity to meet, dine, and speak with federal candidates and officeholders. (See Josefiak 

Dep. 58:18-61:5 (FEC Exh. 1).) These opportunities are “not offered to the public at large.” (Pl. 

RNC’s Discovery Resps. at 7 (FEC Exh. 4).) The RNC has created tiers of donors with specified 

benefits: For example, donors who give $15,000 receive “intimate luncheons, dinners, and 

meetings with key policymakers”; donors who give $30,400 “enjoy exclusive private functions 

with elected Republican leaders”; and donors who commit to raising $60,800 receive “at least 

one . . . exclusive event during the year,” as well as other “intimate events with key GOP 

policymakers.” (RNC 000130 (FEC Exh. 7).) All of these benefits involve the privilege of 

attending events with federal candidates and officeholders, from candidates for the U.S. House to 

the sitting President of the United States. (See generally RNC 000058-000371 (FEC Exh. 8) 

(invitations to donor events with federal candidates and officeholders).) At these events, an 

attending donor has an opportunity to inform the federal candidate or officeholder about the 

donor’s opinion on legislation or other issues, and the candidate or officeholder is aware that the 

person expressing that opinion is a major donor. (See Josefiak Dep. 76:14-77:11 (FEC Exh. 1).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 66 of 89
17

The RNC sets its highest donation tier to correspond to the legal contribution limit; when 

the contribution limits rise, the RNC increases the size of the donation required to reach the top 

tier. (Id. 102:19-103:6.) 

The RNC has no written policy — and gives no written guidance to its employees — 

against providing donors with preferential access to federal candidates and officeholders. (Id. 

128:2-5, 184:10-21.) To the extent the RNC has an unwritten “policy” on this issue, it is the 

same policy that was in effect prior to BCRA (id. 129:18-21), when the trading of soft money for 

access ran rampant, McConnell, 540 U.S. at 150-52. 

The RNC’s statement that it will not “use” federal candidates or officeholders to raise 

soft money is irrelevant to the actual or apparent corruption arising from soft-money donations. 

See id. at 145-52 (rejecting argument that only funds solicited by federal candidates or 

officeholders may be subject to regulation). 

The party admits that it will provide access to federal candidates and officeholders for 

soft money contributors, but only to the same extent it provides access to hard money 

contributors. In McConnell, however, the plaintiffs’ own expert, David Primo, testified that 

assuming money does buy access to or influence over federal officeholders, soft money is more 

likely to buy access or influence “simply by virtue of the numbers.” Primo Cross Tr. (Oct. 23, 

2002) at 162, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.), Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003); 

accord Krasno & Sorauf Expert Rep. at 15 [DEV 1-Tab 2] (“[T]he much greater size of the [soft 

money] individual donations at issue here pose a proportionately larger risk of influencing their 

beneficiaries than do contributions of hard money.”); Andrews Decl. ¶ 18 [DEV 6-Tab 1]; 

Wirthlin Cross Tr. (Oct. 21, 2002) at 57, McConnell, Docket No. 344 (May 16, 2003). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 67 of 89
18

“Elected officials know exactly who the big party contributors are.” Rudman Decl. ¶ 12 

[DEV 8-Tab 34]; accord Simpson Decl. ¶ 5 [DEV 9-Tab 38]; Greenwald Decl. ¶ 11 [DEV 6-Tab 

16]. Donation patterns were well-known or easily ascertainable by party officials, officeholders, 

staff, and opposing lobbyists, through FEC reports or other means. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 

148 n.47; McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 488 (Kollar-Kotelly, J) (“‘[T]here is communication 

among Members about who has made soft money donations and at what level they have given, 

and this is widely known and understood by the Members and their staff.’”) (quoting CEO Wade 

Randlett); id. at 487 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.), 853-54 (Leon, J.) (“‘[Y]ou cannot be a good 

Democratic or a good Republican Member and not be aware of who gave money to the party.’”) 

(quoting Senator Bumpers); id. at 487-88 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (“‘Legislators of 

both parties often know who the large soft money contributors to their parties are.’”) (quoting 

Senator McCain); id. at 487-88 (Kollar-Kotelly, J), 854 (Leon, J.) (donor’s “‘lobbyist informs the 

Senator that a large donation was just made’”) (quoting Senator Boren). Congressional staffers 

also know the identities of the big soft money donors. See id. at 482 (“‘Staffers who work for 

Members know who the big donors are, and those people always get their phone calls returned 

first and are allowed to see the Member when others are not.’”) (quoting Senator Simpson). 

Because candidates would know the identities of he parties’ contributors, this Court noted 

in McConnell the threat of corruption that would result, including from contributions for state 

party use that would benefit federal candidates. 

“[T]he federal candidates who benefit from state party use of these funds will know 

exactly whom their benefactors are; the same degree of beholdenness and obligation 

will arise; the same distortions on the legislative process will occur; and the same 

public cynicism will erode the foundations of our democracy — except it will all be 

worse in the public’s mind because a perceived reform was undercut once again by a 

loophole that allows big money into the system.” 

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 467 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (quoting Senator Rudman). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 68 of 89
19

 All of the foregoing is equally applicable to the CRP and the RPSD. The CRP invites its 

donors to meet and speak with federal candidates and officeholders, including the President and 

Vice President (Christiansen Dep. 62:5-25 (FEC Exh. 2)), candidates for President and Vice 

President (id. 54:2-58:16), and many other federal candidates and officeholders (see id. 94:24-

99:2 (describing state party conventions); see also id. 109:22-110:7 (acknowledging that “at a 

fundraising event, . . . [donors] can have access through that”).). Some of these events have 

tiered ticket structures, with donors who pay larger amounts receiving more intimate access to 

the officeholders and candidates, such as at seated dinners, where the officeholders and 

candidates know that the people with whom they are eating are the largest donors. (See id. 54:2-

58:16, 94:24-99:2.) The CRP also “strong arms” federal candidates and officeholders into 

participating in conference calls with major donors. (Id. 85:25-86:16.) For example, Senator 

McCain’s presidential campaign manager held a conference call for the CRP’s major donors (id. 

91:17-20, 92:23-94:6), and then held a second call for an even more exclusive set of the CRP’s 

very biggest donors — those who gave over $25,000 (id. 106:19-107:15). The CRP’s Board of 

Directors — which always includes at least one federal officeholder, see supra FEC Response 

¶ 2 — is informed of individual “generous donations.” (Id. 82:14-83:25.) The CRP does not 

intend to change its practice of giving access to donors, even if the CRP is permitted to raise and 

spend soft money on federal election activity. (See id. 177:19-178:6.) 

Like the RNC, the CRP has a menu of defined benefits for its major donors, promising 

them that they will “work closely with California’s Republican candidates and officials” and that 

donors “are well recognized for their important support of the Republican campaign.” California 

Republican Party, Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/golden_state_leadership_team.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 69 of 89
20

(FEC Exh. 9); see also California Republican Party, Join the California Republican Party 

Golden State Leadership Team, 

http://www.cagop.org/pdf/Golden_State_Leadership_Application.pdf (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) 

(FEC Exh. 10). The CRP believes that providing these benefits helps the party raise funds. 

(Christiansen Dep. 88:10-89:4 (FEC Exh. 2).) 

The RPSD also provides its donors with access to federal candidates and officeholders, 

including at events attended by such candidates and officeholders where donors giving larger 

amounts receive greater recognition. (Buettner Dep. 20:15-22:2 (FEC Exh. 3); see also id. 

37:10-38:3, 39:7-9.) Each month, the RPSD holds a meeting that is open to the public but that is 

followed by a reception to which only major donors and important guests (including federal 

candidates and officeholders) are invited. (Id. 49:2-51:3.) The RPSD also arranges “VIP 

junkets” to Washington, where major donors meet with members of Congress. (Id. 43:23-45:2, 

45:24-46:7.) This preferential access is set out in menus of defined benefits, including, “for [the 

RPSD’s] most generous supporters . . . private, complimentary VIP meetings and events with 

major Republican leaders and candidates.” RPSD, Join a Republican Supporter Club or Renew 

Your Membership, https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/ (last visited Mar. 8, 

2009) (FEC Exh. 11); see also RPSD, Tony Krvaric, Chairman’s Circle Chair, 

http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/donor/chairmans_circle/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 12) (listing benefits for RPSD’s highest donor group). The RPSD’s committee members — 

including federal officeholders, see supra FEC Response ¶ 3 — have access to the RPSD’s 

internal donor records. (Buettner Dep. 33:20-34:4 (FEC Exh. 3).) The RPSD does not intend to 

change its practice of giving access to donors, even if the RPSD is permitted to raise and spend 

soft money on federal election activity. (See id. 56:18-23.) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 70 of 89
21

25. Since 2003, the Republican Party, as an institution, has changed due to leadership and 

staff turnover. Political majorities across the country have also shifted, making certain races 

more important than others at any given time. For example, Virginia, once a Republican 

stronghold, went for a Democrat candidate in 2008. Beeson Aff. ¶ 20. 

FEC RESPONSE 25: No response. 

26. As a party, the RNC has lived under BCRA for three cycles. The potential problems 

the RNC identified in its briefs before the McConnell Court are even more acute than anticipated. 

For example, the rise of 527s (and the resulting failure of the FEC to regulate them) has left the 

RNC at a fundraising disadvantage for a host of its activities. Similarly, the RNC has been 

negatively affected by the explosion of internet fundraising, barriers to collaborative 

relationships between national party and state parties, and inequality of restrictions on a party’s 

ability to raise and spend funds. Beeson Aff. ¶ 21. 

FEC RESPONSE 26: This statement is vague and ambiguous, as the RNC does not 

point to any specific “potential problems the RNC identified” in its McConnell briefs. 

Nonetheless, as to “the rise of 527s,” 

 There has been no “failure of the FEC to 

regulate” 527 organizations. See generally FEC, Political Committee Status, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 71 of 89
22

(Feb. 7, 2007) (explaining Commission’s application of political committee statutes and 

regulations to 527 organizations). 

Regarding “the explosion of internet fundraising,” the RNC provides no explanation, 

much less evidence, of how the ease of raising funds over the internet has harmed the RNC. 

Instead, the record indicates that the RNC simply has not “been able to compete effectively in 

that area.” (Josefiak Dep. 185:22-186:12 (FEC Exh. 1); see also id. 188:17-189:1 (Q: . . . 

[T]here’s no reason that the RNC can't raise hard dollars over the Internet in the same way and 

with the same effect as any other hard money group, is there? A. Correct. We attempt to raise 

it. It’s not productive, so the competition is there because others can, and we can’t.”), 83:18-

84:5 (“[E]ven though we constantly try to increase . . . the solicitations by e-mail, which is very 

cost effective, we have not been as successful as the opposition party in generating interest by 

our donor base to contribute that way.”).) 

The RNC’s statement regarding “barriers to collaborative relationships between national 

party and state parties” is irrelevant, as there is no legal barrier to collaborative fundraising 

between the RNC and state parties. To the contrary, the RNC raises substantial funds through 

joint fundraising committees (“JFCs”), which include the RNC, state parties, and candidate 

campaign committees. (See, e.g., RNC 000106-000110 at 000108, 000110 (FEC Exh. 13) 

(explaining breakdown of donations to JFC shared by RNC, McCain presidential campaign, and 

state Republican parties of Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin).) To the extent 

the RNC’s statement refers to coordinated spending, none of FECA’s restrictions on such 

spending are at issue in this case. 

There is no “inequality of restrictions” between the RNC’s “ability to raise and spend 

funds” and that of its competitor, the DNC. See supra FEC Response ¶ 18. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 72 of 89
23

The RNC predicted in its McConnell brief that “‘[t]he net effects of BCRA will be 

massive layoffs and severe reduction of . . . speech at the RNC, and reduction of many state 

parties to a ‘nominal’ existence.’” McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 698 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) 

(quoting RNC brief). The RNC does not attempt to prove that these predicted problems ever 

materialized, nor could it. 

27. As the current Chairman of the RNC, Mike Duncan intends to (1) solicit contributions 

of state funds and non-federal funds to RNC’s New Jersey Account, Virginia Account, 

Redistricting Account, Grassroots Lobbying Account, State Elections Accounts, Building 

Account, and Litigation Account; (2) solicit contributions of state funds to the California 

Republican Party; and (3) solicit contributions of state funds to the campaigns of Republican 

candidates for state office appearing on the November 2009 ballot in New Jersey and Virginia. 

Duncan Aff. ¶ 3. 

FEC RESPONSE 27: See supra FEC Response ¶¶ 4 (noting that Duncan is no longer 

RNC Chairman), 8-22 (responding to statements regarding each soft-money activity); infra FEC 

Response ¶ 31. 

28. Duncan intends to make the described solicitations in his official capacity as RNC 

Chairman on behalf of the RNC, that is., as an “officer or agent acting on behalf of such a 

national committee.” 2 U.S.C. § 441i(a)(2). Duncan Aff. ¶ 4. 

FEC RESPONSE 28: See supra FEC Response ¶ 4; infra FEC Response ¶ 31. 

29. Duncan intends to (a) attend and be a featured guest at state candidate campaign 

events/fundraisers and solicit contributions for specific state candidates at such events, (b) sign 

and send letters and emails soliciting such contributions from RNC donors and other potential 

donors, and (c) make telephone calls to solicit such contributions from RNC donors and other 

potential donors. Duncan Aff. ¶ 5. 

FEC RESPONSE 29: See supra FEC Response ¶¶ 4, 8-22; infra FEC Response ¶ 31. 

30. Duncan will not provide any donor who gives funds in response to the above 

solicitations with any preferential access to any federal candidate or officeholder. Duncan Aff. ¶ 

6. 

FEC RESPONSE 30: See supra FEC Response ¶ 24; infra FEC Response ¶ 31. 

31. Duncan is ready and able to do this activity, and would do this activity but for the fact 

that 2 U.S.C. § 441i(a) makes it a crime. Unless he is able to obtain judicial relief he will not do 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 73 of 89
24

this activity. Duncan intends to solicit state funds and non-federal funds in materially similar 

situations in the future, if permitted. Duncan Aff. ¶ 7. 

FEC RESPONSE 31: Duncan’s role in soliciting the planned soft money for the RNC is 

irrelevant. As the McConnell record demonstrates, it does not matter whether party officials or 

candidates solicit soft money contributions to the national party committees, see supra FEC 

Response ¶ 24. The Court specifically rejected the contention by the dissent that only 

“contributions made at the express behest of” a candidate created a concern about corruption, 

540 U.S. at 152. The McConnell record, in fact, demonstrates that many donors gave without 

being solicited, including, for example, at the suggestion of professional lobbyists as part of a 

broader plan to obtain influence. As lobbyist Daniel Murray explained (emphasis added), 

I advise my clients as to which federal office-holders (or candidates) they 

should contribute and in what amounts, in order to best use the resources 

they are able to allocate to such efforts to advance their legislative agenda. 

Such plans also would include soft money contributions to political parties 

and interest groups associated with political issues.

McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d at 495 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (citation omitted); see also id. (“‘To have 

true political clout, the giving and raising of campaign money for candidates and political parties 

is often critically important.’”) (quoting lobbyist Wright Andrews). Similarly, when the 

Supreme Court discussed the “evidence in the record showing that national parties have actively 

exploited the belief that contributions purchase influence or protection to pressure donors into 

making contributions,” it quoted the statement of a CEO who specifically referred to heavyhanded solicitations by lobbyists. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 148 n.47. If a corporation had given a 

lot of money to one side, the CEO explained, “‘the other side,’” i.e., the opposing national party 

committee, might have “‘a friendly lobbyist call and indicate that someone with interests before 

a certain committee has had their contributions to the other side noticed.’” Id. (quoting Wade 

Randlett). The national parties are “entities uniquely positioned to serve as conduits for 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 74 of 89
25

corruption,” including when donations are made “at the behest of” party officers in their official 

capacity. Id. at 156 n.51. 

In addition, see supra FEC Response ¶¶ 4 (noting that Duncan is no longer RNC 

Chairman), 8-22 (responding to statements regarding each soft-money activity). Mr. Duncan — 

as well as his successor — is free to solicit hard money on behalf of state and local committees 

and candidates and soft money in his individual capacity or, if he is an official of his state party, 

in that capacity. McConnell, 540 U.S. at 157. 

32. California Republican Party (“CRP”) supports Republican nominees for partisan 

elective offices in general elections, particularly in contested races. CRP is prohibited from and 

does not support candidates for partisan elective office at primary elections. Thus, CRP’s 

potential federal candidate support activity does not take place in any regular primary election. 

CRP also supports candidates for non-partisan offices at the state and local levels. The statewide 

offices of Insurance Commissioner and Superintendent of Public Instruction are not partisan 

offices. Local offices are all non-partisan (Art. II, sec. 6(a), Cal. Const.). Christiansen Dec. ¶ 3. 

FEC RESPONSE 32: See supra FEC Response ¶ 2. 

33. California holds its Direct Primary on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June 

and its statewide general election on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. 

California holds a standalone Presidential Primary election on the first Tuesday in February in 

even numbered years divisible by four. CEC § 1202. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 4. 

FEC RESPONSE 33: No response. 

34. California law permits local jurisdictions to set their election dates and consolidate 

those elections with the Direct Primary and the statewide general election, so that state and local 

officer elections may be held on those dates which are regular federal election dates. Candidates 

for state and local elective offices appear on the ballot with candidates for federal offices. 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 4; Buettner Dec. ¶ 5. 

FEC RESPONSE 34: No response. 

35. Since the enactment of Proposition 34 in 2000, CRP has engaged in substantial 

support of candidates for partisan offices at the state level, and more recently in the 2006 and 

2008 elections, CRP has engaged in local candidate support. This activity included contributions, 

coordinated expenditures, and member communication expenditures in support of candidates for 

state offices at elections held in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2008, and member communication 

expenditures in support of candidates for local offices, most of the latter in 2006 and 2008. 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 6. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 75 of 89
26

FEC RESPONSE 35: No response. 

36. CRP has spent little money supporting federal candidates, either before or after 

BCRA was adopted, because California has had very few competitive Congressional districts 

since 2001. As noted above, CRP does not support any federal candidates in primary elections. 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 7. 

FEC RESPONSE 36: The CRP has “spent . . . money supporting” federal candidates 

through direct and coordinated expenditures (see Pls.’ Stmnt. ¶ 38), and through substantial sums 

spent on federal election activity, including voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, and 

generic campaign activity, see infra FEC Responses ¶¶ 42-45. 

37. Because California’s U.S. Senate seats have been held by Democrat incumbents since 

1994, CRP has spent little funds on campaign activities in support of Republican nominees for 

those offices. CRP has not made any significant coordinated expenditures in a U.S. Senate race 

since 1998. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 8. 

FEC RESPONSE 37: See supra FEC Response ¶ 36. 

38. Because California’s Congressional seats were redistricted in 2001 to virtually 

eliminate partisan competition at general elections, CRP has not engaged in any substantial 

contribution or “coordinated expenditures” under 2 U.S.C. § 441a(d) for 2002, 2004, 2006, and 

2008. In 2002, CRP contributed $10,000 to California Congressional candidates that were not in 

highly contested races. CRP made “coordinated expenditures” totaling $86,275 to three 

candidates, one in a contested general election race (CD 22). In 2004, CRP made one $5,000 

contribution in a contested California congressional race, and $72,650 in coordinated 

expenditures in support of David Dreier (CD 26) – a race that was not seriously contested. In 

2005-2006, CRP made coordinated expenditures of $11,013 in one special Congressional race 

(Campbell – CD 48) and in 2006, CRP paid filing fees for 17 Congressional candidates in noncontested races totaling $27,557, and one coordinated expenditure on behalf of David Dreier 

(CD 26) totaling $41,775. In 2007-2008, despite spending $17,268,249 in federal funds, CRP 

made no contributions or independent expenditures, and only $41,660 in coordinated 

expenditures (Rohrabacher – CD 46) on behalf of federal candidates. Thus, between 2002 and 

2008, CRP engaged in coordinated expenditure activity in fewer than four contested general 

election races out of 216 Congressional elections. After enactment of BCRA’s FEA PASO 

provisions in 2002, CRP stopped including federal candidates on its slate mailings and stopped 

identifying federal candidates entirely in absentee ballot application, chase mailings, and similar 

voter communications for the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 elections. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 9. 12 

FEC RESPONSE 38: No response, except to the final sentence of the paragraph. As to 

the final sentence, the CRP appears to imply that “BCRA’s FEA PASO provision[ ]” prohibits 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 76 of 89
27

the CRP from using state funds to finance certain “voter communications” that “identify[ ] 

federal candidates.” However, (a) to the extent these “voter communications” constitute “voter 

identification, get-out-the-vote activity, or generic campaign activity” in connection with an 

election in which federal candidates are on the ballot, but do not PASO a federal candidate, the 

communications must be funded at least in part with federal funds regardless of whether they 

identify any federal candidate, see 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(ii); (b) a communication is subject to 

the “PASO provision,” 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(iii), only if it “promotes or supports . . . or attacks 

or opposes” a candidate, not merely “identif[ies]” a candidate; (c) BCRA did not take effect until 

after the 2002 elections; and (d) in any event, the CRP does include federal candidates in some of 

its GOTV slate listings. (See Door Hanger, “Elect Our Republican Team” (FEC Exh. 14); see 

also Christiansen Dep. 137:24-139:11 (FEC Exh. 2) (noting that door hanger was distributed).) 

39. In 2002, CRP spent $6,467,968 supporting 16 candidates for state elective offices 

with endorsement communications (mailings, party slate cards, broadcast and cablecast 

communications). In 2003-2004, CRP spent $5,680,352 supporting 46 candidates for state 

elective offices with endorsement mailings, broadcast and cablecast communications and nonadvocacy issue oriented mailings. In 2005-2006, CRP spent $8,787,102 supporting 36 candidates 

for state elective offices with endorsement mailings, member communication mailings, broadcast 

communications, and non-advocacy issue-oriented mailings as well as supporting several dozen 

candidates for local offices with member communication mailings. In 2007-2008, CRP spent 

$5,710,795 supporting 11 candidates for state elective offices with endorsement mailings, 

member communication mailings, broadcast communications, and non-advocacy issue-oriented 

mailings, as well as supporting nearly 100 candidates for local offices with member 

communication mailings. CRP’s expenditures for the support of state and local candidates in four 

elections totaled $26,646,217. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 10. 

 

FEC RESPONSE 39: No response, except to note (a) that this paragraph includes 

disbursements for “non-advocacy issue oriented mailings” in the CRP’s lists of disbursements 

“supporting” candidates, thereby further confirming the evidence that so-called “grassroots 

lobbying” does affect candidate elections, see supra FEC Response ¶ 16; and (b) that the CRP 

uses its state and local campaign activities to “further refine the strategies and tactics for [its] 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 77 of 89
28

target congressional candidates.” Ron Nehring, California GOP Chair: Go Local, 

http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_599.htm (Dec. 7, 2008) (FEC Exh. 15). 

40. From 2003 to 2008, CRP spent barely more than 1% of the total of $26,942,147 spent 

on all candidates for federal candidate support. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 11. 

FEC RESPONSE 40: See supra FEC Response ¶ 36. 

 41. CRP has eschewed including any communications that clearly identify federal 

candidates and contain words that promote, attack, support, or oppose such federal candidates in 

its state and local candidate support communications, or in its state and local ballot measure 

endorsement communications, because of BCRA’s requirement that such communications would 

have to be paid entirely with federal funds under 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(2)(B) and 2 U.S.C. § 

431(20). According to Bill Christiansen, the Chief Operating Officer of the CRP, using only 

federal funds for such communications would virtually eliminate CRP’s ability to engage in such 

state and local candidate and ballot measure activity because of the severe, adverse impact on 

these fundamental state and local campaign programs. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 12. 

FEC RESPONSE 41: The CRP does not allege in this case that it would like to use soft 

money to fund “state and local candidate support communications” that PASO federal 

candidates, and so the assertions in this paragraph relating to such communications are 

irrelevant. In any event, the CRP does clearly identify and promote federal candidates in some 

of its state and local candidate support communications. See supra FEC Response ¶ 38. As to 

ballot initiative activity, see infra FEC Response ¶ 63. Should the CRP ever develop an interest 

in undertaking any of the activities described in paragraph 41, the declarant’s conclusory 

assertion that “using only federal funds” for such communications “would virtually eliminate” 

CRP’s ability to pay for them due to an unexplained “severe, adverse impact” is unsupported and 

controverted by the considerable sums of federal money the CRP raises each election cycle. (See 

Pls.’ Stmnt. ¶ 44.) 

42. CRP spent $7,768,683 on voter registration activities from 2003 to 2008, as reflected 

on its FEC reports. Of this, a substantial portion, in excess of the federally required minimum 

percentage, was paid with hard federal dollars. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 13. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 78 of 89
29

FEC RESPONSE 42: See infra FEC Response 45. The purpose of the CRP’s voter 

registration activities is to register “as many Republicans as possible” and help elect Republican 

candidates in federal and state elections. (Christiansen Dep. 121:12-14, 121:23-122:3 (FEC Exh. 

2).) The CRP acknowledges that its voter registration activity is intended to — and actually does 

— affect federal elections. (Id. 123:1-17 (“Q: Does the CRP’s voter registration activity affect 

federal elections? A: Yes.”); see also Phillip J. LaVelle, For GOP, California Dreamin’?, 2004 

WLNR 17013682, San Diego Union Tribune, Sep. 1, 2004 (FEC Exh. 16) (“[C]hairman of the 

California Republican Party . . . said Republican registration gains are creating a Bush-friendly 

environment.”).) The RNC has acknowledged that effect, as well: 

Q. When a state party . . . conduct[s] voter registration drives, are they 

designed to register likely Republican voters? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Doesn't that help Republican candidates for federal office? 

