1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________

 )

STEVE SCHONBERG )

 )

7938 SE 12th Circle )

 Ocala, FL 34480 )

Phone #: 352-789-0610 ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 10-2040 (RWR,JWR,CKK)

 )

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 )

 999 E Street, NW )

Washington, DC 20463 )

 ) THREE-JUDGE COURT

 )

THE UNITED STATES, )

 ) 

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW )

Washington, DC 20530-0001 )

 )

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action facially challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA”), 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 because they violate the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to provide Equal 

Protection, Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954)1

 1 The right of Equal Protection in the Fifth Amendment was also discussed in Buckley v. Valeo, 

424 U.S. 1, the seminal case on the Constitutionality of FECA. 

The BCRA challenges include BCRA 116 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 1 of 66
2

Stat. 81,84 at (e) regarding “Federal Candidates,” BCRA 116 Stat. 81,88 “TITLE II,” and BCRA 

116 Stat. 81,95 “TITLE III.” 

2. This cause of action also facially challenges the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C. §432,

§434, §439, §439a, and §441i and BCRA §301. These statutes allow members of Congress to 

appoint themselves and act as Agents and civil Officers under the authority of the United States 

in contravention of Article I, § 6, Clause 2 and Article II, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. 

3. This action also contends that BCRA and FECA are facially unconstitutional and in 

violation of Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution, the “Compensation Clause,” 

because they allow unconstitutional compensation to members of Congress.

4. This action also claims that 2 U.S.C. § 57b, “Representational allowance for Members 

of House of Representatives,” a/k/a “MRA,” is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process 

Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to provide Equal 

Protection. The MRA law is also a violation of the Compensation Clause of the Constitution

recited above.

5. This action also asserts that earmarked legislation is an unconstitutional violation of 

the Compensation Clause and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Specifically with respect to Plaintiff’s candidacy for the U. S. House of Representatives, he 

alleges:

5.1 An Earmark to Central Florida Community College in the 2010 

Appropriations Bill, “Energy and Water,” for $300,000 for “ Energy Saving Retrofitting for the 

CFCC Main Campus” is unconstitutional.

5.2 An Earmark to the University of Florida in the 2010 Defense Bill for 

 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 2 of 66
3

$2,200,000 for “Remote Environmental Monitoring and Diagnositics in the Perishable Supply 

Chain” is unconstitutional.

5(a). Because three different sets of laws apply to the jurisdiction and procedures of the 

Courts involved, where possible, Plaintiff has trifurcated his constitutional causes of action into 

those brought under BCRA, those brought under FECA, and those brought under other laws of 

the United States.

5(b). This action also challenges the constitutionality of BCRA, as applied, with respect 

to BCRA §§101, 202, 203, 204, 211, 214, and 301. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and BCRA § 403, 116 Stat. 

at 113-14, because Plaintiff elects “such provisions to apply to the action.” BCRA § 403(d)(2), 

116 Stat. at 114. 

6(a). This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h, the Judicial Review 

Provision of FECA.

7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and BCRA § 403,

116 Stat. at 113-14, because Plaintiff elects “such provisions to apply to the action.” BCRA

403(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 114.

 III. THREE-JUDGE and SINGLE JUDGE PANELS

8(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and BCRA § 403, 116 Stat. at 113-14, Plaintiff

Requested and received a three-judge panel to hear and resolve this Second Amended Complaint. 

Pursuant to BCRA § 403(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 114, Plaintiff elects the provisions of BCRA § 403(a) 

to apply to this action. 

8(b). 2 U.S.C. § 437h requires the single judge U.S. District Court to immediately certify 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 3 of 66
4

all questions of constitutionality of FECA to the United States court of appeals for the circuit 

involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.

8(c). Plaintiff’s claims regarding the MRA and earmarked legislation can be heard by the 

single Judge U.S. District Court, but because they are inextricably intertwined with Plaintiff’s 

BCRA and FECA claims, they should be heard by both the Three-Judge Court and the en banc 

Court of Appeals.

 IV. ELECTION FOR EXPEDITION

9. Pursuant to BCRA § 403(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 114, Plaintiff elects the provisions of 

BCRA § 403(a) to apply to this action and that disposition be expedited to “the greatest possible 

extent.”

 V. ELECTION FOR APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

10. Pursuant to BCRA § 403(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 114, Plaintiff elects the provisions of 

BCRA § 403(a) to apply to this action and that the action shall be reviewable only by appeal 

directly to the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to those claims brought under 

BCRA.

 VI. THE PARTIES

11. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida and a member of the Democratic Party. 

Plaintiff’s Congressman is the longstanding, honorable, U.S. Representative from Florida,

Congressional District 6.2 Rep.FL6 defeated Plaintiff, a no party affiliation candidate, in the 

2010 general election.3

 2 The gentleman will hereafter be referred to as “Rep.FL6.”

Plaintiff is a no party affiliation candidate for the 2012 election for this 

3 Plaintiff is the same person as the one who filed Schonberg v. FEC at 

http://fec.gov/law/litigation/schonberg.shtml (Case No. 5:09-cv-534-Oc-32JRK.) That case was 

dismissed without prejudice in November, 2010.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 4 of 66
5

same House seat.

11(a). Plaintiff is a taxpayer, and he is eligible to vote in any election for the office of 

President.

11(b). Rep.FL6 was responsible for the earmarked legislation identified in paragraphs 

5.1 and 5.2 above.4

 4

These are just a few of Rep.FL6’s earmarks in the last 2 years. The earmark information was 

accessed from legistorm.com on February 11, 2011 at 

 His Congressional candidacy, compensation and family income was and will 

be the beneficiary of those earmarks.

12. In running for the 2012 House seat FL-06, Plaintiff has and will campaign on the 

principle that FECA and BCRA are unconstitutional. He also will campaign that the MRA law 

and earmarked legislation are unconstitutional. In the 2010 election Plaintiff received the most 

votes of any “no party affiliation” candidate running for the U.S. House of Representatives from 

the State of Florida.

13. Defendant United States is responsible for enforcing 2 U.S.C. § 57b and providing 

MRA funds to members of Congress. Defendant United States is also mandated to enforce its 

laws prohibiting bribery, fraud, and misuse of government funds by members of Congress. 

13(a). Defendant United States also enforces FECA, BCRA, the MRA and the doling out 

of money from the U.S. Treasury for unconstitutional earmarked legislation.

14. Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) is the government agency with 

enforcement authority over FECA and BCRA and was created by Congress with the passage of 

http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/492/Rep_Cliff_Stearns_FL/page/1/sort/amo

unt/type/desc.html, 

http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/492/Rep_Cliff_Stearns_FL/page/2/sort/amo

unt/type/asc/year/all.html, 

http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/492/Rep_Cliff_Stearns_FL/page/4/sort/amo

unt/type/asc/year/all.html.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 5 of 66
6

FECA.

VII. FACTS

 A. ELECTION FACTS IN GENERAL

15. Unbridled corruption in Congress plagues the People of the United States, 73% of 

who now disapprove of the job performance of our legislative branch of government. 

16. FECA, BCRA, the MRA law, and earmarked legislation do not prevent gifting, 

bribery, and influence peddling in Congress. FECA, BCRA, the MRA law, and earmarked 

legislation permit and encourage corruption in Congress.

17. FECA, BCRA, the MRA law and earmarked legislation enable incumbent members 

of Congress to gain an unfair election advantage over their challengers. They also provide 

compensation to members of Congress over and above their salaries. 

18. Plaintiff is a civil Officer and Agent of “Schonberg for Congress,” his principal 

campaign committee. As a civil Officer and Agent, Plaintiff is acting under the Authority of the 

United States. 

19. Plaintiff is also a “public official” acting under the authority of the Defendant FEC as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201.

20. Rep.FL6 is a member of Congress. He is a civil Officer and Agent of “Friends of 

Rep.FL6,” his principal campaign committee. As a civil Officer and Agent, Rep.FL6 is acting 

under the Authority of the United States. 

