IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. ) 

Washington, DC 20001, ) 

 ) 

NOAH BOOKBINDER ) 

10206 Brookmoor Dr. ) 

Silver Spring, MD 20901 ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 18-1059 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

1050 First St., N.E. ) 

Washington, DC 20463 ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA” or “the Act”), 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), challenging the 

Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC” or “Commission”) failure to act on an administrative 

complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) and Noah 

Bookbinder (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against DE First Holdings, Coalition for Progress, Ana 

Rivas, and Unknown Respondent(s) (collectively “Respondents”) for violating the FECA’s ban 

on making political contributions in the name of another, knowingly permitting one’s name to be 

used to effect a contribution in the name of another, and knowingly accepting a contribution 

made by one person in the name of another. Plaintiffs filed their administrative complaint on 

February 19, 2016, more than two years ago. Yet the FEC has, to date, failed to act on the 

complaint. 

 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 1 of 13
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

2. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal 

jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 702. This 

Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201(a), and 2202. 

Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 

PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation organized under section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

4. CREW is committed to protecting the right of citizens to be informed about the 

activities of government officials, ensuring the integrity of government officials, protecting our 

political system against corruption, and reducing the influence of money in politics. CREW 

works to advance reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and transparency. 

Further, CREW seeks to ensure that campaign finance laws are properly interpreted, enforced, 

and implemented. 

5. To advance its mission, CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, 

advocacy, and public education to disseminate information to the public about public officials 

and their actions, and the outside influences that have been brought to bear on those actions. A 

core part of this work is examining and exposing the special interests that have influenced our 

elections and elected officials and using that information to educate voters regarding the integrity 

of public officials, candidates for public office, the electoral process, and our system of 

government. 

6. Toward this end, CREW monitors the activities of those who run for federal 

office as well as those groups financially supporting candidates for office or advocating for or 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 2 of 13
3

against their election. CREW regularly reviews campaign finance reports that groups, candidates, 

and political parties file with the FEC disclosing their expenditures and, in some cases, their 

contributors. Using the information in those reports, CREW, through its website, press releases, 

reports, and other methods of distribution, publicizes the role of these individuals and entities in 

the electoral process and the extent to which they have violated federal campaign finance laws. 

7. CREW also files complaints with the FEC when it discovers violations of the 

FECA. Publicizing violations of the FECA and filing complaints with the FEC serve CREW’s 

mission of keeping the public, and voters in particular, informed about individuals and entities 

that violate campaign finance laws and deterring future violations of campaign finance laws. 

8. CREW is hindered in carrying out its core programmatic activities when those 

individuals and entities that attempt to influence elections and elected officials are able to keep 

their identities hidden. Likewise, the FEC’s refusal to properly administer the campaign finance 

laws, particularly the FECA’s reporting requirements, hinders CREW in its programmatic 

activity, as compliance with those reporting requirements often provides CREW with the only 

source of information about those individuals and groups funding the political process. As a 

result of the FEC’s refusal to enforce the FECA, organizations and individuals are able to 

launder their contributions through third parties. This deprives CREW of information critical to 

advancing its ongoing mission of educating the public to ensure the public continues to have a 

vital voice in our political process and government decisions. 

9. A part of CREW’s work in carrying out its central mission CREW focuses on socalled “pay-to-play” schemes. Toward that end, CREW looks for correlations between donations 

to the campaign of a member of Congress or candidate and that member’s subsequent 

congressional activities, including advocating for policies and legislation that serve the interests 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 3 of 13
4

of the member’s donors. Information that an individual or entity made a large-dollar contribution 

may be very revealing about the influences that donor has brought to bear on the member postelection. Without information about the individuals and entities funding the political activities of 

organizations and individuals, CREW is stymied in fulfilling its central mission. 

10. As an example, in May 2015, CREW issued a report, Welcome to Washington: 

New Members of Congress Attract Special Interest Money, that analyzed fundraising by newly 

elected members of Congress in their first year in office. CREW’s analysis was based on FEC 

campaign contribution records that identified contributions to those members from special 

interest PACs, including PACs tied to corporations, unions, and issues groups. From this data, 

CREW determined that new members of the House of Representatives embraced fundraising 

from special interests after they took office and became more reliant on that money than they had 

been as candidates. Those members raised nearly $17.3 million from special interest PACs in 

2015, an increase of 15.8% over the amount they raised as candidates during the entire 2014 

election cycle. CREW further found that special interest PAC money accounted for an average of 

37.6% of total funds raised by the new members in 2015, more than double the 17.3% rate from 

the 2014 election cycle. CREW was able to obtain this information because of the disclosure 

requirements to which the organizations receiving those contributions – federal candidates, party 

committees, PACs, and super PACs – are subject under the FECA. 