A. The hope is, as a lot of these plans refer to it, helps the entire ticket in 

that state. And whether it’s for the legislature or whether it’s for governor, 

whether it’s for Congress or the U.S. Senate, if they have any of those 

races in that particular year, that’s the whole purpose behind it and that 

was really the purpose behind the Federal Election Commission’s 

allocation regulations in the states recognizing based on who was on a 

ballot in any particular election federal election year. That’s how you 

would allocate resources. There was an acknowledgment that it benefited 

the entire ticket and how it benefited and what kind of funds were used 

were based on the categories on those candidates on the ballot. 

Q. So it does help federal candidates? 

A. It does. 

(Josefiak Dep. 26:5-27:8, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

 43. CRP spent $619,372 on voter identification and GOTV activities from 2003 to 2008, 

as reflected on its FEC reports. All or virtually all of these payments were made with federal 

funds or federal Levin funds. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 14. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 79 of 89
30

FEC RESPONSE 43: See infra FEC Response 45. The purpose of the CRP’s voter 

identification and GOTV activities is to “get . . . to the polls” all Republicans and Republicanleaning voters (Christiansen Dep. 127:14-25 (FEC Exh. 2)), so that Republican candidates “win 

on election day” in federal and state races (id. at 128:1-4). Accordingly, the CRP acknowledges 

that its GOTV activities affect federal elections. (Id. at 128:24-129:1.) The RNC has 

acknowledged this as well. 

A. . . . Your get-out-the-vote program is to get Republicans and 

independents and maybe disgruntle[d] democrats to vote for your 

candidate. So it’s more than just the Republican base. It’s getting the 

base plus in order to win. 

Q. So it’s designed to get people to the polls who you believe will vote 

Republican? 

A. Correct. 

Q. And, again, doesn’t that also help Republican candidates for federal 

office? 

A. It helps the ticket and Republican candidates, all Republican 

candidates for office, federal and non-federal. 

(Josefiak Dep. 27:18-28:19, McConnell v. FEC, Civ. No. 02-582 (D.D.C.) (Oct. 15, 2002) (FEC 

Exh. 17).) 

44. Between 2003 and 2008, CRP spent $51,673,117 from its federal account, according 

to FEC reports. During this same time it spent $94,395,279 from its non-federal account, of 

which $18,595,745 was for transfers to the federal account for allocable activity expenses. 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 15. 

FEC RESPONSE 44: No response. 

45. CRP intends to use state funds to participate in GOTV, voter identification, and voter 

registration activities, as defined in 2 U.S.C. § 431(20), in future elections for state and local 

candidates. None of this “Federal election activity” would be targeted to any federal candidate, 

i.e., it would not reference, describe, or otherwise depict any federal candidate. This activity is 

prohibited by 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b). Absent the requested judicial relief CRP will not engage in 

these activities. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 16. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 80 of 89
31

FEC RESPONSE 45: The generic activities the CRP plans to conduct with soft money 

through these accounts can directly help federal candidates and influence their election. In 

McConnell, the Supreme Court found that voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, and 

generic campaign activity as defined by BCRA “clearly capture activity that benefits federal 

candidates” and that “funding of such activities creates a significant risk of actual and apparent 

corruption.” 540 U.S. at 167-68. 

Common sense dictates, and it was “undisputed” below, that a 

party’s efforts to register voters sympathetic to that party directly 

assist the party’s candidates for federal office. 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 

460 (Kollar-Kotelly, J.). It is equally clear that federal candidates 

reap substantial rewards from any efforts that increase the number 

of like-minded registered voters who actually go to the polls. See, 

e.g., id., at 459 (“‘[The evidence] shows quite clearly that a 

campaign that mobilizes residents of a highly Republican precinct 

will produce a harvest of votes for Republican candidates for both 

state and federal offices. A campaign need not mention federal 

candidates to have a direct effect on voting for such a candidate . . . 

. [G]eneric campaign activity has a direct effect on federal 

elections’” (quoting Green Expert Report 14)). 

Id. 

The views of the CRP and RPSD are consistent with “common sense” and the 

“undisputed” record in McConnell. See supra FEC Responses ¶¶ 42, 43 (discussing purpose and 

effect of voter registration, voter identification, and GOTV activities). Each of the 

organizational Plaintiffs has conceded that, in an election where both state and federal candidates 

are on the ballot, any GOTV activity inherently affects the federal elections, even if such activity 

does not specifically mention any of the federal candidates. (Josefiak Dep. 45:7-16 (FEC Exh. 

1); Christiansen Dep. 129:25-130:5 (FEC Exh. 2); Buettner Dep. 68:16-21 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

In addition, to the extent that any of the CRP’s intended activities constitute “generic 

campaign activity” 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(ii) — which is “campaign activity that promotes a 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 81 of 89
32

political party and does not promote a candidate or non-Federal candidate” 2 U.S.C. § 431(21) 

— such activity also influences federal elections. See Ron Nehring, A Republican 50-State 

Strategy?, http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_617.htm (Jan. 27, 2009) (FEC 

Exh. 18) (CRP Chairman’s statement: “Building organizational and communications capability 

— and expanding the ranks of congressional, state and local officials from our party — makes it 

more likely a state will be competitive in a presidential election down the road.”); San Joaquin 

Republicans Organizing for Dean Andal, http://www.cagop.org/blog/2008/09/san-joaquinrepublicans-organizing-for.html (Sept. 12, 2008) (FEC Exh. 19) (CRP Chairman’s blog post 

noting that Congressional candidate was “benefitting from the organization our volunteer groups 

have built in the region”). 

Finally, the activity described in this paragraph is not “prohibited” by 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b) 

or any other provision. BCRA merely requires that this federal election activity be financed by 

the CRP at least in part with federal funds. 

46. CRP has spent $18,130,187 in support of or opposition to statewide ballot measures 

since 2002. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 17. 

FEC RESPONSE 46: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

47. CRP believes that the endorsement and opposition of ballot measures are enhanced by 

the ability freely to associate Democrat federal officeholders with ballot measures that CRP 

opposes, and to associate Republican officeholders with CRP endorsed ballot measures. 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 18. 

FEC RESPONSE 47: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

48. At the September 7, 2007 CRP Convention Meeting in Indian Wells, CRP endorsed 

or opposed a number of ballot measures for the 2008 statewide ballots. In September 2008, it 

endorsed or opposed several measures that have already qualified to appear on the June 3, 2010 

statewide election ballot; and it is likely to endorse and oppose some of the current measures 

placed on the June 2010 statewide ballot at the February, 2009 Convention Meeting in 

Sacramento. Christiansen Dec. Memorandum (Jan. 15, 2009). 

FEC RESPONSE 48: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 82 of 89
33

49. San Diego Republican Party (“SDRP”) supports Republican nominees for partisan 

elective offices nominated at the Direct Primary. (California Elections Code § 316). However, 

SDRP does not support candidates for partisan elective offices, including federal Congressional 

and U.S. Senate offices, in contested partisan primary elections. Buettner Dec. ¶ 3. 

FEC RESPONSE 49: See supra FEC Response ¶ 3. 

50. Local offices are all non-partisan (Art. II, sec. 6(a), Cal. Const.), and SDRP actively 

supports candidates for local offices, including candidates for city councils, member of the 

county board of supervisors, and local school districts. Buettner Dec. ¶ 4. 

FEC RESPONSE 50: No response. 

51. For state offices, under the California Political Reform Act (“CPRA”), political 

parties are permitted by state policy to support candidates for state elective offices with unlimited 

contributions, “coordinated expenditures” and “member communications” on their behalf. (CGC 

§§ 85400(c), 85312.) Political parties are permitted to make unlimited contributions to local 

candidates where local law does not impose limitations, and unlimited “member 

communications” on behalf of such candidates, coordinated with the local candidates, 

irrespective of any local limitations on contributions or independent expenditures. (CGC §§ 

85312, 85703.) SDRP has an active program to endorse and support local candidates using 

member communications and where available, direct contributions. Buettner Dec. ¶ 6; 

Christiansen Dec. ¶ 5. 

FEC RESPONSE 51: No response. 

52. For local offices, some jurisdictions have their own local campaign law regulations. 

San Diego, for example, prohibits business entities including corporations from making any 

contributions to city candidates or to committees that support city candidates, whether those 

committees make direct contributions or “independent expenditures.” San Diego Municipal Code 

§ 27.2947. Buettner Dec. ¶ 7. 

FEC RESPONSE 52: See infra FEC Response ¶ 58. 

53. Since the enactment of Proposition 34 in 2000, SDRP has engaged in substantial 

support of candidates for partisan offices at the state level and local non-partisan candidates. This 

activity has included a smaller amount of contributions, coordinated expenditures and member 

communication expenditures in support of statewide candidates on the ballot in 2003, 2004, 

2006, and 2008 and state candidates whose jurisdictions include San Diego County, and member 

communication expenditures for candidates for local offices in all elections since 2001. Buettner 

Dec. ¶ 8. 

FEC RESPONSE 53: No response. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 83 of 89
34

54. Because California’s U.S. Senate seats have been held by Democrat incumbents since 

1994, SDRP has not spent any funds on campaign activities in support of Republican nominees 

for those offices. Buettner Dec. ¶ 9. 

FEC RESPONSE 54: The RPSD has spent funds supporting candidates for the United 

States Senate through federal election activity, including voter registration, voter identification, 

GOTV, and generic campaign activity, see infra FEC Response ¶ 62. 

55. Because California’s Congressional seats were redistricted in 2001 to virtually 

eliminate partisan competition at general elections, SDRP has not engaged in any substantial 

contribution or “coordinated expenditures” under 2 USCA §441a(d) for 2002, 2004, 2006, and 

2008. Buettner Dec. ¶ 10. 

FEC RESPONSE 55: The RPSD has spent funds supporting candidates for the United 

States House of Representatives through independent expenditures (Pls.’ Stmnt. ¶ 57) and federal 

election activity, including voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, and generic campaign 

activity, see infra FEC Response ¶ 62. 

56. SDRP inaugurated a local candidate support program in 2002 and has endorsed 

hundreds of candidates for local offices on endorsement mailings or party slate cards during the 

elections from 2002-2008. At the November 4, 2008 general election, SDRP endorsed over one 

hundred candidates for local offices on its endorsement slate mailings. None of these 

endorsement mailings included any federal candidates because of the restrictions of BCRA, 2 

U.S.C. §441i(b)(2)(B) and 2 U.S.C. § 434(20). Buettner Dec. ¶ 11. 

FEC RESPONSE 56: FECA does not prohibit the RPSD from “includ[ing] any federal 

candidates” in slate endorsement mailings or in any other communications; in fact, the RPSD has 

distributed material promoting federal and state candidates together in every election cycle since 

BCRA was enacted. (See FEC Exh. 20 (RPSD materials); see also Buettner Dep. 77:2-79:21 

(FEC Exh. 3) (acknowledging that RPSD has distributed materials endorsing federal 

candidates).) 

57. SDRP spent $861,269 (or 61%) of its $1,408,617 in expenditures on state and local 

candidate support activities in 2006. That election cycle did not include a San Diego City 

mayoral or city attorney race, unlike 2004 and 2008. In 2004, it spent $1,257,842 (or 69%) of its 

total of $1,816,055 in expenditures that election year. In 2008, SDRP spent $1,927,970 of its 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 84 of 89
35

$2,717,753 total expenditures on expenditures related to state and local candidate support, while 

it spent only $2,384 in federal candidate support activity. None of the state and local candidate 

support activity unambiguously relates to any federal election or candidate. The very limited 

amount of SDRP’s federal candidate support included independent expenditures on behalf of 5 

county-jurisdiction congressional candidates (including two safe seats, one open but safe seat, 

and two Democrat-incumbent seats) and $550 in contributions to McCain for President. 

Spending on federal candidates in the 2008 Presidential election amounted to 9/100ths of 1% of 

the total 2008 expenditures, and 1/10th of 1% of combined federal and state or non-federal 

expenditures. Buettner Dec. ¶ 12. 

FEC RESPONSE 57: In addition to the independent expenditures and contributions to 

federal candidates noted in this paragraph, the RPSD has supported federal candidates through 

federal election activity, including voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, and generic 

campaign activity, see infra FEC Response ¶ 62. The RPSD also makes available to some 

candidates for the House or Representatives the RPSD’s file containing voter information. 

(Buettner Dep. 89:9-90:2 (FEC Exh. 3).) 

58. Because SDRP is required to spend significant federal funds and Levin funds for 

“Federal election activity,” see 2 U.S.C. 441i(b), and those same dollars are prized for local uses 

because of the City of San Diego prohibitions (SDMC 27.2947), SDRP has been precluded from 

engaging in more local candidate support activity than done from 2003 to 2008. Buettner Dec. ¶ 

13. 

FEC RESPONSE 58: The SDRP has not been “precluded” from engaging in more local 

candidate support due to any contribution limit. The SDRP is free to allocate its resources as it 

sees fit; contribution limits place no cap on the amount that it may spend on any particular 

activity. To the extent that allowable contributions under City of San Diego’s campaign finance 

laws are comparable to the federal laws, the RPSD has acknowledged that the similarity of the 

local and federal restrictions means that freeing the RPSD to spend more of its funds on city 

elections (by permitting the use of soft money for other activities) necessarily means freeing the 

RPSD to spend more funds on federal elections as well. (See Buettner Dep. 84:11-24 (FEC Exh. 

3).) 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 85 of 89
36

59. SDRP occasionally has endorsed, supported and opposed state and local ballot 

measures on its member communication mailings that have featured state and local, but not 

federal candidates. On occasion, SDRP has considered whether or not to include statements that 

support or attack a federal candidate in order to persuade voters of San Diego County to vote for 

or against the SDRP position on such ballot measures. However, SDRP has declined to include 

such language due to the BCRA requirement that such communications, even related to state or 

local ballot measures, must be paid wholly with hard federal dollars. Buettner Dec. ¶ 14. 

FEC RESPONSE 59: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

60. SDRP would like to support and oppose state and local ballot measures in the future. 

As part of this effort, SDRP intends to use public communications which clearly identify federal 

candidates and contain words promoting or opposing such candidates. Tetlow Dec. ¶ 3. 

FEC RESPONSE 60: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

61. SDRP believes that the endorsement and opposition of ballot measures are enhanced 

by the ability freely to associate Democrat federal officeholders with ballot measures that CRP 

opposes, and to associate Republican officeholders with SDRP endorsed ballot measures. Tetlow 

Dec. ¶ 4. 

FEC RESPONSE 61: See infra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

62. SDRP intends to use state funds to participate in GOTV, voter identification, and 

voter registration activities, as defined in 2 U.S.C. § 431(20), in future elections for state and 

local candidates. None of this “Federal election activity” would be targeted to any federal 

candidate, i.e. it would not reference, describe, or otherwise depict any federal candidate. This 

activity is prohibited by 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b). Absent the requested judicial relief, SDRP will not 

engage in these activities. SDRP intends to use state funds in materially similar situations in the 

future, if permitted. Tetlow Dec. ¶ 5. 

FEC RESPONSE 62: See supra FEC Response ¶ 45. As noted above, the RNC and the 

CRP acknowledge that voter registration, voter identification, GOTV, and generic campaign 

activity are intended to influence federal elections and do influence such elections. Id. ¶¶ 42-45. 

The RPSD similarly concedes that the purpose of these activities is “to get Republicans elected” 

at the federal, state, and local levels. (Buettner Dep. 62:5-63:18, 66:3-67:9 (FEC Exh. 3).) The 

statement that the RPSD “will not engage in these activities” “[a]bsent the requested judicial 

relief” is inaccurate: The RPSD will continue to conduct all of its voter registration, GOTV, and 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 86 of 89
37

generic campaign activities in the same manner that it has conducted them since BCRA was 

enacted. (See id. 76:2-12.)

63. CRP and SDRP intend to support efforts to change the way Congressional 

redistricting is done in California. To that end, CRP and SDRP intend to use state funds to 

distribute a Letter which will qualify as a public communication, 2 U.S.C. § 431(22) (“public 

communication” definition). Although “attack” and “oppose” are undefined in the definition of 

“federal election activity,” 2 U.S.C. § 431(20)(A)(iii), CRP and SDRP believe that this public 

communication will “attack” or “oppose” Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, as these terms are 

used in the definition of “federal election activity,” and so they are prohibited from using state 

funds for this communication. 2 U.S.C. § 441i(b)(1). Absent the requested judicial relief, CRP 

and SDRP will not undertake this activity. CRP and SDRP intend to use state funds in materially 

similar situations in the future, if permitted. Christiansen Dec. ¶ 19; Tetlow Dec. ¶ 6. 

FEC RESPONSE 63: In McConnell, the Supreme Court addressed the contentions of 

state and local parties — including the CRP — regarding BCRA’s requirement that any 

advertising that promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes a federal candidate by such party 

committees be funded with hard money. The Court found that, as to the direct effect of such 

advertising on federal elections, “[t]he record on this score could scarcely be more abundant.” 

McConnell, 540 U.S. at 170. “Such ads were a prime motivating force behind BCRA’s 

passage,” and “any public communication that promotes or attacks a clearly identified candidate 

directly affects the election in which he is participating.” Id. at 169-70. 

The CRP has distributed communications that endorse or oppose state ballot initiatives 

and identify federal candidates — thus associating the officeholder with the initiative — without 

promoting or attacking the candidate. (See California Republican Party, Your Official Orange 

County Republican Party Endorsements at 5 (FEC Exh. 21) (listing members of Congress 

endorsing ballot proposition).) Regarding the other assertions in this paragraph, see supra FEC 

Response ¶¶ 13 (redistricting), 16 (grassroots lobbying). 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 87 of 89
38

The CRP and SDRP’s decision not to send out the proposed letters is the preferred 

allocation of those entities’ accumulated federal funds, rather than the result of any requirement 

of BCRA. 

64. The text of the Letter that CRP and SDRP wish to distribute is: 

Dear *****: 

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer don’t want you to read this letter. They want to keep 

California voters from effectively choosing their Congressional representatives. 

The Democrats seek to preserve their stranglehold on California’s government and 

perpetuate the gerrymandered Congressional districts that allow fifty thousand voters to elect a 

Democrat to Congress from District 43 while over one hundred and twenty thousand voters are 

required to elect a Republican to Congress in each of Districts 2, 3, 4, 22, 24, 46, and 48 – ample 

proof of the maxim that under our current, scandalous redistricting system in California “the 

voters don’t choose their representatives, the representatives choose their voters.” 

The California Constitution allows State Legislators to draw the political boundaries in 

the state. This means Legislators get to draw the boundaries for the Assembly, State Senate, and 

Congressional districts. In essence, this allows the Legislators to determine what voters they 

want to represent in order to guarantee themselves, and their political party, re-election. 

Political boundaries are re-drawn every ten years. In 2001, the State Legislators used 

new, hi-tech computers to draw up the political boundaries and guarantee themselves and their 

party re-election year after year. These computers did such a good job that a seat has switched 

hands from one political party to another only 3 times in the last six years, despite the fact that 

the People of California have a less favorable opinion of the State Legislature and Congress than 

at any other point in modern history. 

When politicians are guaranteed re-election, they stop listening to the People and act out 

of their own self-interest. A lack of competitive elections has led to do-nothing legislative gridlock and Legislators overspending our tax dollars in order to pay back their political contributors. 

We need to make a change, but Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer will do everything they 

can to stop a change from happening. Help us take a stand for fairness and accountability in 

California elections. Support us in our effort to qualify a ballot measure that will give the power 

of drawing political boundary lines to the People and make elections competitive again. Help 

bring democracy back to California. 

You can help the California Republican Party in this effort by making your contribution 

to our initiative qualification efforts. Please give $100, $25, or whatever you can to support this 

effort. With your help, we can begin the process of making California government about the 

People, not the politicians. Christiansen Dec. Memorandum and Letter (Jan. 15, 2009); Tetlow 

Dec. ¶ 6. 

FEC RESPONSE 64: See supra FEC Response ¶ 63. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 88 of 89
39

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Steve N. Hajjar 

Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorneys 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: March 9, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 89 of 89
FEC Exhibit 1 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 19 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 20 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 21 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 22 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 23 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 24 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 25 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 26 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 27 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 28 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 29 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 30 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 31 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 32 of 33
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-2 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 33 of 33
FEC Exhibit 2 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 19 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 20 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 21 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 22 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 23 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 24 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 25 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 26 of 27
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-3 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 27 of 27
FEC Exhibit 3 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-4 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 24 of 24
FEC Exhibit 4 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 14
1 

United States District Court 

District of Columbia 

Republican National Committee et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant.

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

 THREE-JUDGE COURT 

Plaintiff Republican National Committee=s Discovery Responses

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33, 34, and 36 the Republican National 

Committee (ARNC@) makes the following discovery responses. 

General Objections

1. The RNC objects to the requests to the extent that they purport to call for the 

production of documents\information that: (a) contain privileged attorney-client 

communications; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) disclose the mental impressions, 

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of any attorneys or other representatives of the RNC; (d) 

were prepared in anticipation of litigation; or (e) are otherwise protected from disclosure under 

applicable privileges, immunities, laws, or rules. 

2. The RNC objects to the requests to the extent that they are vague, not limited in scope, 

unreasonably broad and burdensome, or beyond the scope of either category of permissible 

discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee=s note 

(2000). 

3. The RNC objects to the instructions accompanying the requests to the extent that they 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 14
2 

purport to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or 

local rules. 

4. The RNC objects to requests for information the benefit of which is outweighed by its 

lack of importance in resolving the issues at stake in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i) 

(discovery cannot be Aunreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or . . . obtainable from some other 

source . . . .@ and is limited if the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit, taking into account . . .[inter alia] the importance of the proposed discovery in 

resolving the issues.@ Id. at (iii). 

5. By responding to these requests, the RNC does not concede that any of the 

documents\information requested are relevant to a claim or defense or the subject matter of this 

action or are admissible at the trial thereof or that any person identified in the responses has 

documents relevant to this action. The RNC reserves any and all objections as to competency, 

relevance, materiality, privilege, admissibility, or any other grounds on which an objection may 

be made. The RNC expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery into the subject 

matter of these requests. Any response to a request that inadvertently discloses privileged 

documents\information is not intended to and shall not be deemed or construed to constitute a 

waiver of any privilege or right of Plaintiff. Insofar as a response to a request may be deemed to 

be a waiver of any privilege or right, such waiver shall be deemed to be a waiver limited to that 

particular response only. 

6. The RNC objects to the extremely vague, overbroad and ambiguous definition of 

Adonor, @Agrassroots lobbying,@ Aofficeholder,@ Aredistricting activities,@ “donation,” and 

Asupport state candidates.@ The RNC also objects to the extremely vague, overbroad and 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 14
3 

ambiguous definition of Asolicitation,@ which encompasses Aindirect@ requests or suggestions that 

a person make a donation. 

7. Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections, which are 

hereby incorporated into each response given below, the RNC (a) objects to the individual 

requests and (b) makes the required good faith attempt to fulfill its duty to provide all responsive 

information readily available to it without undue labor and expense as follows: 

Interrogatories 

1. For the period from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008, identify each 

solicitation you made that indicated that some or all of the donations received in response to the 

solicitation would be used to (a) support state candidates; (b) fund redistricting activities; (c) 

fund grassroots lobbying; or (d) fund litigation activity. For each response solicitation, indicate: 

(i) the date of the solicitation; 

(ii) the method (e.g., mail, email, in person, etc.) of the solicitation 

(iii) which of the above uses was mentioned in the solicitation; 

(iv) a general description of the person to whom the solicitation was made (e.g. 

Aregistered Republicans in Maryland,@ Adonors for McCain precedential 

campaign,@ etc.); and 

(v) whether Duncan made or was named in the solicitation. 

Response: Based on a review of the documents in the RNC’s possession, custody, and 

control, the RNC can find no evidence that it has made any solicitations described in subpart (a), 

(b), (c), or (d). However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement its response. 

2. For each solicitation response to Interrogatory 1, provide the date and amount of each 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 14
4 

contribution that you received in response to that solicitation. Contributions of less than $200 

may be aggregated for each solicitation. 

Response: As stated in its response to Interrogatory No. 1, the RNC can find no evidence 

that it has made any such solicitations. Accordingly, the RNC can find no evidence that it has 

received such contributions. However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement its 

response. 

3. For each year from 2003 through 2008, inclusive, indicate the aggregate dollar amount 

of disbursements that you made for each of the following purposes: (a) to support state 

candidates; (b) to support redistricting activities; (c) to engage in grassroots lobbying; or (d) to 

fund litigation activity. For any year in which you made disbursements responsive to subpart (a) 

of this Interrogatory, also indicate: (i) the states to which the disbursements were directed; and 

(ii) for any disbursement you made directly to an individual seeking state office or his campaign 

committee, the name of the individual, the office sought, and the amount of the disbursement. 

For any year in which you made disbursements responsive to subpart (c) of this Interrogatory, 

also indicate the amount that you disbursed during that year for each district grassroots lobbying 

advertisements. For any year in which you made disbursements responsive to subpart (d) of this 

interrogatory, also indicate the court actions to which the disbursements were directed. 

Response: 

a. Support State Candidates

The RNC provides the following responsive information regarding support of state 

candidates. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 14
5 

Year Disbursements to States Disbursements to State 

Candidates

2003 

2004 Name: Peter Cianchette 

Office: Governor 

Amount: $ 500.00 

2005 New Jersey (county parties) 

$ 292,000.00 

Name: Jerry Kilgore 

Office: Governor 

Amount: $ 886,316.00 

2006 

2007 Louisiana 

$ 539,589.83 

Kentucky 

$ 448,197.33 

2008 

 In addition to these disbursements, the RNC routinely transfers funds to state parties. 

These transfers are reported to the FEC as part of the RNC’s regular filings to the FEC and this 

information is therefore publicly available. 

b. Redistricting Activities 

 

The RNC provides the following responsive information regarding support of 

redistricting activities. 