21. Rep.FL6 is also a “public official” acting under the authority of the Defendant FEC 

as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 201. 

22. Rep.FL6 receives MRA funding, and he creates earmarked legislation.

23. Plaintiff receives no election assistance from the federal government.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 6 of 66
7

24. Plaintiff took no campaign contributions in the 2010 election cycle because they are 

unconstitutional bribes, and he will take none in 2012 election cycle. 

25. Rep.FL6 took in $624,000 in emoluments for the 2010 election cycle through 

October 13, 2010. Rep.FL6 will probably have his best emolument-raising years ever in the 

2012 election cycle.5

 5 At the time of this filing, Rep.FL6 had not become a candidate for the 2012 election. This 

Complaint assumes that Rep.FL6 will be a candidate. If Rep.FL6 decides not to run for reelection in 2012, Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint.

26. Aside from the qualifying fee which Plaintiff paid through his own loan, Plaintiff 

spent approximately $1400 in the 2010 election and received just over 71,000 votes. Plaintiff’s 

cost per vote was about $.02. 

27. Rep.FL6 spent $729,000 in the 2010 election (through October 13, 2010) and 

received almost 179,000 votes. Rep.FL6 spent more than $4.00 per vote. 

28. If plaintiff were able to spend $4 per vote, he would have had a much better chance 

of winning the 2010 election. If Plaintiff could spend $4 per vote in the 2012 election, he will 

have a much better chance of winning that election.

29. Under BCRA, FECA, and the MRA, buying votes by bombarding the electorate with 

ads is permitted, widespread, and disproportionate. 

30. The MRA law and earmarked legislation provide unconstitutional election 

advantages and unconstitutional compensation to incumbents.

31. Except for the wealthy challenger and those in league with corporate lobbyists, an 

incumbent member of Congress generally has a huge election advantage over the challenger.

32. Rep.FL6 has had and will have a huge election advantage over Plaintiff because of 

the facts and claims cited in this Second Amended Complaint.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 7 of 66
8

33. All corporate donations to the campaign committees of members of Congress are 

emoluments or bribes, given in an attempt to influence or induce the member’s conduct as a 

legislator.

34. Earmarked legislation provides emoluments and/or bribes to the electorate from a 

Congressman to his constituents. 

35. Some members of the U.S. House of Representatives, who both regulate corporations 

on their committee assignments and accept emoluments from the same corporations, are corrupt 

politicians. 

36. Some members of the U.S House of Representatives use MRA funds and earmarked 

legislation for personal gain.

37. Because challengers to incumbent members of Congress do not sit on committees 

regulating corporations who bribe committee members with campaign contributions, most 

incumbent legislators have a decided monetary campaign advantage over their challengers.

38. Because challengers to incumbent members of Congress do not have funds from 

MRA to use for campaign purposes, incumbent legislators who misuse MRA funds have a 

decided monetary campaign advantage over their challengers.

39. Because Plaintiff has never provided earmarked legislation for the benefit of the 

State of Florida and its citizens, Plaintiff has been and will be at a tremendous campaign 

disadvantage compared to Rep.FL6.

 40. Purposely or inadvertently giving an incumbent legislator an election advantage over 

a challenger is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective.

41. Plaintiff was harmed and damaged because his opponent in the 2010 election 

received a monetary advantage by virtue of his acceptance of money from corporations which he 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 8 of 66
9

regulates.

42. Plaintiff was harmed and damaged because his opponent in the 2010 election took 

unfair advantage of the MRA law and earmarked legislation he provided to the citizens of 

Florida.

43. Plaintiff will be harmed and damaged because his opponent in the 2012 election 

receives a monetary advantage by virtue of his acceptance of money from corporations which he 

regulates.

44. Plaintiff will be harmed and damaged because his opponent in the 2012 election 

receives an advantage by misuse of MRA funds, and because he provides earmarked legislation 

to the citizens of Florida.

45. In 2010 Rep.FL6 was the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology and the Internet; he was also a member of the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

Rep.FL6 was also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He was destined 

to be the chairman of at least one House committee in the 112th Congress.

 B. MISUSE OF THE TAXPAYER FUNDED CONGRESSIONAL 

WEBSITE AND EMAIL PRIVILEGES

46. As an incumbent, Rep.FL6 received a tax-payer funded website which contained 

political advertising.

6

 6 See http:// Rep.FL6.house.gov/default.aspx

 Plaintiff had no means to compete with this advertising, giving his 

incumbent opponent an unfair advantage in the 2010 election. Rep.FL6 will have the same 

advantage in the 2012 election unless this Court rules otherwise.

46(a). Rep.FL6 sends emails to his constituents in Florida U.S. House District 6 which 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 9 of 66
10

contain a link to his tax-payer funded website, providing an unconstitutional campaign advantage 

to the incumbent.

46(b). Rep.FL6 is given a tax-payer funded email list which allows him to send out 

unconstitutional emails to all constituents who have email addresses.

46(c). The emails have links to surveys. The surveys obtain additional personal 

information that Rep.FL6 can use for campaign purposes. The surveys encourage constituent 

participation by saying “vote now.”

46(d). The emails have FACEBOOK and TWITTER link buttons. These social 

networking tools are extremely powerful electronic communication devices which gives 

Rep.FL6 an enormous campaign advantage in the 2012 election. 

46(e). The emails have a “forward to a friend” link button to automatically enlarge 

Rep.FL6’s social network should the email recipient engage the link.

46(f). The emails have RSS Feeds, which are another powerful electronic 

communication device and include what are referred to as “blogs.”

46(g). The emails have a newsletter sign-up form so that Rep.FL6 can send out 

additional self-promoting emails.

46(h). The emails have a YouTube link which when pressed provide video footage of all 

of Rep.FL6 YouTube videos. These were 157 in number when accessed on February 15, 2011.

46(i). The following is a copy of part of an email Plaintiff received from Rep.FL6 in 

January, 2011. It does not have any of the links and buttons working, and it omits the social 

networking devices which were contained in the actual email:

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 10 of 66
11

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 11 of 66
12

47. An incumbent’s government-paid, highly sophisticated email and electronic social 

networking apparatus not considered by FECA or by Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 which predated the Internet. Neither was the expensive, deeply layered, and sophisticated taxpayer funded 

website used by Rep.FL6. 

48. Because Congress generally acts only in its own best interests, BCRA did not

address this website and electronic communications inequality either, even though BCRA did

create new Internet responsibilities for the Defendant FEC.

49. Rep.FL6’ “http:// Rep.FL6.house.gov/” website gives him free Google, Yahoo and 

other online search-engine privileges which are not provided to the Plaintiff.7

 

50. The Rep.FL6 “house.gov” website contains a huge number of political 

advertisements and many self-promotions. Here are several examples taken from the website on 

December 15, 20108

(a) With the August district work period beginning, I want to take a few moments 

of your time to update you on what I have been doing. For the past 19 months of 

the Obama administration, I have fought runaway spending, soaring deficits, jobkilling legislation and government expansion. When Congress returns in 

September, I will continue this fight.

: 

(b) Rep.FL6 is highly regarded for his extensive record on fiscal responsibility. 

In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce again honored Rep.FL6 for his 

consistent support of economic growth, reduced federal spending, and tax relief. 

In 2008, he was one of only 39 House members to receive an "A" rating from the 

National Taxpayers Union. In addition, he routinely honored (sic) by other fiscal 

watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste and Americans for 

Tax Reform.

 

7 E.g., when Plaintiff “Googled”: “Congressman ‘Rep.FL6’’’ on November 15, 2010, his “.gov” 

website was the first site displayed.

8 The Rep.FL6 “.gov” website also had a multitude of video advertisements which Plaintiff is 

unable to incorporate into this pleading.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 12 of 66
13

(c) "Long before his career in Congress, Rep.FL6 had a keen interest in serving 

others. Congressman Rep.FL6 is a shining example of a Floridian. He has been 

president of the Kiwanis Club, which focuses on community service. Rep.FL6 

was also on the Board of Directors for Boys & Girls Club, as well as for Munroe 

Regional Hospital." 