11. As another example, on August 21, 2017, CREW published a blog post entitled 

Synchronized Spending: The Dark Money Phantom’s New Illusion, which highlighted section 

501(c)(4) dark money nonprofits that fully fund multiple federal super PACs that attack or 

support the same candidates. By making the work of one group appear to be the work of two 

independent groups, this tactic misleads the public, exaggerates candidates’ outside support, and 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 4 of 13
5

exacerbates the problems caused by secret money in politics. CREW obtained the information 

used in this post from information the FECA requires political committees to disclose. 

12. Plaintiff Noah Bookbinder is the executive director of CREW. He is a citizen of 

the United States and a registered voter and resident of the state of Maryland. As a registered 

voter, Mr. Bookbinder is entitled to receive all the information the FECA requires those engaged 

in political activities to report publicly. He is further entitled to the FEC’s proper administration 

of the provisions of the FECA. Mr. Bookbinder is harmed in exercising his right to an informed 

vote when a political committee fails to report the true source of its contributions, as the FECA 

requires. 

13. When Plaintiffs file complaints against violators of the FECA, they rely on the 

FEC, as the preliminary civil enforcement authority, to comply strictly with the FECA when 

making its investigative and enforcement decisions. See 52 U.S.C. § 30107(e). Plaintiffs are 

harmed and are “aggrieved” parties when the FEC refuses to act on meritorious complaints, 

refuses to enforce the FECA’s mandatory disclosure requirements, or otherwise acts contrary to 

the requirements of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

14. Defendant FEC is the federal agency established by Congress to oversee the 

administration and civil enforcement of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30106(b)(l). 

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 

15. The FECA and FEC regulations prohibit making a contribution in the name of 

another person, knowingly permitting one’s name to be used for the purpose of making a 

contribution in the name of another person, and knowingly accepting a contribution made by one 

person in the name of another person. Specifically, 52 U.S.C. § 30122 provides: “No person shall 

make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 5 of 13
6

effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one 

person in the name of another person.” 

16. FEC implementing regulations, 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b), echo these provisions, 

prohibiting making a contribution in the name of another, knowingly permitting one’s name to 

be used to effect a contribution, knowingly helping or assisting another to do so, and knowingly 

accepting a contribution made by one person in the name of another person. The regulation 

includes, as an example of a prohibited contribution, giving money, “all or part of which was 

provided to the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source 

of money[.]” Id. at § 110.4(b)(2). 

17. Under the FECA, any person who believes there has been a violation of the Act 

may file a sworn complaint with the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(l). Based on the complaint, the 

response from the person or entity alleged to have violated the Act, facts developed by the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”), and any OGC recommendation, the FEC decides whether there is 

“reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). A “reason to 

believe” exists where a complaint “credibly alleges” a violation of the FECA “may have 

occurred.” FEC, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial 

Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545 (Mar. 16, 2007). 

18. Under the FECA, the FEC has a 120-day period beginning on the date the 

administrative complaint is filed to act on the administrative complaint without the potential of 

subsequent action by the complainant. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). 

19. If the FEC fails to act on an administrative complaint within the 120-day period, 

any party aggrieved by the FEC’s failure to act may file a petition with the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia. Id.

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 6 of 13
7

20. This Court may issue a declaratory judgment that the FEC’s failure to act on an 

administrative complaint is contrary to law and “may direct the Commission to conform with 

such declaration within 30 days.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

21. The administrative complaint underlying this action concerned a $1,000,000 

contribution made on December 24, 2015 to Coalition for Progress, an independent expenditureonly committee (“super PAC”) reportedly formed in 2015 to support Steven Fulop’s expected 

campaign for governor of New Jersey. Coalition for Progress reported to the FEC that the 

contribution was made by DE First Holdings, a Delaware Statutory Trust. 

22. DE First Holdings was formed in Delaware on December 23, 2015, the day before 

it contributed the $1,000,000 to Coalition for Progress. On information and belief, DE First 

Holdings did not generate sufficient income in its one day of existence prior to the $1,000,000 

donation to Coalition for Progress to account for the contribution. DE First Holdings does not 

appear to conduct any business, and it does not have a presence on the Internet. Rather, it appears 

an Unknown Respondent (or Respondents) used DE First Holdings as a conduit to make the 

$1,000,000 contribution to Coalition for Progress. 