Year Amount of Disbursement

2003 $ 495.00 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 $ 5,000.00 

2008 $ 8,625.05 

TOTAL $ 14,120.05 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 14
6 

c. Grassroots Lobbying

Based on a review of the documents in the RNC’s possession, custody, and control, the 

RNC cannot document the amount of resources expended for Grassroots Lobbying 

activities. However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement its response. 

d. Litigation Activity

The RNC objects to this request as it seeks information protected by attorney-client 

privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving this objection or 

the General Objections above, information concerning disbursements made by the RNC to 

various law firms is reported by the RNC in its regular filings to the FEC on Schedule B at Line 

21B. 

4. Describe any measures you intend to take to prevent donors of nonfederal funds from 

gaining influence over or Aobtaining preferential access@ to officeholders or candidates,@ should 

you be granted the relief you seek in this case. Describe in particular any measures you intend to 

take to ensure that you will not A(1) encourage officeholders or candidates to meet with or have 

other contact with contributors to [nonfederal] accounts, (2) arrange for [nonfederal] contributors 

to participate in conference calls with federal candidates or officeholders, or (3) offer access to 

federal officeholders or candidates in exchange for [nonfederal] contributions.@ 

Response: If it is granted the relief it seeks, the RNC will not grant contributors of 

non-federal funds with preferential access to any federal candidate or officeholder above and 

beyond what they would be otherwise afforded, based on the contributions of federal funds to the 

RNC. Furthermore, in regard to both federal and potential non-federal contributions, the RNC 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 14
7 

would instruct its staff not to facilitate any one-on-one meetings or other individualized contact 

between contributors and federal candidates and officeholders. But irrespective of the amount of 

non-federal funds contributors may give, they will not be afforded any special opportunities for 

access to federal candidates or officeholders. 

5. Describe how you Acurrently afford[]@ Apreferential access to federal candidates or 

officeholders@ or other benefits to contributors of federal funds, including how you A(1) 

encourage officeholders or candidates to meet with or have other contact with contributors to 

[federal] accounts, (2) arrange for [federal] contributors to participate in conference calls with 

federal candidates or officeholders, or (3) offer access to federal officeholders or candidates in 

exchange for [federal] contributions.@ (Pls.= Statement of Undisputed Material Facts & 24.). 

Response: The RNC does not currently grant Apreferential access to federal candidates or 

officeholders@ to contributors of non-federal funds, since they cannot receive these funds. The 

RNC does provide contributors of federal funds with certain opportunities and invitations to 

certain events not offered to the public at large. Documents describing the RNC=s various donor 

programs have been produced contemporaneously in response to Request for Production No. 5. 

The RNC does not facilitate one-on-one meetings between federal candidates and officeholders 

and any contributor of federal funds. Nor does the RNC encourage federal candidates or 

officeholders to meet one-on-one with or have other individualized contact with any RNC 

contributor. 

Requests for Admission

1. Admit that your proposed redistricting activity would influence elections for the 

United States House of Representatives. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 14
8 

Objection: The RNC objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that the term Ainfluence@ is 

vague and ambiguous. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving its objection, the RNC denies Request No. 1. 

2. Admit that your proposed redistricting activity is intended, at least in part, to influence 

elections for the United States House of Representatives. 

Objection: The RNC objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that the term Ainfluence@ is 

vague and ambiguous. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving its objection, the RNC denies Request No. 2. 

Requests for Production

Objection: The RNC objects to the FEC’s Requests for Production to the extent that they 

are overly burdensome and exceed the guidelines set forth in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 

127 S. Ct. 2652, 2666 (2007). Burdensome discovery in the context of an as-applied First 

Amendment challenge constitutes a “severe burden on political speech.” Id. at 2666 n. 5. The 

RNC stores its archived files, which includes hundreds of thousands of documents, in an offsite 

warehouse. To review all such documents in response to the FEC’s Requests for Production, 

particularly in an expedited manner as requested by the FEC, would impose an undue burden on 

the RNC. 

1. All solicitations identified in response to Interrogatory 1. 

Response: The RNC objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds that it is vague and 

overbroad. Subject to and without waiving these objections or the General Objections above, the 

RNC responds as follows. Based on a review of the documents in the RNC’s possession, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 14
9 

custody, and control, the RNC can find no evidence of solicitations in response to Interrogatory 

No. 1. However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement its response. 

2. All documents containing the script or text, or their audio/visual equivalent, of any 

grassroots lobbying funded by a disbursement responsive to Interrogatory 3(c). 

Response: The RNC objects to Request No. 2 on the grounds that it is vague and 

overbroad. Subject to and without waiving these objections or the General Objections above, the 

RNC responds as follows. Based on a review of the documents in the RNC’s possession, 

custody, and control, the RNC can find no evidence of documents containing the script or text, 

or their audio/visual equivalent, of any grassroots lobbying funded by a disbursement responsive 

to Interrogatory 3(c). However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement its 

response. 

3. Documents sufficient to identify the goods or services you received in exchange for 

each disbursement of more than $1,000 responsive to Interrogatory 3(a) or Interrogatory 3(b). 

Response: RNC objects to Request No. 3 on the grounds that it is vague and overbroad. 

 Subject to and without waiving these objections or the General Objections above, the RNC 

produces non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this 

request. See RNC 000001-000046. 

4. All documents created after January 1, 2003, relating to any measure responsive to 

Interrogatory 4, regardless of whether such measure has been or will be put into effect. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC produces 

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this request. See 

RNC000047-000057. The RNC has withheld two responsive documents because they are 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 14
10 

protected under the attorney-client privilege. These documents are internal memoranda from the 

RNC legal department. 

5. All documents created after January 1, 2003, relating to any Apreferential access to 

federal candidates or officeholders@ or other benefits you Acurrently afford to contributors of 

federal funds.@

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC produces 

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this request. See 

RNC000058-000371. 

6. All documents created after January 1, 2003, relating to the Arise of 527s@ and any 

Afundraising disadvantage@ of the RNC relative to A527s@ (Pls.= Statement of Undisputed Material 

Facts & 26), as well as any comparison or analysis between your fundraising or spending and 

that of organizations C other than entities registered with the Commission as political 

committees C organized under 26 U.S.C.' 501(c) or 26 U.S.C. ' 527. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC produces 

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this request. See

RNC000372-000596. 

7. All documents relating to whether and how you have Abeen negatively affected by the 

explosion of internet fundraising@ (Pls.= Statement of Undisputed Material Facts & 26). 

Response: The RNC objects to Request No. 7 on the grounds that it is vague and 

overbroad. Subject to and without waiving these objections or the General Objections above, the 

RNC responds as follows. Based on a review of the documents in the RNC’s possession, 

custody, and control, the RNC can find no documents evidencing the negative effect of the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 14
11 

explosion of internet fundraising. However, the RNC reserves the right to amend and supplement 

its response. 

8. All documents you produced to the Commission pursuant to any discovery request in 

the McConnell v. FEC action, as well as all of your responses to the Commission=s 

interrogatories and requests for admission in that case. 

Response: Pursuant to the stipulation and protective order agreed to by the parties on 

February 20, 2009, these documents have been made available to the FEC. 

9. All documents (other than privileged communications) consulted or used in the 

preparation of your responses to the foregoing interrogatories, requests for admission, or 

document requests. Documents produced in response to other document requests are excluded 

from this request. 

Response: Subject to and without waiving the objections above, the RNC produces 

non-privileged documents in its possession, custody and control responsive to this request. See 

RNC000001-000046. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 14
12 

Verification

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers to the FEC=s interrogatories 

are true and correct. Executed on February 25, 2009. 

 /s/ Heather Sidwell 

 Heather Sidwell, 

 Republican National Committee 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 14
13 

Charles H. Bell, Jr.* 

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP 

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 801 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Tel: (916) 442-7757 

Fax: (916) 442-7759 

cbell@bmhlaw.com 

Counsel for California Republican Party 

and Republican Party of San Diego County

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ James Bopp, Jr. 

James Bopp, Jr., Bar #CO0041 

Richard E. Coleson* 

Clayton J. Callen* 

Kaylan L. Phillips* 

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

1 South Sixth Street 

Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 

812/232-2434 telephone 

812/234-3685 facsimile 

Lead Counsel for all Plaintiffs

*Pro Hac Vice 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-5 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 14
FEC Exhibit 5 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-6 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-6 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 6 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-7 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-7 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 7 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-8 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-8 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 8 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 19 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 20 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 21 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 22 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 23 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 24 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 25 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 26 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 27 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 28 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 29 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 30 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 31 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 32 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 33 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 34 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 35 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 36 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 37 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 38 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 39 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 40 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 41 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 42 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 43 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 44 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 45 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 46 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 47 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 48 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 49 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 50 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 51 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 52 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 53 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 54 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 55 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 56 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 57 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 58 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 59 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 60 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 61 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 62 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 63 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 64 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 65 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 66 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 67 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 68 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 69 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 70 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 71 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 72 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 73 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 74 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 75 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 76 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 77 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 78 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 79 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 80 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 81 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 82 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 83 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 84 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 85 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 86 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 87 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 88 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 89 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 90 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 91 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 92 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 93 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 94 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 95 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 96 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 97 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 98 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 99 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 100 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 101 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 102 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 103 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 104 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 105 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 106 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 107 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 108 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 109 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 110 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 111 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 112 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 113 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 114 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 115 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 116 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 117 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 118 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 119 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 120 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 121 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 122 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 123 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 124 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 125 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 126 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 127 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 128 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 129 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 130 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 131 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 132 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 133 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 134 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 135 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 136 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 137 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 138 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 139 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 140 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 141 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 142 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 143 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 144 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 145 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 146 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 147 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 148 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 149 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 150 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 151 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 152 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 153 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 154 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 155 of 156
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-9 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 156 of 156
FEC Exhibit 9 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-10 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 3
Email Address Go

Joining the Golden State Leadership Team is one

of the best ways to help put Republican ideas into

action in California.

Members of the Team work closely with

California’s Republican candidates and officials,

sharing information on today’s important issues,

and keeping Team members informed on the

Republican campaign every step of the way. It’s a

close relationship where members of the Team

are well recognized for their important support of

the Republican campaign.

Golden State Leadership Team member

contributions stay right here in California, helping

to elect Republican candidates for federal, state

and important local offices.

Ron Nehring, Chairman

» Contribute or Join a Donor Club Online

 Or...

» Download Membership Application

For your convenience, we offer our Golden State

Leadership Team members an Easy-Pay Option. 

With Easy-Pay, there is no check writing. 

Instead, your contribution is automatically

withdrawn monthly from your credit card.

Membership Levels:

Chairman’s Council

Membership: $1,000 per year contribution

Includes these benefits:

Golden State Leadership Team Lapel Pin

Quarterly CRP Update Conference Call

Invitation to Regional CRP Campaign Briefings

Special reduced ticket prices for CRP Convention Meal functions, VIP Receptions

and Fundraising Events

Access to Golden State Leadership Team Suite at CRP Conventions

Priority seating at all CRP Convention meal functions

Golden Circle

Membership: $2,500 per year contribution

Includes all of the benefits of the Chairman's Council plus:

Invitation to CRP Campaign Briefing Conference Calls

Access to Golden State Leadership Team Suite at CRP Conventions

Priority seating at all CRP Convention meal functions

One complimentary Ticket to CRP Convention meal functions and VIP

Receptions with special reduced prices for all additional tickets

Invitation to all regional and statewide CRP events for 50% off the ticket price

Invitation to Capitol Caucus Day in Sacramento featuring Reception with Key

Decision Makers and Political Figures

Leadership Circle

Membership: $5,000 per year contribution

Includes all of the benefits of the Golden Circle plus:

Two complimentary Tickets to CRP Convention meal functions and VIP

Receptions with special reduced prices for all additional tickets

Intimate Business Roundtable Events with Republican California Legislators

Golden Bears

Membership: $10,000 per year contribution

Includes all of the benefits of the Leadership Circle plus:

VIP accommodations at all regional and statewide CRP events for 50% off the

ticket price

Complimentary accommodations at CRP Conventions

Invitations to Major Donor events throughout the state

Contact: Anne Saro, asaro@cagop.org, 619-787-7187

Contributions to the California Republican Party are non-tax deductible for Federal or California tax purposes. Corporate contributions will be used in

California state elections. These contributions may be made in any amount. Individual contributions will be used in both federal and California state elections

and may also be made in any amount. Contributions to the state committee are unlimited, and may be allocated as follows: up to $30,200 per calendar year

for direct state candidate support, with amounts in excess used for permissible non-direct candidate support purposes. Such contributions may also be

used for federal Levin account purposes, up to $10,000 per individual, corporate or PAC donor. Federal and California law requires political committees to

report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer for each donor whose contributions aggregate $100 or more per calendar year. Any contributor

making $10,000 or more in combined contributions in a calendar year to state or local political party committees, including the CRP; candidates; PACs;

and/or ballot measure committees must file a California "Major Donor" Report.

 

Sun, Mar 8, 2009

California Republican Party http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/golden_state_leadership_team.htm

1 of 2 3/8/2009 1:28 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-10 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 3
California Republican Party | Contact Us | Site Credits

1903 W. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA 91506 · Phone: 818-841-5210 · Fax: 818-841-6668

1201 K. Street #740, Sacramento, CA 95814 · Phone: 916-448-9496 · Fax: 916-448-9497

Paid for by the California Republican Party. Not Authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

California Republican Party http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/golden_state_leadership_team.htm

2 of 2 3/8/2009 1:28 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-10 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 10 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-11 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 4
YES! I WILL JOIN THE GOLDEN STATE LEADERSHIP TEAM AS: 

 GOLDEN BEAR ($10,000) 

 LEADERSHIP CIRCLE ($5,000) 

 GOLDEN CIRCLE ($2,500) 

 CHAIRMAN’S COUNCIL ($1,000) 

NAME _________________________________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS_______________________________________________________________________________ 

CITY_________________________________________ZIP_______________________________________ 

HOME PHONE__________________________________BUSINESS PHONE____________________________ 

CELL PHONE___________________________________FAX______________________________________ 

EMAIL__________________________________________________________________________________ 

OCCUPATION__________________________________EMPLOYER__________________________________ 

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION PAYMENT INFORMATION

 ENCLOSED IS A CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO THE CRP FOR

 $____________________________ 

PAYMENT BY CREDIT CARD

 AMEX VISA MASTERCARD

CREDIT CARD NUMBER ____________________________________________________________________ 

EXPIRATION DATE ________________________________________________________________________ 

IS THIS A CORPORATE CARD? YES NO 

CORPORATION NAME: _____________________________________________________________________ 

IF THIS IS A CORPORATE CARD, BY LAW IT WILL BE CONSIDERED A CORPORATE DONATION

NAME AS IT APPEARS ON THE CARD __________________________________________________________ 

BILLING ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT) ____________________________________________________________ 

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE __________________________________________________________________ (MUST BE THE SAME AS ON THE CARD)

IF CREDIT CARD PAYMENT IS DRAWN ON A JOINT CREDIT CARD, PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO: 

 HUSBAND WIFE BOTH

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

Don’t miss Golden State

Leadership Team

Convention benefits on back!!

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE GOLDEN STATE LEADERSHIP TEAM 

PLEASE CONTACT ANNE SARO AT 619-787-7187 OR ASARO@CAGOP.ORG

GOLDEN STATE 

LEADERSHIP TEAM 

JOIN THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-11 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 4
GOLDEN STATE 

CHAIRMAN’S COUNCIL

$1,000 ANNUAL COMMITMENT

 GOLDEN STATE LEADERSHIP TEAM LAPEL PIN

 QUARTERLY CRP UPDATE CONFERENCE CALL

 INVITATION TO REGIONAL CRP CAMPAIGN BRIEFING

 SPECIAL REDUCED TICKET PRICES FOR CRP CONVENTION VIP 

 EVENTS

GOLDEN CIRCLE

$2,500 ANNUAL COMMITMENT

 INVITATION TO CRP CAMPAIGN BRIEFING CONFERENCE CALLS

 SPECIAL RECOGNITION AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 ACCESS TO GOLDEN STATE LEADERSHIP TEAM SUITE AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 ONE COMPLIMENTARY TICKET TO VIP RECEPTIONS AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 ONE COMPLIMENTARY TICKETS TO MEAL FUNCTIONS AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 QUARTERLY CRP UPDATE CONFERENCE CALL

 INVITATION TO CAPITOL CAUCUS DAY IN SACRAMENTO FEATURING RECEPTION WITH 

 KEY DECISION MAKERS AND POLITICAL LEADERS

 PLUS ALL CHAIRMAN’S COUNCIL BENEFITS

LEADERSHIP CIRCLE

$5,000 ANNUAL COMMITMENT

 INVITATION TO VIP RECEPTIONS AT ALL REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE CRP EVENTS

 INTIMATE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE EVENTS WITH REPUBLICAN CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS

 SPECIAL RECOGNITION AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 ACCESS TO GOLDEN STATE LEADERSHIP TEAM SUITE AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 TWO TICKETS TO VIP RECEPTIONS AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 TWO TICKETS TO MEAL FUNCTIONS AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 PLUS ALL GOLDEN CIRCLE AND CHAIRMAN’S COUNCIL BENEFITS

GOLDEN BEAR

$10,000 ANNUAL COMMITMENT

 EXTENDED INVITATION TO THE CRP ANNUAL LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

 COMPLIMENTARY ACCOMODATIONS AT CRP CONVENTIONS

 INVITATIONS TO MAJOR DONORS EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE

 VIP ACCOMODATIONS AT CRP SPONSORED POLITICAL RALLIES AND TOWN HALLS

 PLUS ALL CHAIRMAN’S COUNCIL, GOLDEN CIRCLE AND LEADERSHIP CIRCLE BENEFITS

LEADERSHIP TEAM 

MEMBERSHIP LEVELS

JOIN THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

Contributions to the California Republican Party are non-tax deductible for Federal or California tax purposes. Corporate contributions will be used in California 

state elections. These contributions may be made in any amount. Individual contributions will be used in both federal and California state elections and may also be 

made in any amount. Contributions to the state committee are unlimited, and may be allocated as follows: up to $32,400 per calendar year for direct state candidate 

support, with amounts in excess used for permissible non-direct candidate support purposes. Such contributions may also be used for federal Levin account purposes, up to $10,000 per individual, corporate or PAC donor. Federal and California law requires political committees to report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer for each donor whose contributions aggregate $100 or more per calendar year. Any contributor making $10,000 or more in combined contributions in a calendar year to state or local political party committees, including the CRP; candidates; PACs; and/or ballot measure committees must file a California 

“Major Donor” Report. 

Paid for by the California Republican Party 1201 K Street, Suite 740 Sacramento, CA 95814 

Keith Carlson. Treasurer* State ID# 810163 Federal ID# C00140590 

Convention

Benefits!!

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-11 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-11 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 4
FEC Exhibit 11 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-12 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 4
The members of our supporter clubs provide the important financial support to fund

the Republican campaign in San Diego County. By joining or renewing your

supporter club membership today, you will be an important member of the team

for the 2008 campaign in supporting our Republican candidates. Thank you for

helping to put Republican ideas into action in San Diego County by joining one of

our supporter clubs today!

Tony Krvaric, Chairman

(If you would like to donate via check, please fill-out and mail our printable PDF form.)

*Required fields have an asterisk (*)

Title

* First Name

* Last Name

Middle Initial

* Address

Address (cont.)

* City

* State

* Zip/Postal Code

* Phone

* Email Address

We are required by law to ask for the following information:

* Occupation

If not applicable, please enter N/A.

* Employer

Select your supporter club level:

Chairman's Pinnacle

 Join the Chairman's Pinnacle

Annual Membership: $5,000.

 Join the Chairman's Circle

» More information

Annual Membership: $1,000. Established in 1996 during

the Republican National Convention, Chairman's Circle

members enjoy an array of benefits and elite status in the

Republican Party of San Diego County.

For our most generous supporters, Chairman's Circle

members are invited to private, complimentary VIP meetings

and events with major Republican leaders and candidates,

providing an opportunity to discuss issues and exchange

ideas. Insider's Report: regular confidential updates on the

party's progress in achieving its political plan directly from the

Sign up for Email Updates

Go

Republican Party of San Diego County | Join a Supporter Club https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/

1 of 3 3/8/2009 3:29 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-12 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 4
Chairman, plus additional briefings on political policy and

political developments in the state, county and nation.

Join the Reagan Club

» More information

Annual Membership: $250. The Reagan Club is dedicated

to advancing the principles of President Ronald Reagan by

supporting the recruitment and election of quality Republican

candidates.

Reagan Club members enjoy complimentary events that

have recently included a private tour of the Ronald Reagan

Presidential Library in Simi Valley, and the U.S.S. Midway in

San Diego. Reagan Club members also enjoy reduced ticket

prices at major Republican Party events throughout the year,

and complimentary membership in our Century Club.

 Join the Century Club

» More information

Annual Membership: $100. Established in 1995, the

Century Club provides members with the opportunity to

meet Republican leaders at complimentary events held prior

to our party's regularly monthly meetings and presentation.

Members also receive reduced ticket prices for select party

events.

Supporter

 Become a Supporter

Annual Membership: $50. Supporters receive the benefits

of Associate membership, plus one complimentary event

each year.

Associate

 Become an Associate

Annual Membership: $35. The Party's basic membership

package includes invitations to monthly party meetings

featuring Republican speakers, and a complimentary

newsletter.

If you are an elected official, please enter your title and jurisdiction.

Title

Jurisdiction

Credit Card Information:

* Total Amount of Donation

* Card Type:

 

* Credit Card Number:

(No dashes or slashes)

* Expiration Date: / 

Submit Donor Club Order / Donation

Note: Contributions to the Republican Party of San Diego County are not tax deductible. Federal and

California law require political committees to report the name, mailing address, occupation and

employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate $100 or more per calendar year.

Corporate contributions may be used either for federal elections (Levin) or California state elections,

and may also be made in any amount. The first $10,000 received per individual per calendar year

maybe used for federal elections. Paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County.

Republican Party of San Diego County | Join a Supporter Club https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/

2 of 3 3/8/2009 3:29 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-12 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 4
Site Search: Go

home voter information get involved join a supporter club upcoming events your republican party contact us

Paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County, San Diego County Republican Central Committee

Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate Committee

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org © 2009 Republican Party of San Diego County Powered by the Republican Website Program

Republican Party of San Diego County | Join a Supporter Club https://secure.repweb.net/sandiegorepublicans/donor/

3 of 3 3/8/2009 3:29 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-12 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 4
FEC Exhibit 12 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-13 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 3
The Republican Party of San Diego County rewards its most generous supporters with

membership in the Chairman's Circle.

TONY KRVARIC, CHAIRMAN'S CIRCLE CHAIR

Tony Krvaric serves as the Chair of

the Chairman's Circle.

Born and raised in Sweden, he was

inspired by President Ronald Reagan

to come to America. Though only a

youth, he vowed to one day become

an American and pursue his American

Dream. The first step was to start his

own business, and in 1992 when the

opportunity presented itself, he

moved to San Diego.

After becoming a naturalized citizen in

June of 2003, he decided to become

politically involved. Having seen, first

hand, the devastating effects of

socialism in Sweden and the rest of

Europe, he was determined to stand

up for the traditional, conservative

values that helped make American

great.

Today Tony works as a full-service

financial consultant for individuals and

families who share his values -

helping them grow, preserve and

distribute their wealth. He lives in the

Scripps Ranch area of San Diego with

his wife and four children.

Back to Join a Republican Club or Renew Your

Membership page

Established in 1996 during the Republican National

Convention, the Chairman's Circle members enjoy an array

of benefits and elite status in the Republican Party of San

Diego County. Member benefits include:

Private VIP events with Republican leaders in small settings,

providing excellent opportunities to discuss issues and

share ideas. Chairman's Circle members have recently met

privately with former Virginia governor and RNC Chairman

Jim Gilmore, Senator George Allen, former Reagan

Attorney General Edwin Meese, former New Zealand

Member of Parliament Maurice McTigue, Congressman

Darrell Issa, and Club for Growth President Steve Moore. 

Chairman's Circle members have also participated in

numerous exclusive VIP trips to our nation's capital,

including a special trip for President Bush's 2005

inauguration. 

Special recognition in printed materials, at events,

on invitations, and other venues.

Automatic membership in the Party's Reagan and

Century Clubs.

Complimentary or reduced admission to Republican

Party of San Diego County events.

Confidential "Insider's Report" with information on

Republican campaigns and programs not available

to the public.

Public opinion research and campaign updates from

Public Opinion Strategies and other firms for an

inside look at how Republican campaigns are doing.

Republican Political Report newsletter subscription.

Membership in the Chairman's Circle is an excellent way to

demonstrate your support of the Republican team while

also enjoying the special recognition that comes from being

a generous supporter of the Republican Party of San Diego

County.