(d) Sharing ideas with politicians can be like shouting inside a sound-proof booth. 

But Rep.FL6, who represents part of Westside Jacksonville, has come up with a 

booklet with the ideas of his constituents that he calls "Your Good Ideas." 

(e) Rep.FL6 gets a gold star for seeking input from his constituents and doing 

more than just paying lip service to listening.

(f) The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) named 

Rep.FL6 a “Taxpayer Hero” for his record on fiscal responsibility. “Rep.FL6 can 

always be counted upon to put the interests of taxpayers ahead of politics.”

(g) When he was Chairman of the Commerce, Trade & Consumer Protection 

Subcommittee, Rep.FL6 held over 30 hearings on such issues as energy prices in 

the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Spyware, identity theft and data security, steroids 

in sports, counterfeit products, automobile safety, consumer privacy, automobile 

repair, and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (Dubai Port 

deal). 

(h) He is extremely accessible to constituents. Returning to his home in Ocala 

often, he has held over 550 town meetings across north central Florida.

(i) Rep.FL6 was presented the Guardian of Small Business Award by the National 

Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). The statement from the NFIB 

recognized Rep.FL6’ work for small business, “In the 111th Congress, Rep.FL6 

proved that he is a champion of small business.”

(j) The U.S. Senate recently passed a transportation bill that included $2 billion in 

'earmarks' -- local projects inserted by members. Rep.FL6 voted to eliminate 

waste in 42 of 50 votes studies. That's 84 percent, one of the best records in 

Congress. This nation needs more people like Rep.FL6 in office.

(k) “The Chamber is proud to present Rep.FL6 with the Spirit of Enterprise 

Award on behalf of businesses large and small. In the face of unprecedented 

economic challenges and in the midst of an election cycle, this Congress made 

some historic and courageous decisions that impacted the lives of every 

American. The Spirit of Enterprise Award identified those lawmakers that truly 

stepped up to the plate and demonstrated real leadership in making this country a 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 13 of 66
14

place where business can continue to grow and create jobs. ” 

(l) “Thank you for your strong support for the Jeffersonian ideal of a smaller 

government that permits the free enterprise system to flourish. Through your 

votes on issues such as reducing taxes, workplace regulations and other economic 

matters, you have demonstrated your commitment to our nation’s prosperity and 

economic well-being.” 

(m) Three Cheers – Rep.FL6 stands out -- "Members of Congress were poor 

stewards of the public's money last year, says Citizens Against Government 

Waste. One exception was Rep.FL6.

(n) “Having served in the U.S. Air Force, I realize that those in our military do not 

enjoy the full freedoms of civilians in this nation, and Congress must exercise 

careful deliberation in repealing any law that could undermine the effectiveness of 

our men and women in uniform.”

(o) “I thank the Republican Leadership and the members of the Republican 

Steering Committee for considering me to chair the House Energy & Commerce 

Committee. I believe that my background in creating jobs by building my own 

business, along with my conservative record and experience in chairing a 

subcommittee, would have made me an effective leader.”

(p) Rep.FL6, a graduate of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., 

will be inducted into the George Washington University Engineering Hall of 

Fame. Rep.FL6 earned a degree in electrical engineering while attending the 

university on a U.S. Air Force ROTC scholarship. He went on to serve four years 

in the Air Force where he was assigned to a highly classified program during the 

Vietnam War working on satellite reconnaissance.

(q) On leaving the Air Force, Rep.FL6 worked in the private sector before starting 

his successful business as the owner of a chain of motels and restaurants in north 

central Florida. Due to his business background and strong record of community 

service, Rep.FL6 was urged to run for Congress.

(p) Rep.FL6, a senior member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, 

will be the keynote speaker at the Emerging Issues Policy Forum being held on 

Amelia Island. Rep.FL6 will provide his perspective on the Forum’s topic –

“Powering the Future 2010” during the morning session.

(r) “Throughout the nation, jobs are hard to come by – and it’s even harder to find 

a job if you are a veteran just exiting the service or a Guard or Reservist returning 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 14 of 66
15

from deployment,” said Rep.FL6, Vice Republican Leader on the House Veterans 

Affairs Committee. “Although the VA has created an online job portal to help 

veterans look for employment, as with many government run programs, the VA 

built one without thinking about the customer, our veterans.

(s) “I am a proud co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Cystic Fibrosis 

Caucus, along with my colleague Rep. Ed. Markey (D-MA), where we work 

closely with the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation,” stated Rep.FL6.

(t) Rep.FL6 has been recognized by U.S. English, Inc. for his dedication to 

preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. Rep.FL6

was one of a select number of House members honored with an “A in English” 

award based on his votes and co-sponsorship of official English legislation in the 

111th Congress.

51. Plaintiff estimates the campaign value of these incumbent Internet and email 

privileges to be tens of thousands of dollars, including the website, the free search engine 

advertising, the use of the House Floor, the use of copies of Franked mail, website maintenance, 

email lists, and social networking assistance. 

52. The “.gov” websites paid for by the taxpayer provide an incalculable election 

advantage for the incumbents when considered as a whole. 

53. Rep.FL6’ government paid website is a form of compensation that is in addition to 

his salary.

 C. INEQUALITY AND MISUSE OF THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE

54. There are many rules regarding the use of official stationary of members of 

Congress. FECA, BCRA, and the MRA law do not address any of those rules. 39 U.S.C. § 3210 

is the statute governing Franked mail.

55. With certain restrictions, Rep.FL6 has and can use franked mail paid for by the 

taxpayers to gain an unfair election advantage by communicating with his constituents.

56. Plaintiff has no franking privilege and cannot communicate with the voters at 

taxpayers’ expense.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 15 of 66
16

57. Because the House Ethics Manual permits it, Rep.FL6 may use the taxpayers’ MRA 

money to purchase mailing lists.9

 9 House Ethics Manual, 2008, pg 128.

 The U.S. government does not provide Plaintiff with any 

mailing list at any cost. BCRA, FECA and the MRA law permit Rep.FL6 to use this mailing list 

for his political campaign.

58. Rep.FL6 uses franked mail which includes such statements as “Ranking Republican 

Member,” “Deputy Ranking Republican Member,” and “Congressional Horse Caucus, CoChairman.”

59. The following redacted document is from Rep.FL6’s official “.gov” website:

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 16 of 66
17

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 17 of 66
18

60. The above letter is a political advertisement paid for with MRA funds and placed on 

the “.gov” website of Rep.FL6 with the taxpayers’ money. 10 There is at least one other letter on 

his official stationary which Rep.FL6 posted on the website.11

 10 The link to the letter to the President is: 

http://www.Rep.FL6.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CzarLObama.pdf.

61. The use of sealed, official, U.S. government stationary for campaign advertising is 

permitted by FECA and BCRA. It is paid for by MRA. Plaintiff is not provided sealed, official, 

U.S. government stationary for his campaigns.

 D. ACTIVITIES OF “FRIENDS OF REP.FL6” 

62. In the third quarter of 2010, Rep.FL6, the Agent and civil Officer of his campaign 

committee, paid the National Republican Congressional Committee an emolument of $550,000. 

This was an inducement directed toward the expected Speaker of the House, Representative John 

Boehner, to help Rep.FL6 secure a committee chairmanship. 

63. A committee chairmanship will vastly increase Rep.FL6’ wealth and power, much 

more so than a subcommittee chairmanship. As a committee chairman, Rep.FL6 will also 

increase his incumbency advantage with a larger amount and number of emoluments given to 

him from the corporations he will regulate.

64. The use of bribes to obtain the chairmanship of a House committee is permitted and 

encouraged by members of Congress and allowed by FECA and BCRA. 

65. “Friends of Rep.FL6” is a multi-million dollar fund which Rep.FL6 oversees in his 

duty as Agent and civil Officer. Even after the huge payoff to Mr. Boehner, Rep.FL6 still had

more than $2.4 million dollars in his FECA-created nest egg.