23. As a Delaware Statutory Trust, DE First Holdings is not required to disclose the 

identities of its beneficial owners on its Delaware registration. 12 Del. Code § 3810(a)(1); Morris 

James LLP, An Overview of the Delaware Statutory Trust Act in Structured Finance 

Transactions, 2014, available at http://bit.ly/2GTKyUt. 

24. The address provided for DE First Holdings on Coalition for Progress’s disclosure 

forms match that of its Delaware registered agent, the Delaware Trust Company, at 2711 

Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. The Delaware Trust Company “does not 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 7 of 13
8

publicly disclosure its clients.” Matt Friedman, Dark Money Fuels Pro-Fulop Super PAC, 

Politico New Jersey, Feb. 1, 2016, available at https://politi.co/2GXJGdv. 

25. On February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs CREW and Mr. Bookbinder filed an 

administrative complaint with the FEC seeking an investigation and enforcement action against 

DE First Holdings, the Unknown Respondent (or Respondents), Coalition for Progress, and its 

treasurer, Ana Rivas, for violations of the FECA. A true and correct copy of this administrative 

complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

26. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint alleged DE First Holdings and the Unknown 

Respondent (or Respondents) violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b), which 

prohibit knowingly and willfully making a political contribution in the name of another person, 

or knowingly and willfully permitting one’s name to be used by another to make a political 

contribution. The administrative complaint further alleged that Coalition for Progress and Ms. 

Rivas violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b) by knowingly accepting a political 

contribution from one person in the name of another. 

27. In a letter to Plaintiff Bookbinder dated February 25, 2016, the FEC 

acknowledged receipt of the administrative complaint. The complaint was assigned Matter Under 

Review (“MUR”) number 7014. 

28. As of the date of this filing, the FEC has not reached a final decision on MUR 

7014, over two years after receiving the initial administrative complaint. 

29. Multi-year delays in acting on a pending complaint are not uncommon at the FEC, 

leading one FEC commissioner to express concern that “[e]ffective enforcement of the law is 

undermined by pervasive delays.” In the Matter of American Conservative Union, et al.,

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 8 of 13
9

Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Weintraub, MUR 6920, (Dec. 19, 2017) available at 

http://bit.ly/2CDnumJ. 

30. The pervasive delays also often serve as a cause for other FEC commissioners to 

halt enforcement actions. For example, on May 23, 2011, CREW filed a complaint with the FEC 

alleging that the Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity (“CHGO”) violated the FECA 

by spending more than $2.3 million to broadcast television ads in 12 elections for seats in the 

House of Representatives. Despite the nature and extent of the spending, CHGO failed to register 

as a political committee and failed to file disclosures as required by the FECA, which CREW 

alleged constituted violations of the FECA. In the Matter of The Commission on Hope Growth 

and Opportunity, Complaint, MUR 6471 (May 23, 2011) available at http://bit.ly/2qHA6aL. The 

complaint languished before the FEC, with months and even years passing between actions. See

id., Summary, available at http://bit.ly/2o52aBt. Finally, in November 2015, more than four 

years after CREW filed its complaint, three controlling commissioners voted to exercise their 

discretion to dismiss the case and close the file without finding reason to believe that there was a 

violation of the FECA, in part because the “statute of limitations [had] effectively expired.” Id., 

Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman, MURs 6391 and 6471 (Nov. 

6, 2015), available at http://bit.ly/2D8LW0m. CREW has since brought suit challenging this 

dismissal as contrary to law, and litigation is ongoing. See CREW v. FEC, Case No. 17-5049 

(D.C. Cir.) (appeal pending). 

31. Similarly, on February 27, 2015, CREW filed a complaint against American 

Conservative Union, Now or Never PAC, James C. Thomas III, and an Unknown Respondent 

alleging legal violations stemming from a failure to disclosure the true source of a $1.71 million 

contribution to Now or Never PAC. In the Matter of American Conservative Union, et al., 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 9 of 13
10

Complaint, MUR 6920 (Feb. 27, 2015), available at http://bit.ly/2D6UHI7. OGC investigated 

the allegations and recommended finding reason to believe the respondents violated the FECA. 