Annual Contribution: $1,000

Contact Chairman's Circle Chair Tony Krvaric for more

information

Back to Join a Republican Club or Renew Your

Membership page

Sign up for Email Updates

Go

Republican Party of San Diego County | Donor Programs - Chairman's Circle http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/donor/chairmans_circle/

1 of 2 3/8/2009 3:30 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-13 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 3
Site Search: Go

home voter information get involved join a supporter club upcoming events your republican party contact us

Paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County, San Diego County Republican Central Committee

Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate Committee

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org © 2009 Republican Party of San Diego County Powered by the Republican Website Program

Republican Party of San Diego County | Donor Programs - Chairman's Circle http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/donor/chairmans_circle/

2 of 2 3/8/2009 3:30 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-13 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 13 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-14 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 6
FEe Exhibit 14
 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-15 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
Elect Our 

Republican 

Team 

V	 Working to Fix the 

Economy and Create Jobs 

Fighting for Lower Taxes 

V	 Ending our Dependence 

on Foreign Oil 

John Sarah 

McCain Palin 

President Vice President 

Tony Sam Greg
 

Strickland Blakeslee Gandrud
 

19th Senate 33rd Assembly 3Sth Assembly 

District District District 

~~:;

Audra Cameron Mark 

Strickland Smyth Bernsley 

37th Assembly 38th Assembly 41 st Assembly 

District District District 

YOUR POLLING LOCATION IS: 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-15 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 15 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-16 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 3
Email Address Go

In Case You Missed It

California GOP Chair: Go Local

Politico

Posted: Monday, December 8, 2008

By Ron Nehring 

December 7, 2008

Building the stronger Republican Party

America needs in the next decade will require

reshaping how we organize and communicate

to make the Republican Party personal to

millions of Americans who today are not

connected to us but should be.

We start with a strong foundation in our

principles of protecting individual liberty and freedom, limited government, lower taxes, promoting personal responsibility, and

a strong national defense. Exit polling from November shows our country is still a center-right one, with Republicans closer to

where the American people are philosophically than our opponents are.

Yet improvements must be made in how we build on that foundation to win the confidence of the American people in 2009,

2010 and beyond.

First and foremost is credibility. Without it, we're not even in the game. This means if we're campaigning as the team that's for

reforming and limiting government, and doing so in an ethical manner, that's what we have to do once elected.

Next, we must do a better job translating our principles into issues and messages that truly connect with people - normal

people such as those who don't know and don't care about the difference between the DOL and the DOE. This means

communicating in ways that tap into the personal values that drive individual decision making, including in communities where

our candidates have come up short. It's not just the features of our policies that matter; it's the benefits those policies can

provide to real people and connecting those benefits to the values people hold most dear.

This is especially true of issues that affect Americans in urban and suburban regions. Democratic gains in traditionally

Republican regions such as Long Island, the Philadelphia suburbs, Northern Virginia, outer portions of the San Francisco Bay

Area and similar regions around the nation should be taken as an opportunity to seriously rethink how our candidates approach

urban and suburban issues. This is not a regional phenomenon - it's a national one requiring national attention.

We have witnessed the development of a national, inverse relationship between population density and Republican

performance that must be reversed.

It's time to get players such as Jack Kemp, Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Goldsmith back out on the field with new urban and

suburban Republican leaders such as San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Los Angeles Supervisor Mike Antonovich and new Fresno

Mayor Ashley Swearengin to develop winning governing agendas not just for battleground states, but battleground counties

and cities.

The work of Newt Gingrich's American Solutions group, much of which we incorporated into our California Republican Party

platform, can be very useful here.

Learning to fight and win in suburban and urban areas is key to our future, and that starts with local and state races in 2009

and 2010.

Subscribe

Sun, Mar 8, 2009

California Republican Party | California GOP Chair: Go Local | In Case Y... http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_599.htm

1 of 2 3/8/2009 12:59 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-16 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 3
Working side by side with local and state legislative candidates fighting in these regions can help us further refine the

strategies and tactics for our target congressional candidates in 2010 and 2012.

There's another benefit to making a strategic commitment to local and state candidates: It helps us diversify our party without

compromising our principles. When I was the Republican leader in San Diego County, we dramatically increased our emphasis

on winning local, so-called "nonpartisan" offices. In the process, we expanded the number of women, Latino, African-American

and Asian-American Republicans in office with party support. These leaders in turn serve as examples in their communities

that yes, one can be a Republican of an ethnic background and win public office, with the support of the party.

We must directly challenge the stereotype that still exists in many areas that if you're of an ethnic background and want to

serve in public office, your only path lies with the Democratic Party.

Making progress in state and local government as a necessary precursor to national progress will be easier if the Republican

National Committee, the California Republican Party and the Republican Party of San Diego County are successful in their

challenge to McCain-Feingold's federal restrictions on how our national and state parties can help state and local candidates in

RNC et al. v. FEC. A favorable ruling will help the Republican Party provide the support for nonfederal candidates that organized

labor continues to gleefully provide for the Democrats at every election.

Finally, the methods by which our candidates connect with people need another upgrade. Call it Voter Contact 3.0. For

example, too many are spending too much time on their mail and yard sign strategies and not enough on their SMS and

Facebook strategies. When almost half of newly registered voters say they'll go online for information on how to vote, we need

to be there as well as provide new tools to involve them in our party and campaigns.

Fortune lies at the crossroads of preparation and opportunity. The opportunity for Republican gains are already there, now it's

up to us to roll up our sleeves and prepare by making the Republican Party personal to voters' lives and communities in ways

that millions have never before seen.

Ron Nehring is the chairman of the California Republican Party.

...

Read Entire Article.

###

» Back to Latest News

 

California Republican Party | Contact Us | Site Credits

1903 W. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA 91506 · Phone: 818-841-5210 · Fax: 818-841-6668

1201 K. Street #740, Sacramento, CA 95814 · Phone: 916-448-9496 · Fax: 916-448-9497

Paid for by the California Republican Party. Not Authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

California Republican Party | California GOP Chair: Go Local | In Case Y... http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_599.htm

2 of 2 3/8/2009 12:59 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-16 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 16 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-17 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 4
9/1/04 San Diego Union-Trib. A7

2004 WLNR 17013682

UNION-TRIBUNE

Copyright 2004 San Diego Union-Tribune

September 1, 2004

Section: NEWS

FOR GOP . CALIFORNIA DREAMIN'?

Philip J. LaVelle,STAFF WRITER

NEW YORK -- If you expect to see this headline -- "BUSH TAKES CALIFORNIA" -- you

are:

A: On drugs.

B: Out of touch with reality.

C: A hopeless optimist.

Republicans might choose the latter, while one Democratic strategist picks "A."

Certainly the idea is somewhat fanciful, with most political analysts putting this

hypothetical headline up there with "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN."

Still, some speakers at yesterday's California delegation breakfast said Bush

will benefit from the reflected popularity of convention speakers Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.

But whether their popularity is transferable is a question mark as tall as Half

Dome: Polls show a double-digit California lead for Democratic nominee John Kerry,

the Bush campaign is spending virtually no money in California, and Schwarzenegger

so far has devoted little stump time to Bush.

Some kept hope alive, though.

Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman has "absolute hope that we can pull off a

surprise . . . I think that California is in play."

Virginia Sen. George Allen: "People say California is tough this year. Yes, it

is." But he called California "winnable."

In an interview, Duf Sundheim, chairman of the California Republican Party, acknowledged a Bush victory in California may be "a tall order" but said Republican

9/1/04 SDUT A7 Page 1

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-17 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 4
registration gains are creating a Bush-friendly environment. "We're inching up."

To Bob Mulholland, chief strategist of the California Democratic Party, it's time

for drug tests.

"The Republicans are on drugs again. Hallucinogens," Mulholland said, noting Republicans have inaccurately predicted California victory in the past three presidential elections.

The money flow, he added, shows Bush sees California as a lost cause.

"They're not even polling in California," he said. "They're only polling in 18

battleground states. . . . Bush has not spent a dime on a television ad in California."

o o o

Platform? What platform?

While convention planners roll out politically moderate speakers like Schwarzenegger, delegates on Monday approved a platform strongly in sync with socialconservative orthodoxy, including opposition to abortion and support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

So how do Republicans square the platform with their quest to attract moderate

voters?

Former California Gov. Pete Wilson: "Well, very easily. It's not a new phenomenon that the platform and individual candidates often don't perfectly coincide. As

a candidate and as an officeholder, you have the right -- in fact the obligation -

- to make very clear where you stand on the issues. You don't have an obligation

to agree with the platform."

Wilson knows: His support of abortion rights got him blocked from the convention

microphone at the GOP convention in San Diego in 1996.

Gerald Parsky, chairman of the Bush-Cheney California campaign: "It should be

clear that we Republicans don't agree on every single issue, but that's healthy.

If we agree on 80 or 85 percent of the issues, that's a positive."

Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services, said terrorism trumps domestic disagreements: "That's what this convention is pretty much about."

Democrats call the platform "extreme" and have dubbed the convention the "Masquerade Ball."

In an opinion piece in USA Today yesterday, filmmaker Michael Moore asserted that

"most Americans are much more liberal than the delegates gathered in New York. The

9/1/04 SDUT A7 Page 2

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-17 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 4
Republicans know it. That's why this week we're seeing gay-loving Rudy Giuliani,

gun-hating Michael Bloomberg and abortion-rights advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger."

---- INDEX REFERENCES ----

NEWS SUBJECT: (Government (1GO80); Political Parties (1PO73); Public Affairs

(1PU31))

INDUSTRY: (Entertainment (1EN08); Celebrities (1CE65))

REGION: (USA (1US73); Americas (1AM92); North America (1NO39); New York (1NE72);

California (1CA98))

Language: EN

OTHER INDEXING: (BALL; BUSH; BUSH CHENEY CALIFORNIA; C; DEMOCRATIC; GOP; HEALTH;

HUMAN SERVICES) (Agriculture; Ann M. Veneman; Arnold Schwarzenegger; Bob Mulholland; Democrats; Duf Sundheim; George Allen; Gerald Parsky; John Kerry; John McCain; Michael Bloomberg; Michael Moore; Mulholland; Pete Wilson; Republicans; Rudy

Giuliani; Schwarzenegger; Tommy Thompson; Virginia Sen; Wilson)

KEYWORDS: CALIFORNIA; ELECTIONS

EDITION: 1,2,6,7

Word Count: 709

9/1/04 SDUT A7

END OF DOCUMENT

9/1/04 SDUT A7 Page 3

© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-17 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 4
FEC Exhibit 17 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 18
 1 

 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 3 ________________________________ 

 4 SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL, et al., ) 

 5 Plaintiffs, ) 

 6 v. ) Civ. No. 02-582 

 7 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) (CKK, KLH, RJL) 

 8 et al., ) 

 9 Defendants. ) 

 10 __________________________________) 

 11 __________________________________ 

 12 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

 13 et al., ) 

 14 ) 

 15 Plaintiffs, ) 

 16 v. ) Civ. No. 02-874 

 17 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) (CKK, KLH, RJL) 

 18 et al., ) 

 19 Defendants. ) 

 20 __________________________________) 

 21 

 22 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 18
 2 

 1 The deposition of THOMAS J. JOSEFIAK was held 

 2 on Tuesday, October 15, 2002, commencing at 8:30 A.M., 

 3 at the Law Offices of Covington & Burling, 1201 

 4 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20044 

 5 before Margary Rogers, a Notary Public. 

 6 

 7 ALSO PRESENT: Jerrod C. Patterson [not admitted] 

 8 REPORTED BY: Margary Rogers 

 9 

 10 

 11 A P P E A R A N C E S 

 12 ON BEHALF OF THOMAS J. JOSEFIAK: 

 13 BOBBY R. BURCHFIELD, ESQUIRE 

 14 Covington & Burling 

 15 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

 16 Washington, D.C. 20044 

 17 (202) 662-5350 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 18
 3 

 1 ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES: 

 2 TERRY M. HENRY, ESQUIRE 

 3 U.S. Department of Justice 

 4 P.O. Box 883 

 5 Washington, D.C. 20044 

 6 (202) 514-4107 

 7 

 8 ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS: 

 9 MICHAEL D. LEFFEL, ESQUIRE 

 10 Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 

 11 2445 M. Street, N.W. 

 12 Washington, D.C. 20037 

 13 (202) 663-6784 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 18
 4 

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

 2 - - - - - - 

 3 Whereupon -- 

 4 THOMAS J. JOSEFIAK, 

 5 called as a witness, having been first duly affirmed to 

 6 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

 7 truth, was examined and testified as follows: 

 8 EXAMINATION 

 9 BY MR. LEFFEL: 

 10 Q Good morning. 

 11 A Good morning. 

 12 Q As you know by now, I'm Michael Leffel 

 13 with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering representing the 

 14 defendant Intervenors. I want to say that we will 

 15 not be here exceptionally long today; so hopefully 

 16 that will be good news for everyone. 

 17 Before you is your declaration. 

 18 (Josefiak Cross Deposition Exhibit 

 19 Number 1 was marked for purposes of identification.) 

 20 Q Have you had a chance -- 

 21 MR. BURCHFIELD: Just to note that the 

 22 declaration which you marked as Josefiak 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 18
 16 

 1 where the FEC, for federal election purposes, used 

 2 subordinate committees of state parties as 

 3 affiliated and therefore subject to one limit. 

 4 There are rules of how you can prove you 

 5 are not affiliated, and the Iowa folks came in, in 

 6 1979 and obtained an advisory opinion from the 

 7 Federal Election Commission saying they were 

 8 affiliated with the state party, therefore they had 

 9 their own contribution limits. 

 10 Some of these county committees are, in 

 11 fact, federal committees; other are not. Dallas 

 12 County Committee, my understanding, is not. And 

 13 it's based on my conversations with their counsel 

 14 who used to be counsel of the Iowa State Party, 

 15 Ralph Brown. 

 16 Q Okay. Let's go to Paragraph 29. 

 17 With respect to planning for the Victory 

 18 Plan, you state that "The RNC's field personnel were 

 19 often consulted by the state parties at this stage 

 20 of the planning process." 

 21 How do you know that? 

 22 A My own involvement with our own field 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 18
 17 

 1 staff, because they were constantly calling me 

 2 asking for advice as to what the provisions were 

 3 with absentee ballot programs and the non-allocable 

 4 volunteer mail and the slate card provision. 

 5 And so that all of these efforts were 

 6 being included at a plan initial stages and they 

 7 were seeking advice as whether or not how all of 

 8 this financially had to be handled. 

 9 Q So the RNC field staff would call you 

 10 and say we are getting questions from the state 

 11 party as to planning? 

 12 A Or we are involved with helping them 

 13 plan and therefore what can they do with regard to 

 14 the slack. Can they use, for example, RNC 

 15 transfers, or do they have to raise this on their 

 16 one. What about the phone calls? Can they do phone 

 17 calls on behalf of the ticket and that sort of 

 18 thing. 

 19 So they were working on the basic 

 20 elements from voter registration to absentee ballots 

 21 to the whole get-out-the-vote program using, in some 

 22 cases, the names of federal candidates; in other 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 18
 18 

 1 cases, a generic get-out-the-vote message and 

 2 wanting to know what the rules of the game were as 

 3 coupled with the rules of the game at the state 

 4 level. 

 5 Q Let's go to Paragraph 30. You talked 

 6 about the RNC regional meetings. 

 7 A Uh-huh. 

 8 Q Where they met to discuss with each 

 9 state party the Victory Plans? 

 10 A Uh-huh. 

 11 Q You said, "During these meetings, the 

 12 RNC listened to the needs of the state parties, 

 13 provided advice where appropriate, and helped revise 

 14 each of the states' proposals." 

 15 Is that based on your personal 

 16 knowledge? 

 17 A As I said, in 2000 I did sit in on some 

 18 of them. I didn't sit it on all of them, but that 

 19 was the formate that I understood that was followed 

 20 not only the ones that I personally attended, which 

 21 they were, but others. It was following the same 

 22 format. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 18
 19 

 1 Q And you know because that's what you 

 2 were told, the other -- 

 3 A Well, I've observed and based on 

 4 conversations with folks who had been sitting in 

 5 those meetings at the time that this is how it 

 6 operated. 

 7 Q Let's turn to Paragraph 36. You state 

 8 in Paragraph 36, "The Missouri Victory 2000 Campaign 

 9 Plan was designed to accomplish" -- at least one of 

 10 the objectives were "to produce statewide Republican 

 11 victories for president, governor, and U.S. Senate." 

 12 Is that correct? 

 13 A That's correct. 

 14 Q So the Victory Plans were in fact 

 15 designed to help not only state candidates, but also 

 16 federal candidates? 

 17 A Yes. Missouri was one of those 

 18 competitive states that had competitive races across 

 19 the board at the statewide level. And I believe we 

 20 also were involved with the legislative races in 

 21 Missouri as well. But those were definitely three 

 22 statewide competitive races and that would be the 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 18
 20 

 1 kind of state where you had competitive races at all 

 2 those levels that would be a prime state for the RNC 

 3 to be involved in. 

 4 Q In Paragraph 50 you describe the RNC's 

 5 funding of the get-out-the-vote program in New 

 6 Jersey in, I believe, 2001. 

 7 How did you learn about the details of 

 8 what the New Jersey Victory Plan actually did in 

 9 2001? 

 10 A In New Jersey? 

 11 Q I believe it's in New Jersey. 

 12 A I was intimately involved in working on 

 13 that plan. New Jersey is a state with very, very 

 14 specific provisions as to what any organization can 

 15 do, but particularly a national party organization 

 16 within the state. 

 17 So right from the very beginning of the 

 18 process, we were involved with attorneys in the 

 19 State of New Jersey and working with them to request 

 20 advisory opinions from the New Jersey election board 

 21 for them to restate what we done in other elections 

 22 as to what we could and could not do. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 10 of 18
 21 

 1 We were intimately involved in working 

 2 with the board to work out the process for the 

 3 absentee ballot program where we were filling in 

 4 blanks where it was not clear under New Jersey law 

 5 that you could do that. 

 6 And we worked with the board to make 

 7 sure that what we sending out as applications would 

 8 meet the qualifications of New Jersey and so they 

 9 would be viewed as legitimate requests and not be 

 10 thrown out as not following the law. 

 11 We were involved with the board in 

 12 trying to determine what kind of activity we could 

 13 do up and down the state ticket then for the 

 14 legislators and the towns and the counties because 

 15 of the very strict limitations that New Jersey 

 16 places on contributions to those candidates and also 

 17 the gubernatorial campaign. 

 18 So we worked very closely with our 

 19 lawyers in New Jersey, with the people on the 

 20 ground, with the state party, with our field staff 

 21 to make sure that we were doing it according to what 

 22 New Jersey required, and on top of that, not 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 11 of 18
 22 

 1 associated with that was our whole independent 

 2 expenditure program that we conducted outside of the 

 3 normal routine, but none of those folks were 

 4 included in the process. 

 5 Q Let me ask you this: How do you 

 6 personally know, for example, that door-to-door 

 7 hangers were delivered by volunteers organized by 

 8 the county Republican organizations? 

 9 A Because we had actually prepared money. 

 10 We made contributions to the vendors who actually 

 11 prepared those door hangings for the volunteers to 

 12 distribute. 

 13 And if you look at the New Jersey 

 14 report, you will see multiple contributions made to, 

 15 I believe, 383 entities in the State of New Jersey 

 16 from state legislative candidates to county 

 17 committees to municipalities, all the recipients of 

 18 that. 

 19 And the volunteers were organized by 

 20 them to go out and use all of these things that we 

 21 provided the funds for to vendors to distribute to 

 22 those folks to distribute. 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 12 of 18
 23 

 1 Q But you weren't standing out in streets 

 2 watching these people deliver the hangers 

 3 door-to-door, were you? 

 4 A No, I was not. But, again, it was the 

 5 understanding by giving the money to these vendors 

 6 that's exactly what the money was being used for. 

 7 Q That was your understanding? 

 8 A (Witness nodded.) Otherwise, we wouldn't 

 9 have given the money to the vendors for those 

 10 programs. I mean, it was -- the idea was the whole 

 11 part of the get-out-the-vote program in New Jersey. 

 12 Q Turn to Paragraph 11 of your rebuttal 

 13 declaration. You state in that sentence that BCRA's 

 14 various restrictions on national party transfers of 

 15 non-federal money to state parties and other 

 16 provisions. "Will severely harm the state parties 

 17 and jeopardize the viability of several." 

 18 Correct? 

 19 A That's correct. 

 20 Q I take it by including the example of 

 21 the Republican Party of Wisconsin, you are 

 22 suggesting that is one of the state parties that may 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 13 of 18
 24 

 1 be jeopardized because of BCRA; is that correct? 

 2 A Yes. 

 3 Q Do you personally know that the 

 4 Republican Party of Wisconsin cannot raise 

 5 additional funds in other ways that would be 

 6 permitted under BCRA? 

 7 MR. BURCHFIELD: Object to form, and 

 8 I'll just have a continuing objection to your use of 

 9 the term "personal knowledge or personally know," 

 10 because I think you're using it in a way that is 

 11 inconsistent with what the D.C. Circuit has said 

 12 about senior executives of an organization whether 

 13 they do have personal knowledge, but he can answer 

 14 the question. 

 15 THE WITNESS: My experience with 

 16 Wisconsin, knowing the Wisconsin restrictions and 

 17 knowing the requests that have been made over the 

 18 years by the state party of Wisconsin, knowing the 

 19 assistance we have given, it is my view that a state 

 20 like Wisconsin is severely hampered by this. 

 21 Q So this is your opinion? 

 22 A It is based on my experience with 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 14 of 18
 25 

 1 dealing with Wisconsin. It's difficult enough now 

 2 for the State of Wisconsin to get the kind of money 

 3 it needs, and I think that BCRA -- in my opinion, 

 4 BCRA really makes it much more difficult for a state 

 5 like Wisconsin to raise the money it needs. 

 6 Q Do you know that they are having 

 7 difficulty raising the money right now because of 

 8 conversations you've had with people affiliated with 

 9 the Republican Party of Wisconsin? 

 10 A I am basing on conversations I've had 

 11 with others based on the fact that the requests that 

 12 come in from the state party of Wisconsin for 

 13 assistance is such that without our assistance, they 

 14 would be severely hampered in getting the money into 

 15 their accounts for the purposes they need. 

 16 Q Have you had any conversations with 

 17 agents of or officials with the Republican Party of 

 18 Wisconsin about their difficulties in raising funds? 

 19 A No, I have not. I've had conversations 

 20 with the agents of the RFC, but not with the agents 

 21 of the state party itself. 

 22 Q Okay. And have you had conversations 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 15 of 18
 26 

 1 with any of the agents of or officials of the 

 2 Republican Party of Oregon to discuss their 

 3 difficulties in raising funds? 

 4 A No, I have not. 

 5 Q When a state party in the Victory 

 6 programs, that you have referred to in your 

 7 declaration that are held in a federal election 

 8 year -- that are conducted in a federal election 

 9 year, conduct voter registration drives, are they 

 10 designed to register likely Republican voters? 

 11 A Yes. 

 12 Q Doesn't that help Republican candidates 

 13 for federal office? 

 14 A The hope is, as a lot of these plans 

 15 refer to it, helps the entire ticket in that state. 

 16 And whether it's for the legislature or whether it's 

 17 for governor, whether it's for Congress or the U.S. 

 18 Senate, if they have any of those races in that 

 19 particular year, that's the whole purpose behind it 

 20 and that was really the purpose behind the Federal 

 21 Election Commission's allocation regulations in the 

 22 states recognizing based on who was on a ballot in 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 16 of 18
 27 

 1 any particular election federal election year. 

 2 That's how you would allocate resources. 

 3 There was an acknowledgment that it benefited the 

 4 entire ticket and how it benefited and what kind of 

 5 funds were used were based on the categories on 

 6 those candidates on the ballot. 

 7 Q So it does help federal candidates? 

 8 A It does. 

 9 Q And in these states when the state party 

 10 conducts a get-out-the-vote activity, are they 

 11 designed to get out the vote of the likely 

 12 Republican voters? 

 13 MR. BURCHFIELD: Are you talking about 

 14 elections where the federal candidates appeared on 

 15 the ballot? 

 16 MR. LEFFEL: Yes, that's what I said in 

 17 my previous question. 

 18 THE WITNESS: They are, I believe, 

 19 intended in the general election to get out likely 

 20 voters that will vote Republican. In some states 

 21 they may not be Republican -- it's semantics, but 

 22 you are basing your get-out-the-vote effort in 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 17 of 18
 28 

 1 getting that 50 plus one vote and it may go into 

 2 areas of not necessarily Republican voters, but 

 3 independent voters that are going to vote 

 4 Republican. 

 5 So there is an recognition that -- your 

 6 voter registration program obviously is to register 

 7 Republicans. Your get-out-the-vote program is to 

 8 get Republicans and independents and maybe 

 9 disgruntle democrats to vote for your candidate. 

 10 So it's more than just the Republican 

 11 base. It's getting the base plus in order to win. 

 12 Q So it's designed to get people to the 

 13 polls who you believe will vote Republican? 

 14 A Correct. 

 15 Q And, again, doesn't that also help 

 16 Republican candidates for federal office? 

 17 A It helps the ticket and Republican 

 18 candidates, all Republican candidates for office, 

 19 federal and non-federal. 

 20 Q In your declaration you talk about 

 21 certain states that have off-year elections; is that 

 22 correct? 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-18 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 18 of 18
FEC Exhibit 18 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-19 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 3
Email Address Go

In Case You Missed It

A Republican 50-state strategy?

Politico

Posted: Thursday, January 29, 2009

By: Ron Nehring

January 27, 2009 04:50 AM EST

Within the Republican National Committee, there has been a great deal of discussion surrounding whether

our party needs a 50-state strategy to reassert itself nationally.

It's an important question. The answer: It depends on how one defines a 50-state strategy.

Elections are won and lost on the margins, so if one defines a 50-state strategy as allocating resources

equally among 50 states based on population, or some similar formula, the answer would be no. From an

Electoral College standpoint, resources will inevitably be allocated first to those states that are on the

margin, with an eye toward reaching 270 electoral votes for our team in 2012.

Yet if we define a 50-state strategy to mean that our party makes a national commitment to building the

strength of our party in every state, the answer is yes.

The difference is this: In the first model, only a de minimis level of attention is directed at any state where

the November 2012 outcome in the presidential election can today be reasonably assumed.

A better approach is to realize that our party has a direct, national interest in ensuring that in every state

and congressional district, we have the ability to organize and communicate and perform the basic campaign

functions that are vital for any modern political party.