11 See: http://Rep.FL6.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Letter_to_Chairman_Angelides_-

_Paulson_GS.pdf

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 18 of 66
19

66. BCRA and FECA allow members of Congress to amass huge amounts of funds in 

their campaign committees for as long as the committees exist. This permissible accumulation 

of campaign committee wealth allowed by BCRA and FECA creates an increased incentive for

corporations to engage in influence peddling, bribery and corruption.

67. Members of Congress are more easily corrupted because their campaign committees 

can and do accumulate wealth after each members’ successful re-election. Such wealth 

accumulation is permitted and encouraged by FECA and BCRA.

68. If all campaign committees and political action committees regulated by the 

Defendant FEC were abolished, influence peddling of, bribery of, and corruption of members of 

Congress would markedly diminish.

69. “Friends of Rep.FL6” has had more than $2 million dollars in cash for at least four

years. Rep.FL6 keeps most of the cash in seven different banks and credit unions in FL-06, 

allowing him to receive the electoral support of the bank and credit union employees. No 

comparable electoral support is available to the Plaintiff.

70. The following table shows Rep.FL6’ 2009 income from eight financial institutions 

where Rep.FL6 invested the cash of “Friends of Rep.FL6”:

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AMOUNT RECEIVED in 2009

Florida Credit Union $ 6445.43

M & S Bank $ 8490.78

First Avenue National Bank $ 5223.65

Regions Bank $18433.66

Campus USA Credit Union $ 7983.52

Ocala Community Credit Union $16673.76

Gateway Bank of Central Florida $ 7221.03

T. Rowe Price

“FRIENDS OF REP.FL6” TOTAL:

 

$ 4698.42

$75,170.25

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 19 of 66
20

71. Rep.FL6 can use far in excess of $100,000 in investment profits of “Friends of 

Rep.FL6” from the 2008 and 2010 election cycles in his campaign against the Plaintiff in the 

2012 election cycle.

72. Having $2.5 million dollars cash in “Friends of Rep.FL6” to deposit in the various 

financial institutions is a form of compensation and a special entitlement not provided for in the 

Constitution.

73. Rep.FL6 should receive the support of hundreds of the customers and employees of 

the above seven local banks and credit unions who justifiably believe that those banks and credit 

unions will not fail because of him. 

74. These financial institutions will not fail because Rep.FL6, under the authority of the 

United States, has invested huge sums from “Friends of Rep.FL6” in them. No comparable 

electoral support is available to the Plaintiff.

75. Rep.FL6 received $6000 in emoluments for “Friends of Rep.FL6” from the 

American Bankers Association PAC in the 2010 election cycle. Rep.FL6 is a member of two 

House subcommittees that regulate banking.

76. “Friends of Rep.FL6” received approximately $9000 from T. Rowe Price in the 2010

election cycle as interest payments. 

77. The Financial Disclosure Statement Rep.FL6 filed with the U.S. House of 

Representatives in May of 201012

 12 Available online at 

indicates he personally owns hundreds of thousands of dollars 

in T. Rowe Price “Summit Cash Reserves.” 

78. The Financial Disclosure Statement also showed Rep.FL6 had thousands of dollars 

http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00002782_2009.pdf

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 20 of 66
21

of personal funds deposited with Regions Bank. Regions Bank had the largest component of 

“Friends of Rep.FL6” cash for the 2010 election cycle, shown in the above table. So Rep.FL6 is 

both a personal customer of Regions Bank and a campaign customer under the authority of the 

United States.

79. The more money an entity invests in a bank or credit union, the better will be the rate 

of return and the services provided. By investing both personal and campaign money in the 

same financial institution for several years, Rep.FL6 receives compensation from the financial 

institution not available to the Plaintiff.

80. Plaintiff has been and will be severely harmed in his campaigns for Congress 

because his opponent has an unconstitutional and unfair monetary advantage. The more money 

you have to spend on a campaign for Congress, the better will be your chances of winning.

81. Rep.FL6 has recently voted for a tax cut “for the wealthy.” The wealthy includes 

Rep.FL6, most members of Congress, and “Friends of Rep.FL6,” a multimillion dollar fund 

which paid about $2800 in IRS form 941 payroll taxes in 2010. 

E. THE HARRIS CORPORATION CONFLICT OF INTEREST

82. Harris Corporation is a telecommunications business headquartered in Melbourne, 

Florida, not far from House District FL-06. Harris Corporation is a major contractor with the 

U.S. Department of Defense. 

83. Rep.FL6 has close ties with Harris Corporation and the Department of Defense. 

Because of his contact with Harris Corporation as a civil Officer and Agent of “Friends of 

Rep.FL6,” Rep.FL6 has inside knowledge of the needs of Harris Corporation.

84. Harris Corporation is regulated by the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology and the Internet. Rep.FL6 is the ranking Republican member of this subcommittee. 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 21 of 66
22

Rep.FL6 has inside knowledge of the needs Harris Corporation because he regulates it. 

85. Rep.FL6 may be awarded the Chairmanship of the Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology and the Internet in 2011.

86. Rep.FL6’ Financial Disclosure Statements for the past several years have shown an 

ownership interest in Harris Corporation and receipt of dividends from Harris Corporation. 

87. As a civil Officer under the authority of the United States, Rep.FL6’ has received 

more than $25,000 in emoluments from Harris Corporation. In the 2010 election cycle, Rep.FL6

was given a $2000 emolument for “Friends of Rep.FL6” from Harris Corporation. 

88. The conflict of interest Rep.FL6 has with Harris Corporation is enabled by FECA 

and BCRA even though Rep.FL6 owns its stock and regulates it through his subcommittee. 

 F. FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE

89. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that allows “forprofit” health insurance companies, and the only one that does not have universal health care.

90. The United States is the only country in the world that allows giant pharmaceutical

and health insurance corporations to bribe its legislative branch of government.

91. In the 2010 election cycle, Rep.FL6 received emoluments from the following health 

insurance and drug companies:

Aetna Inc.

Amgen Inc.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co

Corning Incorporated

Eli Lilly and Company

Genentech Inc.

Glaxosmithkline LLC

Johnson & Johnson

McKesson Corporation

Medco Health Solutions

Merck & Co.,Inc.

Novartis Corporation

Novo Nordisk

Pfizer Inc. 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FL

92. While being bribed by the health care industry to keep health care costs high for the 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 22 of 66
23

average American, including the Plaintiff, members of Congress receive health insurance 

benefits for themselves and their families that are subsidized 75% by the taxpayer. 

93. Plaintiff’s wife is a citizen of the State of Florida who has a pre-existing medical 

condition. She has no major medical health insurance. Plaintiff is unwilling to pay the 

exorbitant and unaffordable prices for “major medical” offered to his wife by Blue Cross Blue 

Shield of Florida, the source of Florida high risk pool coverage. 

94. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida has the only major medical coverage available to 

Plaintiff’s wife. The “Florida Health Political Action Committee (The PAC of Blue Cross Blue 

Shield of FL.,Inc.)” has given Rep.FL6 $11,500 in emoluments over the past several years. 

95. If Plaintiff bought Blue Cross Blue Shield major medical coverage for his wife in 

2010, part of his premium would have been used to provide emoluments to his opponent in the 

2010 election. If Plaintiff buys the Blue Cross Blue shield coverage now, part of his premium 

will be used to provide Rep.FL6 emoluments in the 2012 election.

96. Knowing that part of the premium for his wife’s health insurance would be given to 

his political opponent is a disincentive to Plaintiff to obtain the coverage. FECA and BCRA do 

not promote the General Welfare by forcing Plaintiff to pay a tithe to Rep.FL6 in order to obtain 

health insurance for his wife.

97. If Plaintiff were allowed to buy health insurance coverage for his wife using the 

plans available to an incumbent member of the U.S. House, the premium would be 

approximately one-eighth the cost of the premium offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida.

98. Incumbents campaigning for the 2010 election had no worries about the availability 

of affordable health insurance for their families. When Plaintiff campaigned for that election, not 

a day went by where his wife’s lack of affordable health insurance coverage was not a dreadful 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 23 of 66
24

consideration. 