Id., First General Counsel’s Report (Jan. 20, 2016), available at http://bit.ly/2swd1sQ. That 

report, however, sat before the commissioners for a full year, and by the time the FEC was 

willing to move forward on the matter it was “just about out of time.” Id., Statement of Reasons 

of Comm’r Weintraub (Dec. 19, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2CDnumJ. 

32. While the FEC eventually found reason to believe that certain respondents 

violated the FECA, resulting in a $350,000 fine, the controlling commissioners ultimately 

declined to pursue investigation and enforcement against other unknown respondents who were 

either the true source of the contribution or also acted as a conduit, justifying this decision in 

large part due to the impending statute of limitations. Id., Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs 

Hunter and Goodman (Dec. 20, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2CTqQ8q. The decision not to 

pursue further investigation constituted “an egregious example of someone using a web of 

organizations to hide the true source of a $1.7 million contribution to a super PAC — and getting 

away with it.” Id., Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Weintraub (Dec. 19, 2017), available at 

http://bit.ly/2CDnumJ. CREW has since brought suit challenging the FEC’s dismissal of the 

complaint against the other unknown respondents as contrary to law. See CREW v. FEC, Case 

No. 1:17-cv-2770 (D.D.C.) (ABJ) (litigation ongoing). 

33. Such delays commonly impact the FEC’s ability to carry out its enforcement 

function, as documents may be destroyed or lost and witness memories may fade. In addition, the 

running of the five-year statute of limitations constrains the FEC’s enforcement, as after the 

statute has run, it can no longer issue fines. 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 10 of 13
11

34. These delays also hamper CREW’s ability to access the information that it is 

entitled to under the statute. Furthermore, to the extent evidence is lost or degraded during a 

multi-year delay at the FEC, the delay undermines CREW’s ability to litigate under the FECA 

should CREW file a suit alleging that an FEC final action is contrary to law. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(FEC Inaction Contrary to Law) 

35. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if 

fully set forth herein. 

36. On February 19, 2016, more than two years ago, the FEC received Plaintiffs’ 

administrative complaint against DE First Holdings, Unknown Respondent (or Respondents), 

Coalition for Progress, and Ana Rivas. 

37. Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint credibly alleged violations of FECA and FEC 

regulations by DE First Holdings, Unknown Respondent (or Respondents), Coalition for 

Progress, and Ana Rivas. 

38. The FEC has failed to act in a timely manner on the administrative complaint, and 

to date has not reached a resolution or disclosed taking any action on the complaint. 

39. On information and belief, the factual allegations contained in the administrative 

complaint can be verified by examining public records readily available to the FEC and by 

interviewing a small number of individuals. 

40. Sufficient time has elapsed to allow the FEC to conduct an investigation of MUR 

7014. The FEC’s failure to act on the administrative complaint is unreasonable and contrary to 

law under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), and the Court may compel the FEC to act. 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 11 of 13
12

41. Any party aggrieved by the failure of the FEC to act on an administrative 

complaint may petition the Court for a declaration that the failure is unlawful and for an order 

that the FEC to conform with this declaration within 30 days. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). 

42. Action by the FEC on MUR 7014 may result in the FEC compelling Coalition for 

Progress to amend their disclosures to properly identify its donors. If the FEC determines that 

any of the Respondents acted knowingly and willfully, it may make a referral to the Department 

of Justice for investigation into possible criminal penalties. 

43. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the FEC’s failure to act on the administrative 

complaint. The FEC’s failure to act has allowed Coalition for Progress to continue to not 

correctly identify the persons who have donated money to the organization. This failure to 

disclose information to which Plaintiffs are entitled hinders CREW in its programmatic activity 

and hinders Mr. Bookbinder in his ability to review campaign finance information. 

44. Thorough investigation of administrative complaints and timely action by the 

FEC in making a final determination is in the public interest, and the FEC should rule on 

Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint without further delay. 

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 12 of 13
13

REQUESTED RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 

(1) Declare that the FEC’s failure to act on Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint 

(MUR 7014) is contrary to law; 

(2) Order the FEC to act on the administrative complaint within 30 days, pursuant to 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C); and 

(3) Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_/s/ Stuart McPhail_______________ 

Stuart McPhail 

(D.C. Bar No. 1032529) 

Adam J. Rappaport 

(D.C. Bar No. 479866) 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

 in Washington 

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202) 408-5565 

Fax: (202) 897-1996 

smcphail@citizensforethics.org

Case 1:18-cv-01059-TNM Document 1 Filed 05/04/18 Page 13 of 13