Simply because a state is not likely to be "in play" in the 2012 presidential election does not mean we have

no national interest in any congressional, state legislative or local election in that state. In fact, precisely the

opposite is true: Building organizational and communications capability - and expanding the ranks of

congressional, state and local officials from our party - makes it more likely a state will be competitive in a

presidential election down the road.

Of course, election year resources will go to the battleground states. Fine. Yet we have three years and

thousands of congressional, state and local elections before then.

A proper 50-state strategy has at its centerpiece the principle that every American should be within reach of

an effective state party organization that can communicate, persuade and organize on a large scale.

Operationally, this means developing a portfolio of organizational and communications functions that each

Subscribe

Sun, Mar 8, 2009

California Republican Party | A Republican 50-state strategy? | In Case Y... http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_617.htm

1 of 2 3/8/2009 12:49 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-19 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 3
state party should be capable of performing, plus a related set of functions for county and district party

committees. It should be developed through a working group of state party chairmen, national committee

members and campaign experts. While there are differences in each state, and within states, there are

certain common functions that any modern political party needs to perform to be competitive.

Turning theory into practice means ascertaining each party's capabilities and developing a program to help

each state be prepared for the 2010 midterm elections.

While we build our party in each state, we must concurrently identify targets of opportunity - congressional,

state legislative and local seats that are within reach. In every case, we should take the steps necessary to

ensure the county and district committees in those communities have the organizational structure and

communications capabilities to maximize our opportunity for victory.

The Republican National Committee has built an impressive array of tools in recent years: sophisticated

voter files, volunteer databases, methods for distributing online content and more. Every congressional,

state and local candidate carrying the Republican banner needs to be dialed in to benefit from these tools.

The same is true for our state parties and local party committees. We're not there yet, but if we want to

generate a tremendous force multiplier for our candidates at every level, we need to be.

Finally, the structure we build can only be as strong as the message. The electoral landscape is changing,

and research is needed to determine how we can best apply our solid principles to today's issues and

communicate with greater impact in ways that resonate with voters on the level of the personal values that

drive decision making.

For example, our national party was hammered in 2008 in many suburban areas. A national emphasis on

determining how we can more effectively compete in these regions should be a given. Yet the 50-state

dimension would enter in when we ensure all of our candidates receive the benefit of this research once it's

developed.

Should our party concentrate resources in just a few target states or drive organization and communications

capability-building across the country? The answer is both.

...

Read Entire Article.

###

» Back to Latest News

 

California Republican Party | Contact Us | Site Credits

1903 W. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA 91506 · Phone: 818-841-5210 · Fax: 818-841-6668

1201 K. Street #740, Sacramento, CA 95814 · Phone: 916-448-9496 · Fax: 916-448-9497

Paid for by the California Republican Party. Not Authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

California Republican Party | A Republican 50-state strategy? | In Case Y... http://www.cagop.org/index.cfm/in-case-you-missed-it_617.htm

2 of 2 3/8/2009 12:49 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-19 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 3
FEC Exhibit 19 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-20 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
Email Address Go

Friday, September 12, 2008

San Joaquin Republicans Organizing for

Dean Andal

On Tuesday Vice Chairman Tom Del Beccaro and I spoke to the South San

Joaquin Republicans at a packed event highlighting the next Congressman

from the 11th district, Dean Andal.

Dean is running a strong campaign for Congress in this highly competitive

region of the state, and it’s great to see our Republican candidates

benefitting from the organization our volunteer groups have built in the

region. Dean’s campaign represents one of our best opportunities to pick up

a congressional seat on the west coast, according to the National

Republican Congressional Committee and other expert sources.

Dean is also benefitting from the support of our Republican congressional

delegation, whose members are especially pouring it on for Dean, and for

Tom McClintock in the nearby fourth Congressional district.

For more information on Dean's campaign, visit DeanAndal.com.

POSTED BY RON NEHRING AT 4:07 PM

<< Home

Contributors

RON NEHRING

HECTOR M. BARAJAS

Previous Posts

Gallup: Battle for Congress Suddenly

Looks Competi...

Orange County Young Republicans

Are Fired Up

Gov. Palin on a Roll, Hysterical

Attacks Continue ...

Republican Elected President of

Oakland Port Commi...

McClintock Rolls Out New Ad: The

Real Energy Crisi...

McCain Camp Takes Obama to Task

with New Ad: Lipst...

Palin: Solid Conservative and Proven

Reformer

Debra Highlights Democrats Doubting

Obama, Support...

McCain Congratulates Obama in

Convention Night Ad

Ohio Plan Defeated at RNC Rules

Committee

Subscribe

 

California Republican Party | Contact Us | Site Credits

1903 W. Magnolia Blvd., Burbank, CA 91506 · Phone: 818-841-5210 · Fax: 818-841-6668

1201 K. Street #740, Sacramento, CA 95814 · Phone: 916-448-9496 · Fax: 916-448-9497

Paid for by the California Republican Party. Not Authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

California Republican Party - Leadership Journal: San Joaquin Republica... http://www.cagop.org/blog/2008/09/san-joaquin-republicans-organizing-f...

1 of 1 3/8/2009 12:54 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-20 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
FEC Exhibit 20 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 47
An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

John McCain

President

April Boling

San Diego City Council District 7

Jan Goldsmith

San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer

San Diego City Council District 1

Your San Diego City Hall Reform Team

Sarah Palin

Vice-President

Darrell Issa – 49th Congressional District

Brian Bilbray – 50th Congressional District

David Lee Joy – 51st Congressional District

Duncan D. Hunter – 52nd Congressional District

Michael Crimmins – 53rd Congressional District

US CONGRESS

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

“I support the efforts of the people of

California to recognize marriage as a 

unique institution between a man and 

a woman, just as we did in my home 

state of Arizona. I do not believe judges 

should be making these decisions.”

– U.S. Senator John McCain

Candidate for President

MAIL YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOT TODAY OR VOTE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH (POLLS OPEN 7 AM - 8 PM)

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 47
Visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org for the latest

updates on candidates and measures

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org as of 10/21/08

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

MAIL YOUR ABSENTEE BALLOT TODAY OR VOTE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH (POLLS OPEN 7 AM - 8 PM)

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad 

Farrah Douglas – Council

Ann Kulchin – Council 

City of Chula Vista

Russ Hall – Council Seat 3

Scott Vinson – Council Seat 4

City of Coronado

Tom Stickel – Mayor 

Peter Fagan – Council

Peter Jensen – Council 

City of El Cajon

Bill Wells – Council 

Bob McClellan – Council 

Jillian Hanson-Cox – Council 

City of Encinitas

Jerome Stocks – Council 

Harriet Seldin – Council 

Joe Sheffo – Council 

City of Escondido

Sam Abed – Council 

Ed Gallo – Council 

City of La Mesa

Ruth Sterling – Council

Shannon O’Dunn – Council 

City of Lemon Grove

Mary England – Council 

City of Oceanside

Rocky Chavez – Mayor

Jim Gibson – Council

Jack Feller – Council 

Rosemary Jones – Treasurer

City of San Marcos

Hal Martin – Council

Rebecca Jones – Council 

CITY OFFICES Continued

City of Santee

Randy Voepel – Mayor

Jack Dale – Council 

City of Vista

John Aguilera

SCHOOL BOARDS

Alpine Union School District

Mark Price

Cajon Valley Union School District

Kelli Dole

Chula Vista Elementary School District

Archie McAllister – Seat 2

Coronado Unified School District

Doug Metz

Encinitas Union School District

Maureen Muir

Escondido Union High School District

Kurt Marler

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community 

College District

Bill Garrett – Seat 3

Tim Caruthers – Seat 4

Grossmont Union High School District

Meg Jedynak

Gary Woods

Oceanside Unified School District 

Mike Blessing

Palomar Community College District

Rose Marie Dishman

Darrell McMullen

Poway Unified School District

Darin Hunzeker

SCHOOL BOARDS Continued

Ramona Unified School District

Dan Lopez

Dawn Perfect

San Diego Community College District

John Edwards – District B

San Diego Unified School District

Mitz Lee – District A

Xeng Yang – District E

San Marcos Unified School District

David Horacek

San Pasqual Union School District

Howard Cottom

Southwestern Community College District

Jean Roesch – Seat 1

Sweetwater Union High School District

Lorenzo Provencio – Seat 2 

Vista Unified School District

Patty Anderson

Stephen Guffanti

Eileen Fernandez

FIRE BOARDS

Alpine Fire Protection District

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

San Diego Rural Fire Protection District

Louis Russo

San Miguel Consolidated Fire 

Protection District

Larry Jackman

David Rickards

Vista Fire Protection District

Margarette Morgan

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL BOARDS

Grossmont Healthcare District

Michael Long – Short Term

Jim Stieringer – Full Term

Michael Emerson – Full Term

Palomar Pomerado Health District

Lee Thibadeau – Short Term

Evelyn Madison – Full Term

Tri-City Healthcare Board

Rosemarie Reno

David Tweedy

WATER BOARDS

Helix Water District

Chuck Muse – Division 3

Otay Water District

Mark Robak

Padre Municipal Water District

Auggie Scalzitti – Division 2

August Caires – Division 4

Ramona Municipal Water District

Red Hager – Division 5 

South Bay Irrigation District 

Jim Doud – Division 2

James Alkire – Division 3

PLANNING, COMMUNITY 

SERVICE AND UTILITY BOARDS

Fallbrook Community Planning Board

Roy Moosa

Ramona Community Planning Group

Carolyn Dorroh

Bring this Guide with you to your Polling Place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Office

State Assembly

Kevin Jeffries – 66th State Assembly District

Diane Harkey – 73rd State Assembly District

Martin Garrick – 74th State Assembly District

Nathan Fletcher – 75th State Assembly District

Ralph Denney – 76th State Assembly District

Joel Anderson – 77th State Assembly District

John McCann – 78th State Assembly District

Derrick Roach – 79th State Assembly District

State Senate

Jeff Perwin – 39th State Senate District

Statewide Propositions

Prop. 1A – High Speed Rail Boondoggle – Vote NO

Prop. 2 – Unreasonable Animal Rights Mandates – Vote NO

Prop. 3 – Expensive Hospital Bond – Vote NO

Prop. 4 – Protect Our Daughters,

(Sarah’s Law) – Vote YES

Prop. 5 – Weaken Penalties For Drug Crimes – Vote NO

Prop. 6 – Safe Neighborhoods (Anti-Gang) Act – Vote YES

Prop. 7 – Expensive, Radical Energy Scheme – Vote NO

Prop. 8 – Protect Traditional Marriage – Vote YES

Prop. 9 – Protect Crime Victims' Rights – Vote YES

Prop. 10 – Expensive Alternative Energy Bond – Vote NO

Prop. 11 – Redistricting Reform – No Position

Prop. 12 – Veterans’ Bond Act – Vote YES

Countywide and Local Propositions

Prop. A – Countywide Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. B – San Diego – Bayfront Redevelopment 

Initiative – Vote NO

Prop. C – San Diego – Mission Bay Funding Charter

Amendment – Vote YES

Prop. H – Del Mar – Hotel Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. J – El Cajon – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. K – Encinitas – Rental Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. L – La Mesa – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. M – National City – Sales Tax Repeal – Vote YES

Prop. O – San Marcos – Unreasonable Land Use

Amendment – Vote NO

Prop. Q – Chula Vista – Proposal to politicize 

City Attorney – Vote NO

Prop. R – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. S – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. T – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. U – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. V – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. W – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. X – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 47
John McCain

President

April Boling

San Diego City Council District 7

Jan Goldsmith

San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer

San Diego City Council District 1

Help Ensure Republican Victories in ‘08. Volunteer Today!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

❏ You can put a small campaign sign in my yard. ❏ Contact me about volunteering.

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

Mail Your Absentee Ballot Today or

Vote on Tuesday, November 4th (polls open 7 AM - 8 PM)

Your San Diego City Hall Reform Team

Sarah Palin

Vice-President

US CONGRESS

Darrell Issa – 49th Congressional District

Brian Bilbray – 50th Congressional District

David Lee Joy – 51st Congressional District

Duncan D. Hunter – 52nd Congressional District

Michael Crimmins – 53rd Congressional District

Vote

Republican!

The Republican Party

of San Diego County

State Assembly

Kevin Jeffries – 66th State Assembly District

Diane Harkey – 73rd State Assembly District

Martin Garrick – 74th State Assembly District

Nathan Fletcher – 75th State Assembly District

Ralph Denney – 76th State Assembly District

Joel Anderson – 77th State Assembly District

John McCann – 78th State Assembly District

Derrick Roach – 79th State Assembly District

State Senate

Jeff Perwin – 39th State Senate District

Statewide Propositions

Prop. 1A – High Speed Rail Boondoggle – Vote NO

Prop. 2 – Unreasonable Animal Rights Mandates – Vote NO

Prop. 3 – Expensive Hospital Bond – Vote NO

Prop. 4 – Protect Our Daughters (Sarah’s Law) – Vote YES

Prop. 5 – Weaken Penalties For Drug Crimes – Vote NO

Prop. 6 – Safe Neighborhoods (Anti-Gang) Act – Vote YES

Prop. 7 – Expensive, Radical Energy Scheme – Vote NO

Prop. 8 – Protect Traditional Marriage – Vote YES

Prop. 9 – Protect Crime Victims' Rights – Vote YES

Prop. 10 – Expensive Alternative Energy Bond – Vote NO

Prop. 11 – Redistricting Reform – No Position

Prop. 12 – Veterans' Bond Act – Vote YES

Countywide and Local Propositions

Prop. A – Countywide Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. B – San Diego – Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative

– Vote NO

Prop. C – San Diego – Mission Bay Funding Charter

Amendment – Vote YES

Prop. H – Del Mar – Hotel Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. J – El Cajon – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. K – Encinitas – Rental Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. L – La Mesa – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. M – National City – Sales Tax

Repeal – Vote YES

Prop. O – San Marcos – Unreasonable Land Use

Amendment – Vote NO

Prop. R – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. S – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. T – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. U – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. V – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. W – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. X – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org for the latest

updates on candidates and measures

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 
Mail Your Absentee Ballot Today or

Vote on Tuesday, November 4th (polls open 7 AM - 8 PM)

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad

Farrah Douglas – Council

Ann Kulchin – Council

City of Chula Vista

Russ Hall – Council Seat 3

Scott Vinson – Council Seat 4

City of Coronado

Tom Stickel – Mayor

Peter Fagan – Council

Peter Jensen – Council

City of El Cajon

Bill Wells – Council

Bob McClellan – Council

Jillian Hanson-Cox – Council

City of Encinitas

Jerome Stocks – Council

Harriet Seldin – Council

Joe Sheffo – Council

City of Escondido

Sam Abed – Council

Ed Gallo – Council

City of La Mesa

Ruth Sterling – Council

Shannon O’Dunn – Council

City of Lemon Grove

Mary England – Council

City of Oceanside

Rocky Chavez – Mayor

Jim Gibson – Council

Jack Feller – Council

Rosemary Jones – Treasurer

City of San Marcos

Hal Martin – Council

Rebecca Jones – Council

City of Santee

Randy Voepel – Mayor

Jack Dale – Council

City of Vista

John Aguilera

SCHOOL BOARDS

Alpine Union School District

Mark Price

Cajon Valley Union School District

Kelli Dole

SCHOOL BOARDS Continued

Chula Vista Elementary School District

Archie McAllister – Seat 2

Coronado Unified School District

Doug Metz

Encinitas Union School District

Maureen Muir

Escondido Union High School District

Kurt Marler

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College District

Bill Garrett – Seat 3

Tim Caruthers – Seat 4

Grossmont Union High School District

Meg Jedynak

Gary Woods

Oceanside Unified School District

Mike Blessing

Palomar Community College District

Rose Marie Dishman

Darrell McMullen

Poway Unified School District

Darin Hunzeker

Ramona Unified School District

Dan Lopez

Dawn Perfect

San Diego Community College District

John Edwards – District B

San Diego Unified School District

Mitz Lee – District A

Xeng Yang – District E

San Marcos Unified School District

David Horacek

San Pasqual Union School District

Howard Cottom

Southwestern Community College

District

Jean Roesch – Seat 1

Sweetwater Union High School District

Lorenzo Provencio – Seat 2

Vista Unified School District

Patty Anderson

Stephen Guffanti

Eileen Fernandez

FIRE BOARDS

Alpine Fire Protection District

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

San Diego Rural Fire Protection District

Louis Russo

San Miguel Consolidated Fire

Protection District

Larry Jackman

David Rickards

Vista Fire Protection District

Margarette Morgan

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL

BOARDS

Grossmont Healthcare District

Michael Long – Short Term

Jim Stieringer – Full Term

Michael Emerson – Full Term

Palomar Pomerado Health District

Lee Thibadeau – Short Term

Evelyn Madison – Full Term

Tri-City Healthcare Board

Rosemarie Reno

David Tweedy

WATER BOARDS

Helix Water District

Chuck Muse – Division 3

Otay Water District

Mark Robak

Padre Municipal Water District

Auggie Scalzitti – Division 2

August Caires – Division 4

Ramona Municipal Water District

Red Hager – Division 5

South Bay Irrigation District

Jim Doud – Division 2

James Alkire – Division 3

PLANNING, COMMUNITY

SERVICE AND UTILITY

BOARDS

Fallbrook Community Planning Board

Roy Moosa

Ramona Community Planning Group

Carolyn Dorroh

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

“I support the efforts of the people of

California to recognize marriage as a

unique institution between a man and

a woman, just as we did in my home

state of Arizona. I do not believe judges

should be making these decisions.”

– U.S. Senator John McCain

Candidate for President

Bring this Guide with you to your Polling Place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Office

Vote

Republican!

The Republican Party

of San Diego County

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 
Dear Fellow Republican,

President Bush and our Republican candidates are working hard for a strong

national defense, to win the war on terror, make taxes lower, improve

our schools with reforms stressing accountability and high standards,

and promote policies of personal responsibility.

Election Day is coming up fast. Below and on the back of this card are the

Republican candidates officially endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego

County. They’ll put Republican ideas into action!

Thousands of Republicans are active in our party in San Diego County. We

hope you will be too by calling us at 858-573-0222. Thank you for being a

member of San Diego’s majority party–The Republican Party!

Ron Nehring

Chairman, Republican Party of San Diego County

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

George W. Bush - President

Richard “Dick” Cheney - Vice-President

Bill Jones - U.S. Senate

Darrell Issa - U.S. Congress - 49th District

Randy “Duke” Cunningham - U.S. Congress - 50th District

Michael Giorgino - U.S. Congress - 51st District

Duncan Hunter - U.S. Congress - 52nd District

Darin Hunzeker - U.S. Congress - 53rd District

Larry Stirling - State Senate - 39th District

George Plescia - State Assembly - 75th District

Tricia Hunter - State Assembly - 76th District

Shirley Horton - State Assembly - 78th District

Joseph Brannigan - Superior Court Judge

Dick Murphy - Mayor, City of San Diego

Leslie Devaney - San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer - San Diego City Council District No. 1

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

George W. Bush

for President

Bill Jones

for U.S. Senate

Dick Murphy

for San Diego Mayor

Your Official Republican Team

for San Diego County

Delivered by your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

This flawed initiative will eliminate your

right to choose the official nominee of the

Republican Party in future elections.

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 
Statewide Propositions

Proposition 62 – NO

City of San Diego Propositions

E – Yes - Strengthen the ethics Commission

F – Yes - Make City Hall accountable

G – Yes - Fix the pension system

H – Yes - Fix the pension system

J – No - Fight the tax increase

K – Yes - Preserve Mt. Soledad

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

This flawed initiative will eliminate your

right to choose the official nominee of the

Republican Party in future elections.

Bring this to your polling

place on Election Day!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

San Diego

Mitz Lee - School Board District A

Luis Acle - School Board District D

John Cubello - Comm College

District B

Larry Baldwin - Rural Fire

Doane Glitschka - Rural Fire

Eric Grant - Rural Fire

Cajon Valley

Jeff Kover - School Board

Bill Wells - School Board

Chula Vista

Patrick Judd - Elementary School

Seat 4

Coronado

Tom Smisek - Mayor

Ruth Schmidt - City Council

Philip Monroe - City Council

Doug Metz - School Board

Lance Mann - School Board

Del Mar

Linda Crawford - School Board

Marshall Merrifield - School Board

Escondido

Sam Abed - City Council

Ed Gallo - City Council

Grossmont Healthcare

Jim Stieringer

Bob Yarris

Grossmont High School

Larry Urdahl

Priscilla Schreiber

Grossmont-Cuyamaca

Bill Garrett - Comm College 

Seat NO. 3

Timothy Caruthers - Comm College

Seat NO. 4

Helix

Chuck Muse - Water District

Division NO. 3

La Mesa-Spring Valley

Bob Duff - School Board

Lakeside

Twyla Godly - School Board

Tina Ninteman - School Board

National City

Fideles Ungab - Council

George Hood - Treasurer

Walt Graham - School Board

Otay

Jaime Bonilla - Water District 2

Elizabeth Scott - Water District 4

Mark Robak - Water District 5

Palomar

Ralph Jensen - Comm College

Howard Kuiper - Comm College

Darrell Mc Mulen – Comm College

Nancy Bassett – Pomerado Health

Mary Evert - Pomerado Health

Linda Greer - Pomerado Health

Poway

Merrilee Boyack – City Council

Scott Harman – City Council

Linda Vanderveen – School Board

Ramona

Chris Anderson - CPA

Carolyn Dorroh – CPA

Raul Jaquez – CPA

Luauna Stines – CPA

Angus Tobiason – CPA

Rancho Santa Fe

Richard Burdge – School Board

Jim Depolo – School Board

William Ruh – School Board

Jim Ashcraft – Fire

Nancy Hillgren – Fire

San Miguel

Larry Jackman - Cons Fire

Caroline Braun - Cons Fire

Criss Brainard - Cons Fire

San Pasqual

Howard Cottam - School Board

Solana Beach

Scott Gulbransen - School Board

South Bay

Margaret Welsh - Irrigation Division

NO. 5

Elvia Aguilar - School Board

Sweetwater

Archie Mc Allister - High School

Board

Valle De Oro

Cheryl Baldivia - CPA

Carl Starrett II - CPA

Daniel Smith - CPA

Thomas Oakes - CPA

Dan Mitrovich - CPA

Joel Hyatt - CPA

Philip Conard - CPA

John Goodell - CPA

“This flawed initiative would eliminate your right to choose the official

nominee of the Republican Party in future elections”

Proposition 1A – YES 

Proposition 59 – YES

Proposition 60 – YES

Proposition 60A – YES

Proposition 61 – NO

Proposition 62 – NO

Proposition 63 – NO

Proposition 64 – YES

Proposition 65 – NO

Proposition 66 – NO

Proposition 67 – NO

Proposition 68 – NO

Proposition 69 – YES

Proposition 70 – NO

Proposition 71 – NO

Proposition 72 – NO

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 
Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I’m interested in being involved with the

Republican Party. Please send me information.

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Interested in voting by mail?

Call the Registrar of Voters at (858) 565-5800

George W. Bush - President

Richard “Dick” Cheney - Vice-President

Bill Jones - U.S. Senate

Darrell Issa - U.S. Congress - 49th District

Randy “Duke” Cunningham - U.S. Congress - 50th District

Michael Giorgino - U.S. Congress - 51st District

Duncan Hunter - U.S. Congress - 52nd District

Darin Hunzeker - U.S. Congress - 53rd District

Larry Stirling - State Senate - 39th District

Ray Haynes - State Assembly - 66th District

Jay LaSuer - State Assembly - 77th District

Joseph Brannigan - Superior Court Judge

Dick Murphy - Mayor, City of San Diego

Leslie Devaney - San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer - San Diego City Council District No. 1

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail:

Your Official Republican Team

for San Diego County

Delivered by your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

George W. Bush

for President

Richard “Dick” Cheney

for Vice President

Bill Jones

for U.S. Senate

Dear Fellow Republican,

President Bush and our Republican candidates are working hard for a strong

national defense, to win the war on terror, make taxes lower, improve

our schools with reforms stressing accountability and high standards,

and promote policies of personal responsibility.

Election Day is coming up fast. Below and on the back of this card are the

Republican candidates officially endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego

County. They’ll put Republican ideas into action!

Thousands of Republicans are active in our party in San Diego County. We hope

you will be too by returning the response card below. Thank you for being a

member of San Diego’s majority party – The Republican Party!