99. Plaintiff was irreparably harmed in the 2010 election campaign, and he will be 

irreparably harmed in the 2012 campaign as well, because of the absence of affordable health 

insurance for his wife. 

100. The fear of bankruptcy due to the cost of an unexpected medical emergency

confronting his wife was and is ubiquitous in Plaintiff’s mind. The fear was there long before 

Plaintiff became a candidate.

101. The possibility of a medical bankruptcy was and is a terrible distraction to 

Plaintiff’s campaign activities. It interfered with his ability to concentrate on his campaign and 

stole much of the necessary energy required in the run for Congress. Plaintiff admits that his 

campaign was and will be less effective because of the lack of affordable major medical 

insurance for his wife. 

102. Many members of the U.S. House of Representatives were enormously bribed by 

the drug and for-profit health industries in the 2010 election cycle in the run-up to passage of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

103. All members of Congress who took the bribes from the health insurance industry in 

2009 and 2010 stood to benefit by their corrupt protection of these companies from competition. 

If there were legitimate competition to these companies in the form of a public option, several of 

the companies would fail and the bribes would dry up.

104. If there were no more bribes of Congress from the health insurance industry, the

likelihood is increased that affordable health insurance will be available to the families of all 

challengers in the 2012 election for the U.S. House.

 F. MISUSE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT OFFICES

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 24 of 66
25

105. FECA, BCRA and the MRA law allow members of Congress to have unfettered use 

of “volunteers” who both campaign for them and are their federal employees as members of their 

staff. 

106. These employees’ salaries are paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, including Plaintiff. 

These “volunteers” campaign because their federal jobs depend on the re-election success of 

their “boss,” the incumbent member of Congress who hires them.

107. Federal employees on the staffs of members of Congress can contribute hundreds of 

thousands of dollars worth of coerced “volunteerism” to get their boss re-elected. The penalty 

for lack of volunteering by these federal employees is the loss of their jobs, should their boss not 

get re-elected. 

108. Rep.FL6 hires and fires his staff employees. An employee who is not a “team 

player” can get fired. Team players volunteer in Rep.FL6’ re-election campaigns because to do 

otherwise would jeopardize the federal jobs of the entire team. 

109. FECA, BCRA and the MRA law have no mechanism to regulate or place a 

monetary value on the activities of these “volunteers” because none is contained in any of the 

statutes. 

110. Challengers to incumbent members of Congress are not provided federal employees 

to volunteer in the challengers’ campaigns. 

111. Plaintiff has been and will be severely disadvantaged by Rep.FL6’ unfettered use of 

federal employees in elections in 2010 and 2012. 

112. No records of the coerced volunteerism by Rep.FL6 employees are public records. 

There may be no records kept at all.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 25 of 66
26

113. The following is a partial list of members hired by Rep.FL6 with their estimated 

annual salaries paid for by the taxpayer:

Jean M. Clough District Staff 

Assistant $43,000

Paul J. Flusche Press Secretary $77,000

John Austin Konkus District Manager $80,000

Robert Matthew McKinney 

(Matt) Staff Assistant $26,000

Sherrie Porter Staff Assistant $46,000

Jack Farnsworth Seum Chief of Staff $136,000

114. All of these individuals were “volunteers” in the 2010 re-election campaign of 

Rep.FL6. Mr. Konkus, definitely, and probably Ms. Porter, both acted as “surrogates” for 

Rep.FL6 at numerous campaign events in the 2010 election cycle. 

115. Mr. McKinney is both a federal employee and an employee of “Friends of 

Rep.FL6.” Mr. McKinney receives two salaries. Rep.FL6 is responsible for payment of this

federal employee’s payroll taxes in his duty as a civil Officer and Agent of the “Friends of 

Rep.FL6.” 

116. Rather than Rep.FL6 showing up at many of the 2010 campaign events, the 

federally employed surrogate showed up so that Rep.FL6 was never questioned by the electorate 

on any disputed matter. 

117. Rep.FL6 is likely to use his federally employed staff as surrogates in the 2012 

election cycle, just as he has done in the past.

118. Mr. Flusche, the above-referenced Press Secretary, is paid with Plaintiff’s tax 

dollars as the “Press Secretary” for Rep.FL6. Mr. Flusche has prepared dozens of press releases

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 26 of 66
27

for Rep.FL6 in violation of the House Ethics Manual.

13 FECA,BCRA, and the MRA law permit 

this abuse. Plaintiff is not provided a press secretary paid for by the government.

119. Plaintiff and all other taxpayers pay for Rep.FL6 to maintain district offices, 

including one in Ocala, Florida. The money comes from Rep.FL6’MRA allotment from the 

Treasury of the United States.

120. Rep.FL6 does not have a campaign office despite the $2.5 million dollars in its 

campaign coffers. Rep.FL6 uses his MRA funded official U.S. government offices for 

campaigning. 

121. “Friends of Rep.FL6” pays a portion of the rent for one of Rep.FL6’ official district 

offices. The U.S. mail contact on Rep.FL6’ campaign website is, “Friends of Rep.FL6, P. O. 

Box 308, Silver Springs, FL 34489.”

122. By not maintaining a campaign office, Rep.FL6 can more easily disguise the 

amount of volunteer time his federal employees spend campaigning for him. The “Friends of 

Rep.FL6” is unjustly enriched by the use of an MRA funded office for campaign purposes.

123. On October 12, 2010 Plaintiff hand-delivered a letter to Rep.FL6 at his Ocala, FL 

official district office. The office is located at 115 S.E. 25th Ave., Ocala, FL. 

124. After being told that Rep.FL6 was not in the office at that time, Plaintiff asked the 

federal employee receptionist for documentation that the letter had been delivered. 

125. As the receptionist was writing out a receipt, federal employee and Rep.FL6’

campaign surrogate Konkus popped out into the government reception area and took a picture of 

Plaintiff. Mr. Konkus commented, “That will be proof of your delivery.”14

 13 House Ethic Manual, 2008, pg 124.

14 Plaintiff did not object to the photograph and smiled for Mr. Konkus’ camera shot.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 27 of 66
28

126. Rep.FL6 allows Mr. Konkus to switch from government employee to campaign 

surrogate any time Mr. Konkus wants to make the switch. Rep.FL6 allows his MRA official 

government office in Ocala, FL to switch from a government office to a campaign office anytime 

Mr. Konkus wants to make the switch.

127. No records are kept showing when the MRA funded offices of Rep.FL6 are being 

used for campaign activities. Rep.FL6 has shifted a substantial portion of the cost of maintaining 

a campaign office from “Friends of Rep.FL6” to the taxpayer.

128. Plaintiff is not provided a district office paid for by the government to undertake 

campaign activities. FECA, BCRA and the MRA law allow campaigning in the U.S. 

government offices of members of Congress.

129. Rep.FL6, as the agent of “Friends of Rep.FL6,” determines which federal 

employees will be campaigning for him, what their responsibilities will be, and what activities 

they shall engage in.

130. Rep.FL6, as the U.S. Representative from FL-06, determines which federal 

employees will be campaigning for him, what their responsibilities will be, and what activities 

they shall engage in.

131.Rep.FL6 has a dual role in supervising his federal employees. He supervises their 

conduct as members of his staff, and he supervises them as campaign volunteers.

132. It is in the best financial interest of Rep.FL6 to shift the burden of paying his 

campaigners onto the backs of the taxpayers. Rep.FL6 has done that. By shifting the cost of 

campaigning from “Friends of Rep.FL6” to the taxpayer, Rep.FL6 allows his campaign 

committee to accumulate more wealth, year after year.

 G. MISUSE OF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 28 of 66
29

133. The following image was taken by Plaintiff from the “home” page of Rep.FL6.gov 

on December 15, 2010 and the Congressman’s name was redacted. The dark YouTube video 

box is titled, “Rep.FL6-TARP-Fed-12-7-20...” 