Ron Nehring

Chairman, Republican Party of San Diego County

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 
Alpine

Chuck Taylor - School Board 

Mark Price - School Board

Steve Hunyar - School Board

Douglas Benson - CPA

Larry Urdahl - CPA

Mark Price - CPA

Paul Gonya - CPA

Ron Fuller - Fire Protection

Barbara Howell - Fire Protection

Bonsall

Richard Olson - School Board

Sylvia "Grandma" Tucker - 

School Board

Borrego

Douglas Watters - Water District 

Scot Fortiner - Water District 

Cajon Valley

Bill Wells - School Board

Jeff Kover - School Board

Campo/Lake Morena

Robert Kreger - CPA

Shirley Perkiss -Driscoll CPA

Chula Vista

Patrick Judd - Elementary School 

Seat 4

Deer Springs

Frank Asaro - Fire Protection 

Dehesa

Kimberly Pike - School Board

Janice Green - School Board

El Cajon

Arkan Somo - City Council

Bob Mc Clellan - City Council

Jillian Hanson-Cox - City Council

Fallbrook

Harry Christiansen - CPA

Dumonte Voigt - CPA

Charles Sanacore - CPA

Mary Jane Pfeil - CPA

Carol Eastman - CPA

Jim Bowen - CPA

Jim Oenning - CPA

Sharon Mullin - Healthcare 

Don McDougal - Public Utility 

Seat No. 3

Grossmont Healthcare

Jim Stieringer

Bob Yarris

Grossmont High School

Larry Urdahl

Priscilla Schreiber

Grossmont-Cuyamaca

Bill Garrett - Comm College 

Seat No. 3

Timothy Caruthers - Comm College

Seat No. 4

Helix

John Linden - Water District 1

Chuck Muse - Water District 3

Richard Smith - Water District 5

Julian

Vicky Bryan - CPA

Betty Birdsell - CPA

Ray Redding - CPA

Peggy Steadham - CPA

Franklin "Woody" Barnes - CPA

Patricia Mushet - CPA

La Mesa

Mary Kennedy - City Clerk

Ruth Sterling - City Council

Dave Allan - City Council

Bob Duff - Spring Valley School Board 

Lakeside

Julie Bugbee - CPA

Robin Clegg - CPA

William Colgan - CPA

Patricia Dintrone - CPA

Wyatt Allen Jr. - CPA

Lloyd Dailey - Fire Protection

Fred Daskoski - Fire Protection

Twyla Godley - School Board

Tina Ninteman - School Board

Mountain Empire

Jeff Morrison - Unified Trustee Area 

No. 2

Trina Ambrose - Unified Trustee 

Area No. 7

North County

Richard Olson - Fire Protection

Otay

Jaime Bonilla - Water District 2

Elizabeth Scott - Water District 4

Mark Robak - Water District 5

Padre Dam

Howard Kummerman - Municipal

Water Division No. 2

Palomar

Ralph Jensen - Comm College

Darrell Mc Mullen - Comm College

Howard Kuiper - Comm College

Mary Evert - Pomerado Health 

Division 

Nancy Bassett - Pomerado 

Health Division 

Linda Greer - Pomerado 

Health Division 

Poway

Linda Vanderveen - School Board

Rainbow

Larry Sundram - Municipal Water

Division No. 1

Ramona

Luauna Stines - CPA

Angus Tobiason - CPA

Raul Jaquez - CPA

Carolyn Dorroh - CPA

Chris Anderson - CPA

Joe Cahak - Municipal Water 

Division No. 5

Riverview

Billie Sangster - Water

San Diego

John Cubello - Comm College District B

Eric Grant - Rural Fire

Larry Baldwin - Rural Fire

Doane Glitschka - Rural Fire

Mitz Lee - School Board District A

San Miguel

Caroline Braun - Fire Board

Larry Jackman - Fire Board

Criss Brainard - Fire Board

Southbay

Margaret Welsh - Irrigation Board #5

Sweetwater

Archie Mc Allister - High School Board

Valle De Oro

Thomas Oakes - CPA

Cheryl Baldivia - CPA

Philip Conard - CPA

John Goodell - CPA

Dan Mitrovich - CPA

Daniel Smith - CPA

Carl Starrett II - CPA

Joel Hyatt - CPA

Valley Center

Elaine Nolan - CPA

Leon Schwartz - CPA

Frank Shoemaker - CPA

Keith Simpson - CPA

Jonathan Vick - CPA

Statewide Propositions

Proposition 62 – NO

“This flawed initiative would eliminate your right to choose the official

nominee of the Republican Party in future elections.”

Proposition 1A – YES 

Proposition 59 – YES

Proposition 60 – YES

Proposition 60A – YES

Proposition 61 – NO

Proposition 62 – NO

Proposition 63 – NO

Proposition 64 – YES

Proposition 65 – NO

Proposition 66 – NO

Proposition 67 – NO

Proposition 68 – NO

Proposition 69 – YES

Proposition 70 – NO

Proposition 71 – NO

Proposition 72 – NO

Republican Party of San Diego County

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215

San Diego, CA 92123

East County AD 66 77

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Bring this to your polling

place on Election Day!

Vote

Republican!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Local Propositions

City of San Diego 

J – NO

E – YES

F – YES

G – YES

H – YES

K – YES

City of El Cajon

O – NO

Santee School District

Y - NO

Stop the Tax Increase

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 
Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Interested in voting by mail?

Call the Registrar of Voters at (858) 565-5800

George W. Bush - President

Richard “Dick” Cheney - Vice-President

Bill Jones - U.S. Senate

Darrell Issa - U.S. Congress - 49th District

Randy “Duke” Cunningham - U.S. Congress - 50th District

Larry Stirling - State Senate - 39th District

Mimi Walters - State Assembly - 73rd District

Mark Wyland - State Assembly - 74th District

Joseph Brannigan - Superior Court Judge

Dick Murphy - Mayor, City of San Diego

Leslie Devaney - San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer - San Diego City Council District No. 1

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail:

George W. Bush

for President

Richard “Dick” Cheney

for Vice President

Bill Jones

for U.S. Senate

Your Official Republican Team

for San Diego County

Dear Fellow Republican,

President Bush and our Republican candidates are working hard for a strong

national defense, to win the war on terror, make taxes lower, improve

our schools with reforms stressing accountability and high standards,

and promote policies of personal responsibility.

Election Day is coming up fast. Below and on the back of this card are the

Republican candidates officially endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego

County. They’ll put Republican ideas into action!

Thousands of Republicans are active in our party in San Diego County. We hope

you will be too by returning the response card below. Thank you for being a

member of San Diego’s majority party – The Republican Party!

Ron Nehring

Chairman, Republican Party of San Diego County

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

YES!I’m interested in being involved with the

Republican Party. Please send me information.

Delivered by your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Bonsall

Richard Olson - School Board

Sylvia “Grandma” Tucker - 

School Board

Cardiff

Nancy Orr - School Board

Andy Brown III - School Board

Carlsbad

Tracy Carmichael - City Council

Ann Kulchin - City Council

Deer Springs

Frank Asaro - Fire Protection 

Del Mar

Terry Sinnott - City Council

Carl Hilliard - City Council

Kevin Burke - City Council

Marshall Merrifield - School

Board

Linda Crawford - School Board

Encinitas

James Bond - City Council

Jerome Stocks - City Council

Escondido

Ed Gallo - City Council

Sam Abed - City Council

Fallbrook

Charles Sanacore - CPA

Jim Bowen - CPA

Harry Christiansen - CPA

Carol Eastman - CPA

Jim Oenning - CPA

Dumonte Voigt - CPA

Mary Jane Pfeil - CPA

Sharon Mullin - Healthcare 

Don McDougal - Public Utility 

Seat NO. 3

Leucadia

Samuel Smalley - Wastewater

Judy Hanson - Wastewater

North County

Richard Olson – Fire Protection

Oceanside

Terry Johnson - Mayor

Barbara Wayne – City Clerk

Vickie Prosser – City Council

Jack Feller - City Council

Rosemary Jones – City

Treasurer

Palomar

Howard Kuiper – Comm College

Darrell Mc Mullen - Comm

College

Ralph Jensen – Comm College

Linda Greer - Pomerado 

Health Division 

Nancy Bassett - Pomerado 

Health Division 

Mary Evert - Pomerado 

Health Division 

Rainbow

Larry Sundram – Municipal

Water Division NO. 1

Rancho Santa Fe

Jim Ashcraft - Fire

Nancy Hillgren - Fire

Richard Burdge - School Board

Jim Depolo - School Board

William Ruh - School Board

San Marcos

Hal Martin - City Council

Lee Thibadeau - City Council

David Horacek - School Board

Solana Beach

Doug Sheres – City Council

Joe Kellejian – City Council

Mark Kersey – City Council

Scott Gulbransen - School Board

Tri-City

Rosemarie Reno - Healthcare

David Tweedy - Healthcare

Valley Center

Elaine Nolan - CPA

Leon Schwartz - CPA

Frank Shoemaker - CPA

Keith Simpson - CPA

Jonathan Vick - CPA

Vista

Nick Ashcraft - City Council

Margarette Morgan - Fire 

Protection District

Robert Fougner - Fire Protection

District

Mike Mc Reynolds - Fire Board

Chris Marsolais - School Board

Stephen Guffanti - School Board

Eileen Fernandez - School Board

Local Propositions

City of San Diego

J – NO

E – YES

F – YES

G – YES

H – YES

K – YES

City of Del Mar

N – NO

Republican Party of San Diego County

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215

San Diego, CA 92123

North County AD 73 74

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Bring this to your polling

place on Election Day!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Statewide Propositions

Proposition 62 – NO

“This flawed initiative would eliminate your right to choose the official

nominee of the Republican Party in future elections.”

Proposition 1A – YES 

Proposition 59 – YES

Proposition 60 – YES

Proposition 60A – YES

Proposition 61 – NO

Proposition 62 – NO

Proposition 63 – NO

Proposition 64 – YES

Proposition 65 – NO

Proposition 66 – NO

Proposition 67 – NO

Proposition 68 – NO

Proposition 69 – YES

Proposition 70 – NO

Proposition 71 – NO

Proposition 72 – NO

Vote

Republican!

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

Stop the Tax Increase

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Dear Fellow Republican,

President Bush and our Republican candidates are working hard for a strong

national defense, to win the war on terror, make taxes lower, improve

our schools with reforms stressing accountability and high standards,

and promote policies of personal responsibility.

Election Day is coming up fast. Below and on the back of this card are the

Republican candidates officially endorsed by the Republican Party of San Diego

County. They’ll put Republican ideas into action!

Thousands of Republicans are active in our party in San Diego County. We hope

you will be too by returning the response card below. Thank you for being a

member of San Diego’s majority party – The Republican Party!

Ron Nehring

Chairman, Republican Party of San Diego County

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Interested in voting by mail?

Call the Registrar of Voters at (858) 565-5800

George W. Bush - President

Richard “Dick” Cheney - Vice-President

Bill Jones - U.S. Senate

Darrell Issa - U.S. Congress - 49th District

Randy “Duke” Cunningham - U.S. Congress - 50th District

Michael Giorgino - U.S. Congress - 51st District

Duncan Hunter - U.S. Congress - 52nd District

Darin Hunzeker - U.S. Congress - 53rd District

Larry Stirling - State Senate - 39th District

George Plescia - State Assembly - 75th District

Tricia Hunter - State Assembly - 76th District

Shirley Horton - State Assembly - 78th District

Joseph Brannigan - Superior Court Judge

Dick Murphy - Mayor, City of San Diego

Leslie Devaney - San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer - San Diego City Council District No. 1

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail:

George W. Bush

for President

Bill Jones

for U.S. Senate

Dick Murphy

for San Diego Mayor

Your Official Republican Team

for San Diego County

YES!I’m interested in being involved with the

Republican Party. Please send me information.

Delivered by your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Statewide Propositions

Proposition 62 – NO

City of San Diego Propositions

Proposition 1A – YES 

Proposition 59 – YES

Proposition 60 – YES

Proposition 60A – YES

Proposition 61 – NO

Proposition 62 – NO

Proposition 63 – NO

Proposition 64 – YES

Proposition 65 – NO

Proposition 66 – NO

Proposition 67 – NO

Proposition 68 – NO

Proposition 69 – YES

Proposition 70 – NO

Proposition 71 – NO

Proposition 72 – NO

E – Yes - Strengthen the ethics Commission

F – Yes - Make City Hall accountable

G – Yes - Fix the pension system

H – Yes - Fix the pension system

J – No - Fight the tax increase

K – Yes - Preserve Mt. Soledad

Republican Party of San Diego County

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215

San Diego, CA 92123

City/South AD 75 76 78 79

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 2nd

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Bring this to your polling

place on Election Day!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

9420 Farnham St., Suite 215 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Candidates

San Diego

Mitz Lee - School Board District A

Luis Acle - School Board District D

John Cubello - Comm College

District B

Larry Baldwin - Rural Fire

Doane Glitschka - Rural Fire

Eric Grant - Rural Fire

Cajon Valley

Jeff Kover - School Board

Bill Wells - School Board

Chula Vista

Patrick Judd - Elementary School

Seat 4

Coronado

Tom Smisek - Mayor

Ruth Schmidt - City Council

Philip Monroe - City Council

Doug Metz - School Board

Lance Mann - School Board

Del Mar

Linda Crawford - School Board

Marshall Merrifield - School Board

Escondido

Sam Abed - City Council

Ed Gallo - City Council

Grossmont Healthcare

Jim Stieringer

Bob Yarris

Grossmont High School

Larry Urdahl

Priscilla Schreiber

Grossmont-Cuyamaca

Bill Garrett - Comm College 

Seat NO. 3

Timothy Caruthers - Comm College

Seat NO. 4

Helix

Chuck Muse - Water District

Division NO. 3

La Mesa-Spring Valley

Bob Duff - School Board

Lakeside

Twyla Godly - School Board

Tina Ninteman - School Board

National City

Fideles Ungab - Council

George Hood - Treasurer

Walt Graham - School Board

Otay

Jaime Bonilla - Water District 2

Elizabeth Scott - Water District 4

Mark Robak - Water District 5

Palomar

Ralph Jensen - Comm College

Howard Kuiper - Comm College

Darrell Mc Mulen – Comm College

Nancy Bassett – Pomerado Health

Mary Evert - Pomerado Health

Linda Greer - Pomerado Health

Poway

Merrilee Boyack – City Council

Scott Harman – City Council

Linda Vanderveen – School Board

Ramona

Chris Anderson - CPA

Carolyn Dorroh – CPA

Raul Jaquez – CPA

Luauna Stines – CPA

Angus Tobiason – CPA

Rancho Santa Fe

Richard Burdge – School Board

Jim Depolo – School Board

William Ruh – School Board

Jim Ashcraft – Fire

Nancy Hillgren – Fire

San Miguel

Larry Jackman - Cons Fire

Caroline Braun - Cons Fire

Criss Brainard - Cons Fire

San Pasqual

Howard Cottam - School Board

Solana Beach

Scott Gulbransen - School Board

South Bay

Margaret Welsh - Irrigation Division

NO. 5

Elvia Aguilar - School Board

Sweetwater

Archie Mc Allister - High School

Board

Valle De Oro

Cheryl Baldivia - CPA

Carl Starrett II - CPA

Daniel Smith - CPA

Thomas Oakes - CPA

Dan Mitrovich - CPA

Joel Hyatt - CPA

Philip Conard - CPA

John Goodell - CPA

“This flawed initiative would eliminate your right to choose the official

nominee of the the Republican Party in future elections”

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
John McCain

President

April Boling

San Diego City Council District 7

Jan Goldsmith

San Diego City Attorney

Phil Thalheimer

San Diego City Council District 1

Help Ensure Republican Victories in ‘08. Volunteer Today!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

❏ You can put a small campaign sign in my yard. ❏ Contact me about volunteering.

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

Mail Your Absentee Ballot Today or

Vote on Tuesday, November 4th (polls open 7 AM - 8 PM)

State Senate

Jeff Perwin – 39th State Senate District

State Assembly

Kevin Jeffries – 66th State Assembly District

Diane Harkey – 73rd State Assembly District

Martin Garrick – 74th State Assembly District

Nathan Fletcher – 75th State Assembly District

Ralph Denney – 76th State Assembly District

Joel Anderson – 77th State Assembly District

John McCann – 78th State Assembly District

Derrick Roach – 79th State Assembly District

Statewide Propositions

Prop. 2 – Unreasonable Animal Rights Bill – Vote NO

Prop. 4 – Sarah’s Law, Protecting

Our Daughters – Vote YES

Prop. 6 – Safe Neighborhoods Act – Vote YES

Prop. 7 – Radical Solar Energy Mandates – Vote NO

Prop. 8 – Traditional Marriage – Vote YES

Countywide and Local Propositions

Prop. A – Countywide Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. B – San Diego – Bayfront Redevelopment

Initiative – Vote NO

Prop. C – San Diego – Mission Bay Funding Charter

Amendment – Vote YES

Prop. H – Del Mar – Hotel Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. J – El Cajon – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. K – Encinitas – Rental Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. L – La Mesa – Sales Tax Increase – Vote NO

Prop. M – National City – Sales Tax

Repeal – Vote YES

Prop. O – San Marcos – Unreasonable Land Use

Amendment – Vote NO

Prop. R – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. S – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. T – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. U – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. V – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. W – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Prop. X – Bond Measure – Vote NO

Your San Diego City Hall Reform Team

Sarah Palin

Vice-President

US CONGRESS

Darrell Issa – 49th Congressional District

Brian Bilbray – 50th Congressional District

David Lee Joy – 51st Congressional District

Duncan D. Hunter – 52nd Congressional District

Michael Crimmins – 53rd Congressional District

Visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org for the latest

updates on candidates and measures

Vote

Republican!

The Republican Party

of San Diego County

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Mail Your Absentee Ballot Today or

Vote on Tuesday, November 4th (polls open 7 AM - 8 PM)

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any federal candidate or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad

Farrah Douglas – Council

Ann Kulchin – Council

City of Chula Vista

Russ Hall – Council Seat 3

Scott Vinson – Council Seat 4

City of Coronado

Tom Stickel – Mayor

Peter Fagan – Council

Peter Jensen – Council

City of El Cajon

Bill Wells – Council

Bob McClellan – Council

Jillian Hanson-Cox – Council

City of Encinitas

Jerome Stocks – Council

Harriet Seldin – Council

Joe Sheffo – Council

City of Escondido

Sam Abed – Council

Ed Gallo – Council

City of La Mesa

Ruth Sterling – Council

Shannon O’Dunn – Council

City of Lemon Grove

Mary England – Council

City of Oceanside

Rocky Chavez – Mayor

Jim Gibson – Council

Jack Feller – Council

Rosemary Jones – Treasurer

City of San Marcos

Hal Martin – Council

Rebecca Jones – Council

City of Santee

Randy Voepel – Mayor

Jack Dale – Council

City of Vista

John Aguilera

SCHOOL BOARDS

Alpine Union School District

Mark Price

Cajon Valley Union School District

Kelli Dole

Chula Vista Elementary School District

Archie McAllister – Seat 2

Coronado Unified School District

Doug Metz

Encinitas Union School District

Maureen Muir

Escondido Union High School District

Kurt Marler

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College District

Bill Garrett – Seat 3

Tim Caruthers – Seat 4

Grossmont Union High School District

Meg Jedynak

Gary Woods

Oceanside Unified School District

Mike Blessing

Palomar Community College District

Rose Marie Dishman

Darrell McMullen

Poway Unified School District

Darin Hunzeker

Ramona Unified School District

Dan Lopez

Dawn Perfect

San Diego Community College District

John Edwards – District B

San Diego Unified School District

Mitz Lee – District A

Xeng Yang – District E

San Marcos Unified School District

David Horacek

San Pasqual Union School District

Howard Cottom

Southwestern Community College

District

Jean Roesch – Seat 1

Sweetwater Union High School District

Lorenzo Provencio – Seat 2

Vista Unified School District

Patty Anderson

Stephen Guffanti

Eileen Fernandez

FIRE BOARDS

Alpine Fire Protection District

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

San Diego Rural Fire Protection District

Louis Russo

San Miguel Consolidated Fire

Protection District

Larry Jackman

David Rickards

Vista Fire Protection District

Margarette Morgan

HEALTH AND HOSPITAL

BOARDS

Grossmont Healthcare District

Michael Long – Short Term

Jim Stieringer – Full Term

Michael Emerson – Full Term

Palomar Pomerado Health District

Lee Thibadeau – Short Term

Evelyn Madison – Full Term

Tri-City Healthcare Board

Rosemarie Reno

David Tweedy

WATER BOARDS

Helix Water District

Chuck Muse – Division 3

Otay Water District

Mark Robak

Padre Municipal Water District

Auggie Scalzitti – Division 2

August Caires – Division 4

Ramona Municipal Water District

Red Hager – Division 5

South Bay Irrigation District

Jim Doud – Division 2

James Alkire – Division 3

PLANNING, COMMUNITY

SERVICE AND UTILITY

BOARDS

Fallbrook Community Planning Board

Roy Moosa

Ramona Community Planning Group

Carolyn Dorroh

OFFICIAL 2008 Voter Guide

“I support the efforts of the people of

California to recognize marriage as a

unique institution between a man and

a woman, just as we did in my home

state of Arizona. I do not believe judges

should be making these decisions.”

– U.S. Senator John McCain

Candidate for President

Bring this Guide with you to your Polling Place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Office

Vote

Republican!

The Republican Party

of San Diego County

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Vote on Tuesday, July 26th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote on Tuesday, July 26th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I’m interested in being involved with the

Republican Party. Please send me information.

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail:

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Steve Francis

for Mayor

Endorsed by the

Republican Party

of San Diego County

Endorsed by Republican State Legislators George Plescia, Shirley

Horton, Mark Wyland, Mimi Walters, Ray Haynes and Bill Morrow

Steve Francis Has A Plan 

For San Diego

• No bankruptcy...No higher taxes 

• Cut city council budget and pay 20% 

• Performance audits of city 

departments 

• Rollback illegal 1996 and 2002 

pension deals

VOTE YES ON

PROPOSITION A TO:

• Join hundreds of thousands of our

fellow San Diegans who wish to save

the Mount Soledad Veterans

Memorial by transferring it to the

Federal government

• Stand with President Bush and 

the United States Congress in 

recognizing Mount Soledad as a

National War Memorial 

• Honor our veterans and protect 

our heritage

• Permanently preserve this 

historic monument—AS IT IS,

WHERE IT IS!

YES ON A As it is, where it is!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION A!

Vote YES on Proposition A to save 

the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial,

with its centerpiece 29-foot cross and

surrounding walls and plaques, by transferring the site of this historic monument

to the federal government where it will be

protected under the Constitution of the

United States as a national war memorial

- AS IT IS, WHERE IT IS

The Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial was built in 1954 as a 

tribute to the veterans of the Korean War, and has since been

expanded in dedication to veterans of all wars. The people of 

San Diego treasure this sacred memorial and public asset. Failure

to protect Mount Soledad as it stands today will place many other

noble symbols of our past in jeopardy. Transferring the property to

the federal government is the only way to preserve Mount Soledad

so future generations can honor those who have sacrificed to 

protect the freedoms of this great nation.

“Eighteen years ago my wife Gayle and I

moved our business here because we loved

San Diego and wanted to raise our family

here, but right now our city is in a meltdown

and we need to turn it around. If we are

going to fix city hall, it won’t take higher

taxes and it won’t take bankruptcy, it will

take changing the people who run it.”

—Steve Francis

Steve Francis is a businessman, CEO who is committed to taking

city hall back from the special interests. Steve’s comprehensive

plan to restore San Diego can be read at www.stevesplan.com.

Steve Francis is exactly what San Diego needs—an outsider with

a plan to get our city out of its fiscal crisis without bankruptcy and

without new taxes.

Vote on Tuesday, July 26th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

Spec 6_05

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, July 26th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote

Republican!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 573-0222 • Fax (858) 654-2669 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Steve Francis

for Mayor

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Kevin Faulconer

Businessman

“We need accountability and balanced budgets

at City Hall, not higher taxes. I’ll fight City Hall

secrecy and demand the highest ethical 

standards.” —Kevin Faulconer

Vote on Tuesday, November 8th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote on Tuesday, November 8th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved with the Republican

Party in San Diego. Please send me information.

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail:

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Jerry Sanders

Businessman/

Retired Police Chief

Luis Acle

President, Board of

Education

The only candidate with experience turning

around troubled organizations and making the

tough decisions needed to clean house at 

City Hall to get

San Diego

back on track.

A schoolteacher with an MBA from Stanford

who served in Ronald Reagan’s White House,

Acle is a proven

leader with a 

30-year history 

of fiscal 

management.

“Let’s reform California so that

together we can rebuild it.”

— Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Election Day is your chance to be a

part of Arnold’s historic team that

reforms and rebuilds California.

See the reverse side to find out more 

about Arnold’s initiatives.

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Vote on Tuesday, November 8th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

Spec 11_05

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 8th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote

Republican!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Official Republican Candidates in San Diego

Jerry Sanders for Mayor

Kevin Faulconer for City Council, District 2

Luis Acle for City Council, District 8

Summary of Initiatives

YES! Proposition 73: Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative.

Requires a parent be notified and a 48 hour waiting period before a minor’s pregnancy is

terminated.

YES! Proposition 74: The Put Kids First Act. Improves the education system and

helps ensure our kids get the best education and the best teachers possible.

YES! Proposition 75: Paycheck Protection. Gives workers who are members of a

union the power to choose whether the dues they pay can be used for politics. Puts an

end to forcing union members to pay for political campaigns and controversial issues that

they disagree with.

YES! Proposition 76: Live Within Our Means Act. Forces the Legislature to live by

the same basic rule California families live by: Don’t spend more money than you bring in.

Endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and all major taxpayer organizations statewide.

YES! Proposition 77: Voter Empowerment Act. Takes redistricting out of the

hands of politicians and makes them more accountable to the voters. Instead of politicians, a bi-partisan independent panel of three retired judges will draw fair and 

competitive district lines.

YES! Proposition 78: The RIGHT Prescription Drug Plan. Offers Californians struggling with high prescription drug costs real help, right now. Prop. 78 is a proven program

that can take effect immediately, and will deliver critically needed prescription drug discounts to millions of seniors and low income, uninsured Californians.

NO! Proposition 79: The WRONG Prescription Drug Plan. Flawed drug initiative

that won’t be approved by the federal government. Opens the door to frivolous lawsuits

and could deny prescription drugs to low income Medi-Cal patients.

NO! Proposition 80: Electricity Re-Regulation. An anti-consumer, anti-environmental, high-risk approach to California’s energy policy. Undermines current efforts to

prevent blackouts and increase energy supplies, denies customers an option for lower

cost and green electricity. Limits state goals for more environmentally-friendly energy

generation.

For additional information, visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1
Jerry

Sanders

Mayor

Jan

Goldsmith

City Attorney

Carl

DeMaio

City Council

District 5

April

Boling

City Council

District 7

Vote on Tuesday, June 3rd

Polls open at 7:00am and close at 8:00pm

Help send The Republican Reform Team to City Hall.