134. The subtitle of the video says, “House Floor.” When the video is played it 

broadcasts Rep.FL6 speaking on the hallowed floor of House of Representatives.

135. The speech given in the YouTube video by Rep.FL6 is a political advertisement on 

his government sponsored and government paid for website. Here is the beginning of the video:

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 29 of 66
30

136. Rep.FL6 uses his access to the floor of the House of Representatives for selfpromotion and the creation of broadcast political advertising that is paid for by the MRA and the 

taxpayers, including Plaintiff.15

Verizon Center

1300 I St NW, Suite 400 West 

Washington, DC 20005

137. BCRA and FECA permit Rep.FL6 to use the floor of the House of Representatives 

for political advertising.

138. BCRA and FECA permit Rep.FL6 to use government provided video coverage on 

the floor of the House of Representatives for Rep.FL6’s campaign activities.

139. Plaintiff is not even allowed on the floor of the House of Representatives. The U.S. 

government is not permitted to video a speech of the Plaintiff on the floor of the House of 

Representatives even when Congress is not in session.

H. PROFLIGATE CAMPAIGN SPENDING

140. By enacting 2 U.S.C. §439a., BCRA §313(a), 116 Stat. at 95 Congress allows its

members to use their campaign committee funds to treat their office staff employees, themselves, 

and the political supporters who bribe them to lavish expenditures, e.g. luxurious suites and 

skyboxes at sporting events, golf tournaments at expensive resorts, coffee klatches at exclusive 

restaurants. 

141. The following disbursement was reported on “Friends of Rep.FL6” FEC Form 3 

filed on 3/26/2010:

12/09/2009

Suite @ Verizon Ctr 4500.00 

 15 The Tarp video of Rep.FL6 on the House floor link is: 

http://Rep.FL6.house.gov/Multimedia/?VideoID=hHCHPRmiXfM. There were several other 

House floor videos on the “.gov” website on the day these clips were obtained.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 30 of 66
31

142. In all probability this suite was for an audience with Rep.FL6 at a sporting event. 

Guests probably included influential lobbyists seeking and willing to pay Rep.FL6 a 

handsome reward for a moment of his time. 

143. On Friday, October 29, 2010, four days prior to the election, Rep.FL6 saw no need 

to campaign; instead he had a $2000 per hour emolument-raiser at the Capitol Hill Club Grill 

in Washington, D.C., where he and the lobbyists could live like royalty. 

144. The “Friends of Rep.FL6” needed replenishment, so Rep.FL6 had a “Coffee Talk.” 

Here is a copy of the invitation with the Representative’s name redacted:

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 31 of 66
32

 H. THE VETERANS AFFAIRS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

145. Plaintiff receives medical and prescription drug benefits from the Veterans Affairs 

outpatient clinic in Ocala, Florida. In 2010, the copayment costs to Plaintiff for his 

medications rose 12.5%. 

146. Rep.FL6 is a member of the Subcommittee on Health to the House Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs. This subcommittee has oversight jurisdiction on the costs of Plaintiff’s 

medications. 

147. In the 2010 election cycle Rep.FL6 received several thousand dollars from drug 

companies who sell drugs to the VA. So on the one hand, Rep.FL6 was padding “Friends of 

Rep.FL6” with drug money. 

148. On the other hand Rep.FL6’ VA oversight helped the profit margin of the same drug 

companies at the expense of low priority veterans, e.g. the Plaintiff. This conflict of interest 

is enabled by FECA and BCRA.

149. The increased cost of his VA medication had a negligible financial impact on 

Plaintiff’s 2010 election campaign. The emotional toil caused by Rep.FL6’s VA conflict of 

interest was much more detrimental to Plaintiff’s campaign.

I. COMMINGLING CAMPAIGN, OFFICIAL, AND PERSONAL EXPENSES

150. By enacting 2 U.S.C. §439a.(a)(2), BCRA §313(a)(2), 116 Stat. at 95, Congress 

allowed its members to use campaign contributions, “for ordinary and necessary expenses 

incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal office.” 

151. Thus, while acting as a civil Officer under the authority of the United States and 

agent of a campaign committee, the civil Officer and member of Congress may commingle 

the funds of the campaign committee with the funds used for her/his Congressional staff 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 32 of 66
33

expenses.

152. An incumbent is permitted to lease or purchase an automobile with campaign funds 

for personal and office use under FECA and BCRA.

 J. BCRA CLAIMS WHICH ARE SOLELY FROM BCRA

153. BCRA, as interpreted by Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), allows 

unlimited funding of electioneering broadcasts by corporations and the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. Title II of the BCRA regulates electioneering communications, and 

“Independent and Coordinated Expenditures.” 

154. Corrupt incumbent members of Congress who sit on or chair committees which 

regulate corporations are much more likely to gain the benefit of electioneering broadcasts

and Independent and Coordinated Expenditures than would a challenger with no history of 

corruption. 

155. For example, Rep.FL6 receives huge emoluments from telecommunications 

corporations while regulating them in his subcommittee. These telecommunications 

corporations are much more likely to provide electioneering broadcasts and Independent and 

Coordinated Expenditures favorable to Rep.FL6 and against the Plaintiff in the 2012 election 

cycle.

156. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent millions of dollars in political advertising 

for the 2010 elections. Rep.FL6 was endorsed by the Chamber in the 2010 elections.16

 16 At: 

157. Even if Rep.FL6 decided not to run in the 2012, Plaintiff’s opponent would be 

endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and would probably be provided whatever 

advertising assistance was necessary from the Chamber to defeat Plaintiff.

http://www.repfl6.net/endorsements2.cfm?id=325

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 33 of 66
34

158. Plaintiff has publically spoken and will continue to denounce the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and Corporate America for interfering in federal election campaigns. Plaintiff 

will be subjected to the following unconstitutional electioneering and Independent and 

Coordinated Expenditures authorized by BCRA:

A. Issue advocacy (including ads that mention Plaintiff);

B. Grassroots and direct lobbying on pending legislative matters; 

 C. Grassroots lobbying or other public communications concerning 

 Republican ballot initiatives;

159. Plaintiff’s opponent in the 2012 election is likely to unfairly benefit from 

electioneering broadcasts and Independent and Coordinated Expenditures permitted by 

Citizens United and BCRA, Title II. 

160. The Supreme Court never considered Fifth Amendment due process rights in its 

Citizens United opinion. Fifth Amendment due process rights of an individual candidate 

were not part of McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

161. Fair elections, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, are more 

important than “free speech” in elections, guaranteed by the First Amendment.

162. Plaintiff’s free speech rights are impaired because his denunciations of the Citizens 

United opinion, Title II of the BCRA, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce political 

campaigning will likely result in unfavorable electioneering broadcasts and Independent and 

Coordinated Expenditures in the 2012 election.

K. THE MRA AND HOUSE RULES

163. The MRA provides Rep.FL6 with IRS tax-free money for the following purposes:

17

 17 This list was compiled from excerpts taken from the House of Representatives, “Members 

Handbook.”

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 34 of 66
35

(a) To hire and pay his employees.

(b) To enjoy food and beverages at official and representational meetings.

(c) For photographic expenses, including official photographs for distribution to 

 constituents.

(d) For the purchase of electronic services, such as access to the internet.

(e) For office supplies, such as the camera used to photograph Plaintiff in 

 Rep.FL6’ Ocala office.

(f) For telecommunications lines (voice and data) in the residence of Rep.FL6.

(g) For all expenses for Town Hall Meetings, including advertising, signs, 

 banners, and flyers.

(h) For Cable TV in his district offices.

(i) For district offices which are used for campaign activities.

(j) For advertisements for official and representational events in his district, e.g. 

 ribbon cutting ceremonies.

(k) For internet, radio and TV advertisements.

(l) For audio and video recording services, including the use of a government 

 studio.

(m) For advertising booths.

(n) To distribute informational and instructional publications created by private 

 entities.

(o) For electronic communications, “Internet, fax machines, etc.”

(p) For Franked mail

(q) For printing and publication expenses of items described in this paragraph.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 35 of 66
36

(r) For Franked mail that says, “Ranking Republican Member” and “Deputy 

 Ranking Republican Member.”

(s) For Franked mail that says, “CONGRESSIONAL HORSE CAUCUS, co-

 chairman.”18

(t) For mass communications to his constituents.

(u) For Web Sites, as described in prior paragraphs of this Second Amended 

 Complaint.

(v) For short-term vehicle rentals with unlimited free mileage and insurance.19

 18 The Congressional Horse Caucus is an unconstitutional promotional organization authorized 

by the House Members Handbook under the title “Congressional Member Organizations.” It is 

referred to in the Handbook as a “CMO.” Rep.FL6 is also a member of the Tea Party Caucus. 

The “Tea Party Caucus” is another example of this unconstitutional campaign activity by 

members of Congress. Here is a link to an egregious political advertisement which is paid for by 

the taxpayer: 

(w) For a government travel card . 

(x) To allow Rep.FL6 to join the taxpayer funded Republican Study Committee at

 http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/AboutRSC/memberlist.htm.

(y) For sophisticated social networking devices, including but not limited to 

 email, Facebook, Twitter, RSS Feeds, and YouTube.

164. Although Rep.FL6 violated several of the rules contained in the House of 

Representatives Members Handbook and the House Ethics Manual, federal laws that might 

prohibit these transgressions are rarely enforced. 

165. The House of Representatives decides when one of its members should be 

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=180402. 

Rep.FL6 is a member of the “RSC.”: http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/aboutrsc/memberlist.htm.

19 There are extensive rules and laws on Congressional air travel, but Plaintiff lacks the resources 

to address the constitutional violations that may be present.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 36 of 66
37

investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for a violation of the law, e.g. misuse of 

public funds. 

 L. EARMARKED LEGISLATION AND NEPOTISM BY PROXY

166. Rep.FL6 has a long history of obtaining millions of dollars in earmarked legislation 

for the benefit of the State of Florida, mainly in Florida District 6 and neighboring districts. 

A few examples follow.

 

“Rep.FL6 secured $500,000 to further Traumatic Brain Injurty (sic) research by Invivo Corp.”20 

167. Shortly after a Press Release,21 this earmark resulted in favorable press coverage for 

Rep.FL6 in the Gainesville, Florida newspaper in District 6 during the run-up to the 2010 

election and won votes for Rep.FL6.22

 20 From Photo Album 9 on the Rep.FL6 “.gov” website, showing Rep.FL6 holding a poster of a 

$500,000 “check” to Invivo Corporation from the “United States Treasury” and signed by 

Rep.FL6.

21Also posted on the taxpayer funded website at: 

http://rep.fl6.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=212571 (substitute 

Congressman’s last name for “rep.fl6”)

22 See: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20101021/ARTICLES/101029846

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 37 of 66
38

168. Rep.FL6 worked diligently to bring in a huge Veteran Affairs earmark in The 

Villages, FL, winning him a vast number of votes and extensive press coverage. The following 

advertisement was copied from the “.gov” website. The title reads, “Rep.FL6 provides the 

Keynote at the dedication of the new VA Clinic in the Villages on 10-23-2010.”23

 

 

169. The keynote address was given just ten days prior to the November 2, 2010 general 

election and probably provided hundreds to thousands of votes for Rep.FL6 in the election.

170. Earmarked federal spending brings money, jobs, and business to Florida; and it 

brings votes for Rep.FL6.

171. One job that earmarked legislation has helped provide in Florida is that for “Joan,” 

the wife of Rep.FL6. Joan has been employed at the College of Central Florida (CCF) in Ocala 

23 The press release from “.gov” website is at: 

http://rep.fl6.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=212872 (substitute 

Congressman’s last name for “rep.fl6”)

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 38 of 66
39

since the year 2000. CCF24

 

It has the subtitle: “Joan and Rep.FL6 join Gators Men's Basketball coach Billy Donovan at 

White House ceremony honoring collegiate champions.”

is funded primarily by the State of Florida.

172. Because of earmarked legislation and support brought to CCF by Rep.FL6, CCF 

has a compound on its campus named, “The Rep.FL6 Learning Resource Center.” The resource 

center contains a Plaque dedicated to Rep.FL6 for his distinguished service. Even if the Plaque 

resulted in just one additional vote for Rep.FL6, the earmarks to CCF would still be 

unconstitutional.

173. Joan not only works for CCF, but she also campaigns for her husband. Here is an 

advertisement from the “.gov” website paid for by the taxpayer:

25

 24 CCF was previously named Central Florida Community College (CFCC).

174. On March 20, 2008, Rep.FL6 provided an earmarked check to CCF as shown in this

25 From Album 10 at: http://______.house.gov/photoarchivealbums/Album10.htm

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 39 of 66
40

political advertisement on the “.gov” website:26

175. According to opensecrets.org, Rep.FL6 obtained earmarks for CCF of $97,000 in 

2008, $238,000 in 2009 and $300,000 in 2010.

 

 

27

 

 

176. The Open Secrets website does not have earmark information prior to 2008 for 

Rep.FL6, but this information is available to Defendant United States of America.

26 http://_____.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=155979

27 See: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?cid=N00002782&cycle=2010, 

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?fy=FY09&cid=N00002782&cycle=2010,

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/earmarks.php?fy=FY08&cid=N00002782&cycle=2008.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 40 of 66
41

177. CCF announced on Election Day that Joan has now been relocated to Washington, 

D.C., which coincidentally is where her husband works:

______ NAMED TO COUNCIL FOR RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Nov. 2, 2010

The College of Central Florida has announced the appointment of Joan 

_____ to the 2011 Council for Resource Development Board of Directors in 

Washington, D.C. She will serve as chair of the By-Laws Committee.

_____ is vice president of Institutional Advancement at CF, where she has 

served since January 2000. In her role, she oversees the CF Foundation, 

which serves to equip the college with resources needed to reach its goals. 

“Ms. _____ will be a real asset in this role,” said Dr. Charles Dassance, CF president. “Her service on this 

board is in alignment with the Foundation’s strategic goals, which include national recognition as a 

model of financial and operational effectiveness and efficiency.”

178. The House Ethics Manual, page 272 et seq, prohibits Rep.FL6 from hiring Joan as 

one of his employees. Through the use of earmarked legislation and other influence unknown to 

Plaintiff, Rep.FL6 enhanced his wife’s job opportunities with CCF.

179. The following appears to be the “quid pro quo” equation of Nepotism by Proxy: 

 (a) Rep.FL6 obtains earmarked legislation to benefit CCF. 

 (b) CCF hires and promotes Rep.FL6’ wife Joan to a lucrative, desirable

 Washington, D.C. job. 

 (c) Both CCF and Rep.FL6 are compensated by the legislative earmarks. 

180. Rep.FL6 has used his election to Congress to secure a salary and health insurance 

benefits for his wife that are paid for by the State of Florida.

181. Even if Plaintiff were elected to Congress, he could not legally secure a job and 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 41 of 66
42

health insurance for his wife paid for by the State of Florida.

182. Rep.FL6 also reaps huge electoral benefits because of the vote support given by 

CCF students, employees, benefactors, faculty, administration, as well as that from the press. 

183. These unconstitutional electoral benefits to the incumbent are not available to the 

Plaintiff, his challenger.

184. FECA, BCRA, and MRA allow Nepotism by Proxy and legislative earmarks. 

There may be rules in the U.S. House of Representatives that prohibit this misconduct. But those 

rules are not enforced.

185. There may be laws of the United States that prohibit Nepotism by Proxy and 

legislative earmarks. But those laws are not enforced.

 M. EARMARKED LEGISLATION AND POLITICAL ADVERTISING

186. Over the years, Rep.FL6 has provided millions of dollars in earmarked legislation 

for the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida which is located in District 6. Here is a 

photo of Rep.FL6 with a poster of a check for $4.7 million dollars.