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

YES ON PROPOSITION A

Ensures firefighters, sworn police officers and lifeguards must be city

employees, not private contractors.

YES ON PROPOSITION B

Guarantees public right to vote on extending Strong Mayor; toughens mayoral

veto authority.

YES ON PROPOSITION C

Makes auditor independent of politicians and city employees. Restores credibility

and investor confidence so the City can finance backlogged water, sewer, and

road repairs.

Republican Voters:

Please join the Republican Party of San Diego

in supporting The Reform Team to protect

taxpayers, clean up the mess at City Hall and

get San Diego back on track.

Send The Reform Team to City Hall

❏ You can put a small campaign sign in my yard. ❏ Contact me about volunteering.

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
Vote on Tuesday, June 3rd

Polls open at 7:00am and close at 8:00pm

Vote

Republican!

An Internal Member Communication paid for by the Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

P.O. Box 503228 • San Diego, CA 92150 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

For additional information, visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

County Board of Supervisors

District 1: Greg Cox

District 2: Dianne Jacob

District 3: Pam Slater-Price

County Board of Education

District 2: Jerry Rindone

District 4: Chuck Taylor

San Diego Community College District

District B: Ryan Mulvey

District D: Autumn Frank

San Diego Unified School District

District A: Mitz Lee

Superior Court Judge

Office 19: Paul Cooper

Office 45: Robert Faigin

City of Chula Vista

City Council - Seat 3: Russ Hall

City Council - Seat 4: Scott Vinson

No on Proposition E

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

The Republican Party of San Diego County has endorsed the following

candidates for other local offices:

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

Important: Complete and return the post card below to 

receive important official election information from the 

Republican Party of San Diego County.

Vote on Tuesday, June 6th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES! Send me information about the 

Republican Party in San Diego County.

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Fellow Republican, 

On June 6th you can help send a message from San Diego by electing

all of our highly qualified Republican candidates for every office on the

ballot.

Please keep this guide with you when you go to vote on TUESDAY,

JUNE 6th. 

Polls open at 7:00 AM and close at 8:00 PM.

Finally, we hope you’ll take the opportunity to become active in the

Republican Party of San Diego County by returning the reply card at the

bottom of this page. We’ll keep you informed of upcoming news and

developments of interest to you as a member of the Republican Party.

Thank you for being a member of the Republican Party, San Diego’s

majority party.

Sincerely,

Ron Nehring

CHAIRMAN, Republican Party of San Diego County

Message from Chairman Ron Nehring

Brian Bilbray

CD 50 Special election

Republican Nominee

Gary Felien

San Diego County Board of

Education, District 5

Judy Riddle

San Diego City Council,

District 6

Official Republican Candidates

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

Gen 5_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, June 6th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote

Republican!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Official Republican Candidates

BONNIE DUMANIS San Diego County District Attorney

DAN McALLISTER San Diego County Treasurer/Tax Collector

GREGORY SMITH San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/Clerk

RON ROBERTS San Diego County Supervisor, District 4

JAMES HAIRGROVE Superior Court Judge Office 16

LARRY “JAKE” KINCAID Superior Court Judge Office 36

PAUL J. PFINGST Superior Court Judge Office 49

Summary of Initiatives

San Diego County Proposition A: “Clean-Up” Amendments to the San

Diego County Charter

Vote YES—It is time to modernize the San Diego Charter! Vote Yes on Measure A.

San Diego County Proposition B: Important technical clarification to

the county charter concerning write-in candidates

Vote YES—Vote Yes on Measure B.

Proposition 81: Vote NO—Higher taxes and increased spending hurts California

families! Vote No on 81.

Proposition 82: Income tax increase, government-run pre-school

Vote NO – Vote No on this big tax increase. No on 82.

For additional information, visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

• Student safety must be our top priority

• Will reduce bureaucracy and increase classroom funding

• Endorsed by Congressman Darrell Issa and State Senator 

Bill Morrow

San Diego County Board of Education, District 5

Gary Felien

“Our city receives adequate tax dollars to provide excellent

community services. The city council needs to put a stop

to wasteful spending!”

San Diego City Council, District 6

Judy Riddle

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Brian Bilbray

50th Congressional District

Martin Garrick

State Assembly District 74

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

74_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad

Claude “Bud” Lewis - Mayor

Mark Packard - City Council

Matt Hall - City Council 

Lorraine Wood - City Clerk

Harold “Mac” Mc Sherry - City

Treasurer

City of Del Mar 

Laura De Marco - City Council

Jerry Finnell - City Council

City of Encinitas

Thomas Brown - City Council

Doug Long - City Council

City of Escondido 

Lori Holt Pfeiler - Mayor

Marie Waldron - City Council

Dick Daniels - City Council

City of Oceanside

Jerry Kern - City Council

Rocky Chávez - City Council

City of San Marcos

F.H. “Corky” Smith - Mayor

Mike Preston - City Council

City of Solana Beach

Deanne Borer - City Council

City of Vista

Morris Vance - Mayor

Bob Campbell - City Council

Judy Ritter - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Miracosta Community 

College Board

Rodolfo “Rudy” Fernandez -

Area 1

Gregory Post - Area 2

Palamor Community 

College Board

Christopher Smith

Carlsbad Unified School District

Lisa Rodman

Josephine Lewis

Mark Tanner

Oceanside Unified 

School District

Emily Ortiz Wichmann

San Marcos Unified 

School District

Cyndy Minnery

Vista Unified School District

Patty Anderson

Jim Gibson

Escondido Union High 

School Board

Tina Pope

Pam Grosso

Jon Petersen

San Dieguito Union High 

School Board

Stephen Cochrane

Bonsall Union School District

Lou Riddle

Timothy Coen

Bill Bryant

Del Mar Union School District

Steve Mc Dowell

Martha Murphy

Annette Easton

Encinitas Union School District 

Maureen “Mo” Muir

Escondido Union School District

Joan Gardner

Marv Gilbert

Rancho Santa Fe School District 

Scot Cheatham

Carlie Headapohl

Solana Beach School District

Jeff Busby

WATER DISTRICTS

Leucadia Waste Water District

David Kulchin

Tracy Peterson

Questhaven Municipal 

Water District

Phyllis Jean Issac - Division 1

Elizabeth Wood - Division 3

Blake Issac - Division 5

Rincon Del Diablo Water District

John Hinrichs - Division 3

Gregory Quist - Division 1

Vallecitos Water District 

Trish Hannan - Divison 2

Valley Center Municipal 

Water District

Randy Haskell - Division 2

Merle Aleshire - Division 5

Santa Fe Irrigatrion District

John Ingalls - Division 3

Michael Hogan - Division 4

Augustus Daddi - Division 5

Vista Irrigation District

Paul Campo - Division 1

FIRE DISTRICTS

Deer Springs Fire 

Protection District

Robert Winje

Frank Donnelly

Bruce Tebbs

Rancho Sante Fe Fire 

Protection District

Thomas Hickerson

John Tanner

Valley Center Fire 

Protection District

William Lee Palmer

Weaver Simonsen

Mel Schuler

Vista Fire Protection District

Read Miller

Richard Hemenez

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Fallbrook Healthcare

Gordon Tinker

Milton Davies

Daniel Goldberg

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Ted Kleiter

Bruce Krider

Tri-City Healthcare 

Board of Directors

Larry Schallock

Valley Center 

Parks & Recreation

Fran DeWilde

Rancho Sante Fe 

Community Services

John Tanner

Ronald McMahon

Whispering Palms 

Community Services

John Mirza

San Dieguito Community 

Planning Board

Donald Willis

Chaco Clotfelter

Ira Epstein

Thomas Hickerson

Laurel Lemarie

Bill Schlosser

Valley Center Community 

Planning Board

Eric Laventure

David Montross

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Brian Bilbray

50th Congressional District

George Plescia

State Assembly District 75

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38 

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Michael “Mike” McSweeney San Diego Unified School District

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

John “Woody” Woodrum 53rd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

75_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Escondido 

Lori Holt Pfeiler -Mayor

Dick Daniels - City Council

Marie Waldron - City Council

City of Poway

Mickey Cafagna - Mayor

Betty Rexford - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Board

Deana Weeks - District 1

Rick Alexander - District 2

Bill Garrett - District 3

Arkan Somo - District 5

Miracosta Community College Board

Rodolfo “Rudy” Fernandez - Area 1

Gregory Post - Area 2

Palomar Community College Board

Christopher Smith

Poway Unified School District

T.J. Zane

Jeff Mangum

Penny Ranftle

Ramona Unified School District

Rodger Dohm

William “Bill” Jenkin

Bob Stoody

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Escondido Union High School Board

Tina Pope

Jon Petersen

Pam Grosso

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Shari Groce

Jim Kelly

San Dieguito Union High School Board

Stephen Cochrane

Del Mar Union School District

Martha Murphy

Annette Easton

Steve McDowell

Escondido Union School District

Marv Gilbert

Joan Gardner

Lakeside Union School District

C. Keith Hildreth

Harold Hilliker

Kevin Howe

San Pasqual Union School District

D. Matt Marschall

Darlene Hansen

Rancho Santa Fe School District

Scot Cheatham

Carlie Headapohl

Solana Beach School District 

Jeff Busby

WATER DISTRICTS

Rincon Del Diablo Water District

Gregory Quist -Division 1

John Hinrichs - Division 3

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Randy Haskell - Division 2

Merle Aleshire - Division 5

Santa Fe Irrigation District

John Ingalls - Division 3

Michael Hogan - Division 4

Augustus Daddi - Division 5

FIRE DISTRICTS

Lakeside Fire Protection District

Peter Liebig

Emad Bakeer

Rancho Sante Fe Fire Protection District

Thomas Hickerson

John Tanner

San Diego Rural Fire Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

Valley Center Fire Protection District

Mel Schuler

William Lee Palmer

Weaver Simonsen

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Ted Kleiter

Bruce Krider

Rancho Sante Fe Community Services

Ronald McMahon

John Tanner

Whispering Palms Community Services

John Mirza

Lakeside Community Planning Board

Mark Turvey

Anton Botter

Julie Bugbee

Chad Enniss

Glenn Inverso

Emad Bakeer

Ramona Community Planning Board 

William “Bill” Jenkin

Dennis Grimes

Beverly Ragsdale

Beverly Maes

San Dieguito Community Planning Board

Ira Epstein

Thomas Hickerson

Laurel Lemarie

Bill Schlosser

Donald Willis

Chaco Clotfelter

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

Joel Anderson

State Assembly District 77

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Brian Bilbray 50th Congressional District

Blake Miles 51st Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

77_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of El Cajon

Mark Lewis -Mayor

Gary Kendrick -City Council

City of La Mesa

Jim Stieringer - Mayor

Mark Arapostathis -City Council

Ernest Ewin - City Council|

Eldon “Bud” Vogt - City Treasurer

City of Santee

Brian Jones - City Council

John Minto - City Council

Hal Ryan - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community 

College Board

Deana Weeks - Seat 1

Rick Alexander - Seat 2

Bill Garrett - Seat 3

Arkan Somo - Seat 5

Palomar Community College Board

Christopher Smith

Southwestern Community College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

Borrego Springs Unified School District

Margaret Orenyak

Mountain Empire Unified 

Board of Trustees

Ralph Davis - Area 1

Kenneth Northcote - Area 3

Beryl Buchanan - Area 4

Danny Nunez - Area 5

Poway Unified School District

Penny Ranftle

Jeff Mangum

T.J. Zane

Ramona Unified School District 

William “Bill” Jenkin

Rodger Dohm

Bob Stoody

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Warner Unified School District

Karen Willat

David Bantz

Grossmont Union High School Board

Shari Groce

Robert Shield

Jim Kelly

Julian Union High School Board

David Carey

Stacy Peyakov

Mark Bakken

Sweetwater Union High School Board

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

Alpine Union School Board

Eric Wray

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Cajon Valley Union School District

Jill Barto

Julian Union School District

Susan Slaughter

Joy Booth

Lakeside Union School District

C. Keith Hildreth

Harold Hilliker

Kevin Howe

San Pasqual Union School District

D. Matt Marschall

Darlene Hansen

Chula Vista Elementary School District

Larry Cunningham - District 5

Dehesa School District

Cynthia White

Kimberly Pike

Chuck Huskey

La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board

Penny Halgren

Bob Duff

Emma Turner

Rick Winet

San Ysidro School District

Tim Gomez 

Yolanda Hernandez

Santee School District

Barbara Ryan - District 1

James Towle - District 3

Allen Carlisle - District 5

WATER DISTRICTS

Borrego Water District

Roger Anderson

Richard “Dick” Walker

Canebrake County Water District

Carl Mc Kenney

Paul Deschamps

Helix Water District

DeAna Verbeke - Division 2

James Lewanski - Division 4

Lakeside Water District

John Belleau - Division 2

Frank Hilliker - Division 3

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

Padre Dam Municipal Water District

Jim Maletic - Division 1

Andy Menshek - District 3

Patricia Cannon - District 5

Ramona Municipal Water District

Jim Robinson - Division 4

Riverview Water District

Mark Godwin

Gale Ruffin

FIRE DISTRICTS

Alpine Fire Protection Board

Jim Easterling

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

Martin Marugg

Borrego Springs Fire Protection District

Richard Anson

Robert Kenneth Moore

East County Fire Protection District

Gilbert Mastri

Merritt Strickland

Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Board

Bent Koch

Lakeside Fire Protection District

Peter Liebig

Emad Bakeer

Pine Valley Fire Protection District

Benjamin Tulloch

Franklin Whiteley

San Diego Rural Fire Protection Board

Will Eastwood

J.R. “Randy” Terry

San Miguel Fire Protection District

Tom Clark

Richard “Rick” Augustine

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Bruce Krider

Ted Kleiter

Borrego Springs Park & 

Community Services

Dennis Russell

Jacumba Community Services

Rick Johnson

Alpine Community Planning Board

Brad Bailey

Jim Easterling

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Chuck Taylor

David Waitley

Boulevard Community Planning Board

Nazar Najor

Campo/Lake Morena Community 

Planning Board

Jean Bates

Debra Ford

Richard Northcote

Walt Palmer

Crest Community Planning Board

Pat Ulm

Dehesa Community Planning Board

Richard White

Descanso Community Planning Board

John Elliott

Harbison Canyon Community 

Planning Board

Jack Vandover

Jamul/Dulzura Community 

Planning Board

Randy White

Janice Grace

Janet Mulder

Lakeside Community Planning Board

Julie Bugbee

Anton Botter

Emad Bakeer

Glenn Inverso

Mark Turvey

Chad Enniss

Pine Valley Community Planning Board

Cherry Diefenbach

Terry Glardon

Carol Johnson

Potrero Community Planning Board

Gordon Hammers

Mary Johnson

Thell Fowler

Ramona Community Planning Board

William “Bill” Jenkin

Beverly Ragsdale

Beverly Maes

Dennis Grimes

Valle de Oro Community 

Planning Board

John Hewicker

Donald Fitchett 

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Cheryl Cox

Mayor Chula Vista

Shirley Horton

State Assembly District 78

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Michael “Mike” McSweeney San Diego Unified School District

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

If you have not already mailed in your 

absentee ballot, it is too late. You must deliver 

it to your polling location; otherwise your 

vote may not be counted.

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3
VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

If you have not already mailed in your 

absentee ballot, it is too late. You must deliver 

it to your polling location; otherwise your 

vote may not be counted.

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Chula Vista

Cheryl Cox - Mayor

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College Board

Deana Weeks - Division 1

Rick Alexander - Division 2

Bill Garrett - Division 3

Arkan Somo - Division 5

Southwestern Community 

College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Shari Groce

Jim Kelly

Sweetwater Union High 

School District

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

Cajon Valley Union School District

Jill Barto

Chula Vista Elementary 

School District

Larry Cunningham - District 5

La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board

Bob Duff

Emma Turner

Rick Winet

Penny Halgren

WATER DISTRICTS

Helix Water District

James Lewanski - Division 4

DeAna Verbeke - Division 2

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

FIRE DISTRICTS

Bonita-Sunnyside Fire 

Protection District 

Thomas Pocklington

Joanne Stonecipher

San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

San Miguel Fire Protection District

Tom Clark

Richard “Rick” Augustine

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Jamul/Dulzura Community 

Planning Board

Randy White

Janet Mulder

Janice Grace

Spring Valley Community 

Planning Board

Marilyn Wilkinson

Sweetwater Community 

Planning Board 

Harriet Taylor

John Taylor

Rick Blacklock

Alan Sachrison

Ken Byrd

Valle de Oro Community 

Planning Board

John Hewicker

Donald Fitchett 

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

If you have not already mailed in your 

absentee ballot, it is too late. You must deliver 

it to your polling location; otherwise your 

vote may not be counted.

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

San Diego Unified School District

Shirley Horton

State Assembly District 78

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Michael “Mike” McSweeney San Diego Unified School District

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

VOTE REPUBLICAN • VOTE REPUBLICAN

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

If you have not already mailed in your 

absentee ballot, it is too late. You must deliver 

it to your polling location; otherwise your 

vote may not be counted.

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Chula Vista

Cheryl Cox - Mayor

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College Board

Deana Weeks - Division 1

Rick Alexander - Division 2

Bill Garrett - Division 3

Arkan Somo - Division 5

Southwestern Community 

College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Shari Groce

Jim Kelly

Sweetwater Union High 

School District

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

Cajon Valley Union School District

Jill Barto

Chula Vista Elementary 

School District

Larry Cunningham - District 5

La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board

Bob Duff

Emma Turner

Rick Winet

Penny Halgren

WATER DISTRICTS

Helix Water District

James Lewanski - Division 4

DeAna Verbeke - Division 2

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

FIRE DISTRICTS

Bonita-Sunnyside Fire 

Protection District 

Thomas Pocklington

Joanne Stonecipher

San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

San Miguel Fire Protection District

Tom Clark

Richard “Rick” Augustine

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Jamul/Dulzura Community 

Planning Board

Randy White

Janet Mulder

Janice Grace

Spring Valley Community 

Planning Board

Marilyn Wilkinson

Sweetwater Community 

Planning Board 

Harriet Taylor

John Taylor

Rick Blacklock

Alan Sachrison

Ken Byrd

Valle de Oro Community 

Planning Board

John Hewicker

Donald Fitchett 

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

Kevin Jeffries

State Assembly District 66

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

66_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Vote

Republican!

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Oceanside

Jerry Kern - City Council 

Rocky Chávez - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College Board

Deana Weeks - Seat 1 

Rick Alexander - Seat 2

Bill Garrett - Seat 3

Arkan Somo - Seat 5

Palomar Community College District

Christopher Smith

Ramona Unified School District

Rodger Dohm

William “Bill” Jenkin

Bob Stoody

Warner Unified School District 

Karen Willat

David Bantz

Escondido Union High School Board

Pam Grosso

Jon Petersen

Tina Pope

Fallbrook Union High School Board 

Michael Shulte

Fran White

Jim Hutcherson

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Jim Kelly

Shari Groce

Julian Union High School Board

Stacy Peyakov

Mark Bakken

David Carey

Alpine Union School Board

Eric Wray

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Bonsall Union School District 

Bill Bryant

Timothy Coen

Lou Riddle

Escondido Union School District

Joan Gardner

Marv Gilbert

Julian Union School District

Joy Booth

Susan Slaughter

Fallbrook Union Elementary 

School Board 

Maurice Bernier

Vallecitos School District

Craig Ohlson

Sandy Wells

Michelle La Londe

WATER DISTRICTS

Mootamai Municipal Water District

Don Cline - Division 1

Michael Biondi - Division 3

Pauma Municipal Water District 

Yoneo Kariya - Division 5

Rainbow Municipal Water District

William “Bill” Bopf - Division 3

Stephen Abbott - Division 4

San Luis Rey Municipal 

Water District

William Pankey - Division 1

Thomas Veysey - Division 3

Claren Yarger - Division 5

Valley Center Municipal 

Water District

Randy Haskell - Division 2

Merle Aleshire - Division 5

Wynola Water District 

Edward Huffman

Yuima Municipal Water District

Douglas Anderson - Division 1

W.D. “Bill” Knutson - Division 4

Vista Irrigation District 

Paul Campo - Division 1

FIRE DISTRICTS

Alpine Fire Protection Board 

Jim Easterling

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

Martin Marugg

Deer Springs Fire Protection District

Robert Winje

Frank Donnelly

Bruce Tebbs

Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Board

Bent Koch

North County Fire Protection Board

Kenneth Munson

Kathleen Thuner

Pine Valley Fire Protection District

Benjamin Tulloch

Franklin Whiteley

San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

Valley Center Fire Protection District

Weaver Simonsen

Mel Schuler

William Lee Palmer

Vista Fire Protection District

Read Miller

Richard Hemenez

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Fallbrook Healthcare Board

Daniel Goldberg

Milton Davies

Gordon Tinker

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Ted Kleiter

Bruce Krider

Tri-City Healthcare 

Board of Directors

Larry Schallock

Fallbrook Public Utility Board

Al Gebhart - Seat 4

Milton Davies - Seat 5

Valley Center Parks & Recreation 

Fran DeWilde

Rincon Ranch Community Services

Bernard Jensen

Manny Grey

Pauma Valley Community Services

Richard Meyers

Ronald Stewart 

William Taylor

Alpine Community Planning Board

Brad Bailey

Jim Easterling

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Chuck Taylor

David Waitley

Descanso Community 

Planning Board

John Elliott

Fallbrook Community 

Planning Board

William “Bill” Bopf

Jack Wood

Paul Schaden

Jim Russell

Roy Moosa

Eileen Delaney

Thomas Harrington

Julian Community Planning Board

Kenney Mushet

Jean James

Pine Valley Community 

Planning Board

Cherry Diefenbach

Terry Glardon

Carol Johnson

Rainbow Communtiy Planning Board

Dean Reade

Mila Bonner

Art Deming

Curtis Nicolaisen

Craig Ohlson

Larry Pearce

Rua Petty

Ramona Community Planning Board

William “Bill”Jenkin

Beverly Ragsdale

Dennis Grimes

Beverly Maes

Valley Center Community 

Planning Board

Eric Laventure

David Montross

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

Mimi Walters

State Assembly District 73

Official Republican Candidates

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

73_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad 

Claude “Bud” Lewis - Mayor

Mark Packard - City Council

Matt Hall - City Council

Lorraine Wood - City Clerk

Harold “Mac” McSherry -

City Treasurer

City of Oceanside

Jerry Kern - City Council 

Rocky Chávez - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Palomar Community 

College Board

Christopher Smith

Carlsbad Unified 

School District

Mark Tanner

Lisa Rodman

Josephine Lewis

Oceanside Unified 

School District

Emily Ortiz Wichmann

Vista Unified School District 

Patty Anderson

Jim Gibson

Bonsall Union School District 

Bill Bryant 

Timothy Coen

Lou Riddle

FIRE DISTRICTS

North County Fire 

Protection Board

Kenneth Munson

Kathleen Thuner

Vista Fire Protection 

Richard Hemenez

Read Miller

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Tri-City Healthcare 

Board of Directors 

Larry Schallock

Morro Hills Community 

Services Board 

Thomas Harrington

Barbara Romero

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Please bring this flyer to your 

polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates 

for Important Local Offices.

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Brian Bilbray

50th Congressional District

Martin Garrick

State Assembly District 74

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

74_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Carlsbad

Claude “Bud” Lewis - Mayor

Mark Packard - City Council

Matt Hall - City Council 

Lorraine Wood - City Clerk

Harold “Mac” Mc Sherry - City

Treasurer

City of Del Mar 

Laura De Marco - City Council

Jerry Finnell - City Council

City of Encinitas

Thomas Brown - City Council

Doug Long - City Council

City of Escondido 

Lori Holt Pfeiler - Mayor

Marie Waldron - City Council

Dick Daniels - City Council

City of Oceanside

Jerry Kern - City Council

Rocky Chávez - City Council

City of San Marcos

F.H. “Corky” Smith - Mayor

Mike Preston - City Council

City of Solana Beach

Deanne Borer - City Council

City of Vista

Morris Vance - Mayor

Bob Campbell - City Council

Judy Ritter - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Miracosta Community 

College Board

Rodolfo “Rudy” Fernandez -

Area 1

Gregory Post - Area 2

Palamor Community 

College Board

Christopher Smith

Carlsbad Unified School District

Lisa Rodman

Josephine Lewis

Mark Tanner

Oceanside Unified 

School District

Emily Ortiz Wichmann

San Marcos Unified 

School District

Cyndy Minnery

Vista Unified School District

Patty Anderson

Jim Gibson

Escondido Union High 

School Board

Tina Pope

Pam Grosso

Jon Petersen

San Dieguito Union High 

School Board

Stephen Cochrane

Bonsall Union School District

Lou Riddle

Timothy Coen

Bill Bryant

Del Mar Union School District

Steve Mc Dowell

Martha Murphy

Annette Easton

Encinitas Union School District 

Maureen “Mo” Muir

Escondido Union School District

Joan Gardner

Marv Gilbert

Rancho Santa Fe School District 

Scot Cheatham

Carlie Headapohl

Solana Beach School District

Jeff Busby

WATER DISTRICTS

Leucadia Waste Water District

David Kulchin

Tracy Peterson

Questhaven Municipal 

Water District

Phyllis Jean Issac - Division 1

Elizabeth Wood - Division 3

Blake Issac - Division 5

Rincon Del Diablo Water District

John Hinrichs - Division 3

Gregory Quist - Division 1

Vallecitos Water District 

Trish Hannan - Divison 2

Valley Center Municipal 

Water District

Randy Haskell - Division 2

Merle Aleshire - Division 5

Santa Fe Irrigatrion District

John Ingalls - Division 3

Michael Hogan - Division 4

Augustus Daddi - Division 5

Vista Irrigation District

Paul Campo - Division 1

FIRE DISTRICTS

Deer Springs Fire 

Protection District

Robert Winje

Frank Donnelly

Bruce Tebbs

Rancho Sante Fe Fire 

Protection District

Thomas Hickerson

John Tanner

Valley Center Fire 

Protection District

William Lee Palmer

Weaver Simonsen

Mel Schuler

Vista Fire Protection District

Read Miller

Richard Hemenez

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Fallbrook Healthcare

Gordon Tinker

Milton Davies

Daniel Goldberg

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Ted Kleiter

Bruce Krider

Tri-City Healthcare 

Board of Directors

Larry Schallock

Valley Center 

Parks & Recreation

Fran DeWilde

Rancho Sante Fe 

Community Services

John Tanner

Ronald McMahon

Whispering Palms 

Community Services

John Mirza

San Dieguito Community 

Planning Board

Donald Willis

Chaco Clotfelter

Ira Epstein

Thomas Hickerson

Laurel Lemarie

Bill Schlosser

Valley Center Community 

Planning Board

Eric Laventure

David Montross

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

George Plescia

State Assembly District 75

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Mark Wyland State Senate District 38 

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Michael “Mike” McSweeney San Diego Unified School District

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Darrell Issa 49th Congressional District

Brian Bilbray 50th Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

John “Woody” Woodrum 53rd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

75_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Escondido 

Lori Holt Pfeiler -Mayor

Dick Daniels - City Council

Marie Waldron - City Council

City of Poway

Mickey Cafagna - Mayor

Betty Rexford - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Board

Deana Weeks - District 1

Rick Alexander - District 2

Bill Garrett - District 3

Arkan Somo - District 5

Miracosta Community College Board

Rodolfo “Rudy” Fernandez - Area 1

Gregory Post - Area 2

Palomar Community College Board

Christopher Smith

Poway Unified School District

T.J. Zane

Jeff Mangum

Penny Ranftle

Ramona Unified School District

Rodger Dohm

William “Bill” Jenkin

Bob Stoody

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Escondido Union High School Board

Tina Pope

Jon Petersen

Pam Grosso

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Shari Groce

Jim Kelly

San Dieguito Union High School Board

Stephen Cochrane

Del Mar Union School District

Martha Murphy

Annette Easton

Steve McDowell

Escondido Union School District

Marv Gilbert

Joan Gardner

Lakeside Union School District

C. Keith Hildreth

Harold Hilliker

Kevin Howe

San Pasqual Union School District

D. Matt Marschall

Darlene Hansen

Rancho Santa Fe School District

Scot Cheatham

Carlie Headapohl

Solana Beach School District 

Jeff Busby

WATER DISTRICTS

Rincon Del Diablo Water District

Gregory Quist -Division 1

John Hinrichs - Division 3

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Randy Haskell - Division 2

Merle Aleshire - Division 5

Santa Fe Irrigation District

John Ingalls - Division 3

Michael Hogan - Division 4

Augustus Daddi - Division 5

FIRE DISTRICTS

Lakeside Fire Protection District

Peter Liebig

Emad Bakeer

Rancho Sante Fe Fire Protection District

Thomas Hickerson

John Tanner

San Diego Rural Fire Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

Valley Center Fire Protection District

Mel Schuler

William Lee Palmer

Weaver Simonsen

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Ted Kleiter

Bruce Krider

Rancho Sante Fe Community Services

Ronald McMahon

John Tanner

Whispering Palms Community Services

John Mirza

Lakeside Community Planning Board

Mark Turvey

Anton Botter

Julie Bugbee

Chad Enniss

Glenn Inverso

Emad Bakeer

Ramona Community Planning Board 

William “Bill” Jenkin

Dennis Grimes

Beverly Ragsdale

Beverly Maes

San Dieguito Community Planning Board

Ira Epstein

Thomas Hickerson

Laurel Lemarie

Bill Schlosser

Donald Willis

Chaco Clotfelter

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

San Diego Unified School District

Official Republican Candidates

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform

Plan. Requires future city pension

benefit increases to go to the

people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform

Plan. Reduce costs and improve

quality for city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Ralph Denney Assembly District 76

Jean Roesch Assembly District 79 

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Brian Bilbray 50th Congressional District

Blake Miles 51st Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

John “Woody” Woodrum 53rd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

76_79_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Chula Vista 

Cheryl Cox - Mayor

City of Coronado 

Peter Fagan - City Council

City of Imperial Beach

John Perno - City Council

Lorie Bragg - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

San Diego Community 

College Board

Andy Hollingworth - District C

Southwestern Community 

College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

Sweetwater Union High 

School District

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

South Bay Union School District

Chris Brown

Chula Vista Elementary 

School District 

Larry Cunningham - District 5

San Ysidro School District

Tim Gomez

Yolanda Hernandez

WATER DISTRICTS

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

FIRE DISTRICTS

Bonita-Sunnyside Fire 

Protection District

Joanne Stonecipher

Thomas Pocklington

San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection Board

Will Eastwood

J.R. “Randy” Terry

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Sweetwater Community 

Planning Board

John Taylor

Ken Byrd

Rick Blacklock

Harriet Taylor

Alan Sachrison

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’

Reform Plan. Requires

future city pension benefit

increases to go to the 

people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’

Reform Plan. Reduce

costs and improve quality

for city services. 

City of San Diego

Initiatives

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Tom McClintock

Lt. Governor

Joel Anderson

State Assembly District 77

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Brian Bilbray 50th Congressional District

Blake Miles 51st Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

77_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of El Cajon

Mark Lewis -Mayor

Gary Kendrick -City Council

City of La Mesa

Jim Stieringer - Mayor

Mark Arapostathis -City Council

Ernest Ewin - City Council|

Eldon “Bud” Vogt - City Treasurer

City of Santee

Brian Jones - City Council

John Minto - City Council

Hal Ryan - City Council

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community 

College Board

Deana Weeks - Seat 1

Rick Alexander - Seat 2

Bill Garrett - Seat 3

Arkan Somo - Seat 5

Palomar Community College Board

Christopher Smith

Southwestern Community College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

Borrego Springs Unified School District

Margaret Orenyak

Mountain Empire Unified 

Board of Trustees

Ralph Davis - Area 1

Kenneth Northcote - Area 3

Beryl Buchanan - Area 4

Danny Nunez - Area 5

Poway Unified School District

Penny Ranftle

Jeff Mangum

T.J. Zane

Ramona Unified School District 

William “Bill” Jenkin

Rodger Dohm

Bob Stoody

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Warner Unified School District

Karen Willat

David Bantz

Grossmont Union High School Board

Shari Groce

Robert Shield

Jim Kelly

Julian Union High School Board

David Carey

Stacy Peyakov

Mark Bakken

Sweetwater Union High School Board

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

Alpine Union School Board

Eric Wray

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Cajon Valley Union School District

Jill Barto

Julian Union School District

Susan Slaughter

Joy Booth

Lakeside Union School District

C. Keith Hildreth

Harold Hilliker

Kevin Howe

San Pasqual Union School District

D. Matt Marschall

Darlene Hansen

Chula Vista Elementary School District

Larry Cunningham - District 5

Dehesa School District

Cynthia White

Kimberly Pike

Chuck Huskey

La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board

Penny Halgren

Bob Duff

Emma Turner

Rick Winet

San Ysidro School District

Tim Gomez 

Yolanda Hernandez

Santee School District

Barbara Ryan - District 1

James Towle - District 3

Allen Carlisle - District 5

WATER DISTRICTS

Borrego Water District

Roger Anderson

Richard “Dick” Walker

Canebrake County Water District

Carl Mc Kenney

Paul Deschamps

Helix Water District

DeAna Verbeke - Division 2

James Lewanski - Division 4

Lakeside Water District

John Belleau - Division 2

Frank Hilliker - Division 3

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

Padre Dam Municipal Water District

Jim Maletic - Division 1

Andy Menshek - District 3

Patricia Cannon - District 5

Ramona Municipal Water District

Jim Robinson - Division 4

Riverview Water District

Mark Godwin

Gale Ruffin

FIRE DISTRICTS

Alpine Fire Protection Board

Jim Easterling

Steve “Kosmo” Kramer

Martin Marugg

Borrego Springs Fire Protection District

Richard Anson

Robert Kenneth Moore

East County Fire Protection District

Gilbert Mastri

Merritt Strickland

Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Board

Bent Koch

Lakeside Fire Protection District

Peter Liebig

Emad Bakeer

Pine Valley Fire Protection District

Benjamin Tulloch

Franklin Whiteley

San Diego Rural Fire Protection Board

Will Eastwood

J.R. “Randy” Terry

San Miguel Fire Protection District

Tom Clark

Richard “Rick” Augustine

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Palomar Pomerado Health Board

Bruce Krider

Ted Kleiter

Borrego Springs Park & 

Community Services

Dennis Russell

Jacumba Community Services

Rick Johnson

Alpine Community Planning Board

Brad Bailey

Jim Easterling

Louis Russo

Matt Schumsky

Chuck Taylor

David Waitley

Boulevard Community Planning Board

Nazar Najor

Campo/Lake Morena Community 

Planning Board

Jean Bates

Debra Ford

Richard Northcote

Walt Palmer

Crest Community Planning Board

Pat Ulm

Dehesa Community Planning Board

Richard White

Descanso Community Planning Board

John Elliott

Harbison Canyon Community 

Planning Board

Jack Vandover

Jamul/Dulzura Community 

Planning Board

Randy White

Janice Grace

Janet Mulder

Lakeside Community Planning Board

Julie Bugbee

Anton Botter

Emad Bakeer

Glenn Inverso

Mark Turvey

Chad Enniss

Pine Valley Community Planning Board

Cherry Diefenbach

Terry Glardon

Carol Johnson

Potrero Community Planning Board

Gordon Hammers

Mary Johnson

Thell Fowler

Ramona Community Planning Board

William “Bill” Jenkin

Beverly Ragsdale

Beverly Maes

Dennis Grimes

Valle de Oro Community 

Planning Board

John Hewicker

Donald Fitchett 

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

YES!I want to get involved in the Republican campaign,

please contact me!

Flex your political muscle on Election Day!

www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Ronald Nehring, CHAIRMAN • Not authorized by any candidate 

campaign or committee. 5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Name:

Address:

City: State: ZIP:

Phone:

E-mail (very important):

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

San Diego Unified School District

Shirley Horton

State Assembly District 78

Official Republican Candidates

Republican Candidates for State Offices

Tom McClintock Lt. Governor

Bruce McPherson Secretary of State

Chuck Poochigian Attorney General

Tony Strickland Controller

Claude Parrish Treasurer

Steve Poizner Insurance Commissioner

Michelle Steel Board of Equalization

Dennis Hollingsworth State Senate District 36

Larry “Jake” Kincaid County Superior Court Judge

Michael “Mike” McSweeney San Diego Unified School District

Bring this to your polling place on Election Day!

Vote YES on B

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Requires future city pension benefit

increases to go to the people for a vote. 

Vote YES on C

Mayor Jerry Sanders’ Reform Plan.

Reduce costs and improve quality for

city services. 

City of San Diego Initiatives

Vote YES on Prop 1A

Make sure gas taxes are used for roads.

Vote YES on 83

Stop sexual predators with Jessica’s Law.

Vote NO on 84

California Republican Party recommends

voting no on this bond.

Vote YES on 85

Require parents be informed before 

termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

Vote NO on 86

Another tax increase.

Vote NO on 87

Tax increase that will RAISE GAS PRICES.

Vote NO on 88

Tax increase on your home.

Vote NO on 89

Tax increase that will kill California jobs.

Vote YES on 90

Stop government from taking people’s

property without proper compensation.

Vote YES!

Prop 1B - YES • Prop 1C - NO • Prop 1E - YES

California State Initiatives (partial listing)

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Delivered by

your volunteer

Republican

Neighborhood

Precinct

Representative

Republican Party of San Diego County Official Voting Guide

SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Richard “Dick” Mountjoy US Senate

Blake Miles 51st Congressional District

Duncan Hunter 52nd Congressional District

John “Woody” Woodrum 53rd Congressional District

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4
Republican Party of San Diego County

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107

San Diego, CA 92121

78_9_06

Place

Stamp

Here

Vote on Tuesday, November 7th

Polls open at 7:00am and Close at 8:00pm

A Member Communication • Paid for by The Republican Party of San Diego County • Not authorized by any candidate campaign or committee.

5703 Oberlin Drive, Suite 107 • San Diego, CA 92121 • (858) 450-4600 • Fax (858) 450-4454 • SanDiegoRepublicans.org

CITY OFFICES

City of Chula Vista

Cheryl Cox - Mayor

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community

College Board

Deana Weeks - Division 1

Rick Alexander - Division 2

Bill Garrett - Division 3

Arkan Somo - Division 5

Southwestern Community 

College Board

G. Michael German - Seat 2

Jorge Dominguez - Seat 5

San Diego Unified School District

Michael “Mike” McSweeney

Grossmont Union High School Board

Robert Shield

Shari Groce

Jim Kelly

Sweetwater Union High 

School District

Jim Cartmill - District 1

Archie McAllister - District 3

Ed Herrera - District 5

Cajon Valley Union School District

Jill Barto

Chula Vista Elementary 

School District

Larry Cunningham - District 5

La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board

Bob Duff

Emma Turner

Rick Winet

Penny Halgren

WATER DISTRICTS

Helix Water District

James Lewanski - Division 4

DeAna Verbeke - Division 2

Otay Water District

Larry Breitfelder - Division 1

Gary Croucher - Division 3

FIRE DISTRICTS

Bonita-Sunnyside Fire 

Protection District 

Thomas Pocklington

Joanne Stonecipher

San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection Board

J.R. “Randy” Terry

Will Eastwood

San Miguel Fire Protection District

Tom Clark

Richard “Rick” Augustine

SPECIAL DISTRICTS

Grossmont Healthcare Board

Hikmat Shammas

Jamul/Dulzura Community 

Planning Board

Randy White

Janet Mulder

Janice Grace

Spring Valley Community 

Planning Board

Marilyn Wilkinson

Sweetwater Community 

Planning Board 

Harriet Taylor

John Taylor

Rick Blacklock

Alan Sachrison

Ken Byrd

Valle de Oro Community 

Planning Board

John Hewicker

Donald Fitchett 

Please bring this flyer to your polling place on Election Day!

Official Republican Candidates for Important Local Offices.

For complete information and ballot recommendations visit www.SanDiegoRepublicans.org

Vote

Republican!

:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-21 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4

SanDiegoRepublicans.org
FEC Exhibit 21 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 9
Your Official Orange County

Republican Party Endorsements...

Paid for by the California Republican Party and

not authorized by any candidate or committee

1903 West Magnolia Blvd.

Burbank, CA 91506

Non-Profit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

California

Republican Party

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 9
Secretary of State

Bruce McPherson

Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Controller

Tony Strickland

Insurance Commissioner

Steve Poizner

Treasurer

Claude Parrish

Attorney General

Chuck Poochigian

“Schwarzenegger has brought a

pragmatic flair to bureaucratic

and partisan Sacramento. And

he's engineered real solutions

to some of the state's most

pressing problems. This act

deserves a sequel, and

Schwarzenegger deserves

another term in office.”

Los Angeles Daily News

October 1, 2006

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 9
Lieutenant Governor

Tom McClintock

Orange County is McClintock Country!

Tom McClintock is California's #1 Taxpayer Advocate, who

led the fight to repeal the Car Tax, and...

✓ Will fight to slash government bureaucracy

✓ Restore fiscal accountability

✓ Stop wasteful deficit spending

Experience we know and trust!

Tom McClintock for Lieutenant Governor!

“Despite all the happy talk out

of Sacramento in recent months,

the long-term budget picture is

best described as grim. 

This is why more than ever

California needs a passionate fiscal

conservative in the bully pulpit. 

McClintock could not be more

suited for the role.”

San Diego Union-Tribune

October 17, 2006

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 4 of 9
Protect Our Homes — Stop Eminent Domain Abuse

YES on Proposition 90

It is wrong for government to take one person’s private property

and turn it over to another private party, simply to increase tax

revenues. Proposition 90 stops this outrageous and un-American

practice.

Assemblywoman Mimi Walters

Honorary State Chair

YES on 90/Protect Our Homes Committee

Proposition 90 will stop government from seizing homes, small

businesses, churches and other private property and turning them

over to private developers.

California Republican Party 

California Republican Assembly

California Congress of Republicans

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

National Tax Limitation Committee

California Taxpayer Protection

Committee

National Association of Independent

Business

Fullerton Concerned Taxpayers

The Orange County Register

Senator Tom McClintock

Congressman Ed Royce

Congressman John Campbell

Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer

Assemblywoman Mimi Walters

Former Assemblywoman Pat Bates

Supervisor Chris Norby

Supervisor Jim Silva

Treasurer John Moorlach

*partial list 

Proposition 90 is proudly

endorsed by:

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 5 of 9
Stop the $2.1 billion tax hike. Ninety

percent goes to special interests, state

bureaucracies, and no-bid contracts.

Only 10% for anti-smoking programs.

No on Proposition 86

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Orange County Taxpayers Association

Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce

Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

National Tax Limitation Committee

Tom McClintock, State Senator

Chuck DeVore, Assembly Member

Dennis Mountjoy, Assembly Member

Mimi Walters, Assembly Member

Join these trusted organizations and

leaders in opposing Proposition 86

Who

really

benefits from

? Prop. 86

?

“I support efforts to curb smoking, but

Proposition 86 isn't really about that. Only 10% ?

of the $2.1 billion in new taxes goes to antismoking programs. The rest goes to special

interests promoting the measure and to state

programs where there is little assurance the

money won't be wasted. Now is not the time to

saddle Californians with billions in new taxes.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

NoProp86.org

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 6 of 9
Higher taxes. Higher gas prices. Less money for schools and public safety.

No on Proposition 87

A $4 billion oil tax increase

equals higher gas prices.

Proposition 87 lets a new

bureaucracy (50 political

appointees) spend with no

results required. Join the

California Chamber of

Commerce in voting “No”!

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 7 of 9
✓ No young girl should

undergo any invasive medical procedure performed

secretly by an unknown

person at an unknown

location.

✓ Any other surgical procedure performed on a

minor child requires not

only the notification but

the consent of a parent.

Prop. 85 — It just makes sense

● Creates a slush fund for

negative political ads

● Takes your tax dollars to

fund extreme liberal candidates

Join these California organizations in opposing Prop. 89...

● California Taxpayers’

Association

● Howard Jarvis Taxpayers

Association 

● National Tax Limitation

Committee 

● National Taxpayers Union 

● Orange County Taxpayers

Association

Jessica’s Law will...

● Ensure that all child predators who molest children

under the age of 14 are put

in prison with a mandatory

minimum sentence of 15

years or 25 years to life.

● Require sex offenders serve

their entire sentence.

● Electronically monitor convicted sex offenders for life.

● Create a 2,000 foot “predator-free” zone around

schools and parks to prevent sex offenders from living near where our children

learn and play.

Yes on Prop. 83 Yes on Prop. 85 No on Prop. 89

“Jessica’s Law” “Protect our daughters” Say “no” to new taxes

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 8 of 9
The Orange County Republican Party

urges your support for these local candidates...

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-22 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 9 of 9
 

Rasmussen ReportsTM: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data A... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politic...

1 of 3 3/9/2009 1:24 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-23 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 3
Monday, February 09, 2009 Email to a Friend

Advertisement

Most Say Political Donors Get More Than

Their Money’s Worth

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of

American adults say political

donors get more than their

money back in terms of favors

from members of Congress.

Just 16% disagree, and 26%

are not sure in the latest

Rasmussen Reports national

telephone survey.

At the same time, 68% say

most business leaders

contribute to political

campaigns primarily because

the government can do so

much to help or hurt their

business. Only eight percent (8%) disagree.

Among business managers in the private sector, 83% say business leaders give

primarily because of concern about what the government can do to their business. But

those same business leaders are less likely than anybody else to think that donors get

their money’s worth: 56% think donors get a good return on investment, while 34%

do not.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

Data released yesterday shows that Americans strongly believe elected officials meet

with regulators to help their friends and hurt their opponents. Taken together, these

figures suggest that most Americans view the political fund-raising process as

something like an extortion scheme where those with business before the

government can be shaken down legally. Rod Blagojevich was recently removed from

office as governor of Illinois based upon similar allegations.

Americans also tend to believe that governors and members of Congress are a

relatively cheap date. Most (51%) say you can influence an official for less than

$50,000 in contributions. That figure includes 29% who say the price of influence is

less than $10,000. At the other extreme, only 18% believe it takes more than

$100,000 to buy or rent influence.

Upper income Americans are more likely than those with lower incomes to say you

can influence a congressman or governor for $50,000 or less. Business managers are

more likely to say the price of influence tops $100,000.

Forty percent (40%) of Americans say it should be against the law for elected officials

to receive any campaign contributions, but another 40% disagree. Republicans are a

bit more receptive to this idea than Democrats, and business managers favor it by a

41% to 37% margin. Those with higher incomes are less receptive to the concept

than those who earn less than $40,000 annually.

Americans are also evenly divided on the question of whether new campaign finance

laws are needed. Forty-three percent (43%) say yes, but 42% say all that’s required

is to enforce the laws already on the books. A plurality of Democrats favor new laws,

a plurality of Republicans favor enforcement, and those not affiliated with either

major party are evenly divided. Earlier surveys have shown that there is little support

for public funding of campaigns.

It should be emphasized that these views do not have a partisan twist to them.

Despite the highly publicized tax troubles faced by recent Obama appointees, those

appointed by the incoming administration are on balance seen as no more or less

ethical than earlier appointees. The president himself receives good marks for ethics,

with 43% saying he is more ethical than most politicians. Another 31% say he is at

least as ethical as most politicians.

Overall, the president continues to earn high job approval ratings although his

Survey of 1,000 Adults

February 5-6, 2009

Do most contributors to Congressional

campaigns get more than their money

back in terms of favors and special

interest legislation?

Yes 57%

No 16%

Not sure 26%

TOP STORIES

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Predict the Poll Results: What Will

Obama's Approval Index Be on

April 30, 2009?

What They Told Us: Reviewing

Last Week’s Key Polls

A Mud Fight of Civil Rights By

Debra J. Saunders

Unemployment Report Drives

Consumer and Investor

Confidence to Record Lows

Voters Divided on Obama Budget

Obama Lied; The Economy Died

By Tony Blankley

Just 32% Have Favorable Opinion

of General Motors

Number Who Say U.S. Is Heading

In Right Direction Hits Another

High

Approval Of Congress Up, But

Voters Downplay Its

Accomplishments

Advertisement

Advertisement

Home

Politics

Business

Lifestyle

Rasmussen Video

Political Commentary

Recent Polls

RR In The News

Premium Login

Advertisement

Will Obama help U.S ?

Will Obama be a good

President? Do you back's his

plans? Vote here

www.Newsmax.com

Rasmussen ReportsTM: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data A... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politic...

2 of 3 3/9/2009 1:24 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-23 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 3
numbers have slipped in the past week. Most voters say Congress is doing a poor job.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free)... let us keep

you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members

only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection,

publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeTM Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the

most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster

for more than a decade.

This national telephone survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted by Rasmussen Reports February 5-6,

2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of

confidence (see methodology).

©2009 Rasmussen Reports, LLC

About Us | Advertise With Us | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us

Media Interviews & Advertising Sales: 732-776-9777

Web development by Kurani Interactive

Rasmussen ReportsTM: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data A... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politic...

3 of 3 3/9/2009 1:24 PM

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-23 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) NOTICE 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

NOTICE OF FILING 

Defendant Federal Election Commission hereby submits on the accompanying DVD, for 

the convenience of the Court, the Defendants’ Exhibit Volumes (“DEVs”) filed in McConnell v. 

FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C.), aff’d 540 U.S. 93 (2003). This includes DEVs 1-134, an 

index, and a table of contents, but excludes sealed material. Courtesy copies of the DVD are 

being delivered to each Judge’s Chambers, and additional copies are being sent to Plaintiffs’ and 

Intervenor-Defendants’ counsel by private delivery service. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-24 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
2

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: March 9, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-24 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

et al., ) NOTICE 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

NOTICE OF FILING UNDER SEAL 

Pursuant to the stipulations of the parties (Docket Nos. 34, 35), Defendant Federal 

Election Commission (“Commission”) hereby submits the following documents under seal: 

(1) The Commission’s Statement of Genuine Issues, including material that was 

redacted from paragraph 26 of the electronically filed version of that document; 

(2) FEC Exhibits 22, 23, and 24; and 

(3) For the convenience of the Court, one CD containing the Defendants’ Exhibit 

Volumes (“DEVs”) filed in McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C.), 

aff’d 540 U.S. 93 (2003), that contained material produced under seal in that 

action by the Republican National Committee and the California Republican 

Party. 

Courtesy copies of the sealed material are being delivered to each Judge’s Chambers, and 

additional copies are being sent to Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ counsel by private 

delivery service. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-25 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 2
2

Thomasenia P. Duncan (D.C. Bar No. 424222) 

General Counsel 

David Kolker (D.C. Bar No. 394558) 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Adav Noti 

Adav Noti (D.C. Bar No. 490714) 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Dated: March 9, 2009 (202) 694-1650 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-25 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ) 

et al., ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

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

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ORDER 

et al., ) 

 )

 Defendants. ) 

_______________________________________) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion, Defendant Federal 

Election Commission’s opposition thereto, and other materials submitted in support thereof and 

in opposition thereto, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion is DENIED. 

_________________________________ 

BRETT M. KAVANAUGH 

United States Circuit Judge 

 _________________________________ 

RICHARD J. LEON 

United States District Judge 

 _________________________________ 

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER 

United States District Judge 

Dated: ___________________, 2009 

Case 1:08-cv-01953-RJL-RMC Document 39-26 Filed 03/09/2009 Page 1 of 1