187. The subtitle of this taxpayer funded advertisement and pork-barrel spending reads, 

“Rep.FL6 secured $4.7 million for three programs at the University of Florida. Here he presents 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 42 of 66
43

one check to University President Bernie Machen.”28

188. This taxpayer advertisement shows Rep.FL6 with legendary University of Florida 

former head football coach, Urban Meyer:

The subtitle reads, “Rep.FL6 presents flag that was flown over the Capitol to Coach Urban 

Meyer.”29

189. Rep.FL6 is reported to be an avid sports fan of the University of Florida. Not only 

does Rep.FL6 reap huge election support by virtue of his earmarked legislation and misuse of 

government funds for political advertising, but he has also been frequently spotted sitting in the 

VIP section of University of Florida home sporting event games.30

 28Photo is part of album 10 on the “.gov” website, accessed on February 5, 2011.

 This seating arrangement, in 

itself, provides votes to Rep.FL6 that are unavailable to Plaintiff. 

 N. PLAINTIFF vs. REP.FL6 AND THE NRA

190. Like most Americans, Plaintiff was distraught, outraged and deeply saddened by 

the Tucson massacre on January 8, 2011 that left the Court's honorable colleague, U.S. District 

29 Photo is part of album 9 on the “.gov” website.

30 Plaintiff does not know whether or not Rep.FL6 actually paid for the tickets to these games. 

Perhaps his attendance at the ball games was official business with UF President Machen to 

discuss the need for future earmarked legislation.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 43 of 66
44

Court Chief Judge John Roll, dead and Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords with a devastating 

head wound. The massacre was the conducted with a popular semi-automatic handgun having a 

33-round magazine. The alleged assassin was only subdued and captured after he tried to reload 

another 33-round “clip” into the handgun. 

 191. Plaintiff' is strongly in favor of gun control legislation, including the requirement 

that all firearms be implanted with a GPS tracking device and tracked by the federal government. 

The firearm industry, their employees and those with special interests in the “right to keep and 

bear arms” contribute millions of dollars to the NRA so that it can bribe Congress to continue 

and maintain deregulation of the gun industry. 

192. No ordinary citizen, much less a mentally deranged individual, should be allowed 

to own a high velocity weapon that can and did massacre dozens of “peaceably assembling,” first 

amendment, citizens in less than a couple of minutes. This type of semi-automatic, large-clip, 

handgun ownership by private citizens cannot be constitutional when comparing the 1st and 2nd

Amendments to the Constitution. Congress, the NRA, and the gun lobby are responsible for 

Tucson massacre.

193. With respect to the 2012 election, it is inequitable for a member of Congress to 

receive thousands of dollars in bribes because she/he can and does support the well-being of 

special interest lobbyists, in this case the firearm industry lobbyists. It is corrupt and 

unconstitutional for the U.S. government to allow a member of Congress to receive money from 

the NRA and the firearm industry to induce a favorable vote in Congress beneficial to the firearm

industry.

194. Rep.FL6 is a proponent of the gun ownership laws that permitted the Tucson 

massacre. And he has received the “A+” endorsement of the NRA Political Victory Fund 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 44 of 66
45

Political Action Committee (PAC) several times.31

 31 E.g., see 

Rep.FL6 has also received about $25,000 in 

bribes from the NRA PAC. Rep.FL6 has voted in Congress for the benefit of the gun industry on 

many occasions. There is a quid pro quo between the receipt of money from the gun lobby and a 

Congressional member’s vote for the gun lobby’s interests. 

195. Any member of Congress who receives money from the NRA to encourage or 

induce a vote against gun regulation is a corrupt politician. 

196. The agent-candidate of a campaign committee who receives special interest or 

corporate money for an FECA-BCRA campaign committee receives the money for her/himself.

197. Like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the NRA can and will provide all the FECA 

and BCRA unconstitutional advertising necessary to defeat Plaintiff’s candidacy for the FL-06 

U.S. House seat in the 2012 election. 

198. The NRA and its PAC have tremendous financial support from the gun industry. 

There is no “non-gun,” anti-NRA industry. So there is no possibility that Plaintiff could receive 

bribes from NRA opposition corporations, even if he believed that such bribes were legal. If you 

are for the interests of corporations and the NRA, campaign contributions from these 

organizations are available. There are no counter organizations that have money to give to “anticorporate,” “anti-NRA” candidates.

 O. CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE AND LOCAL CANDIDATES

199. 2 U.S.C.§ 439a.(a)(5) permits a congressman who is a candidate, such as Rep.FL6, 

to raise funds from corporations he regulates in Congress, then use that money to support state 

and local candidates.

200. The financial support of state and local candidates by members of Congress results 

http://www.cliffstearns.net/endorsements2.cfm?id=328 accessed on February 7, 2011.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 45 of 66
46

in voter support by those state and local candidates and their followers for the member of 

Congress. This provides the incumbent member of Congress with an unfair election advantage 

over the challenger, and is another form of bribery engaged in by members of Congress. 

 

 P. FACTUAL ENDING 

201. Because Rep.FL6 has had such a long and distinguished career in public service, his 

conduct and misuse of government resources during the Congressional election campaign of 

2010 was probably the norm for a member of Congress rather than the exception.32

 32 E.g. the member’s official website cannot contain “personal ...information” according to the 

Members Handbook, but probably every member’s “.gov” website contains a personal 

biography. 

 VIII. CLAIMS THAT FECA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

202. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-201 of this Complaint.

 A. FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS

203. FECA is unconstitutional because it denies the challenger in a campaign for the 

U.S. House of Representative equal protection:

(a). By providing the incumbent with a monetary advantage.

(b). By supplying the incumbent with a taxpayer funded political website.

(c). By giving the incumbent taxpayer funded internet search engine 

 privileges.

(d). By permitting an incumbent to put large amounts of cash in multiple financial 

 institutions among the electorate in the incumbent’s district.

(e). By allowing bribes to members of Congress that prevent the challenger from 

 having equal access to health insurance.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 46 of 66
47

(f). By authorizing incumbents to use federal employees to campaign for them.

(g). By forcing a challenger to pay a tithe to the incumbent in order to get health 

 insurance.

(h). By creating an electioneering system that favors members of Congress who 

 accept bribes from corporations that are regulated by these members of 

 Congress.

(i). By allowing the incumbent to raise campaign funds from the corporations 

 she/he regulates in committee assignments.

(j). By permitting the incumbent to use interest income for campaigning.

(k). By sanctioning the incumbent’s use of official, sealed, U.S. government 

 stationary for campaigning.

(l). By giving the incumbent a press secretary paid for by the government 

 to draft and release campaign press releases.

(m). By enabling the incumbent to use federal employees to act as campaign 

 surrogates.

(n). By sanctioning the incumbent’s use of official district business offices for 

 campaigning.

(o). By allowing the incumbent’s use of government video from the floor of the 

 House of Representatives in campaign advertising.

(p). By permitting an incumbent to use government created mailing lists for their 

 political campaigns.

(q). By providing the incumbent a government employed photographer for 

 campaign photographs.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 47 of 66
48

(r). By empowering the incumbent to use government funded, unsolicited mass 

 communications containing the Franking privilege.

(s). By failing to prevent the incumbent’s use of sealed, official, U.S. government 

 stationary in campaign ads.

(t). By enabling the incumbent unlimited, government funded Town Hall 

 meetings.

(u). By permitting the lease or purchase of an automobile for the incumbent’s

 personal and office use.

(v). By providing voice and data telecommunication access in the personal 

 residence of the incumbent.

(w). By allowing Cable TV in the incumbent’s district offices for campaign use.

(x). By allotting radio, TV, and Internet advertising for Town Hall and other 

 official and representational activities by the incumbent.

(y). By providing a government studio for recording audio and video 

 advertisements by the incumbent.

(z). By permitting the purchase of government funded advertising booths by the 

 incumbent.

(aa). By sanctioning official stationary that says, “Ranking Republican Member,” 

 “Deputy Ranking Republican Member,” and “CONGRESSIONAL HORSE 

 CAUCUS co-chairman.”

(bb). By supplying taxpayer funded short-term vehicle rentals with unlimited 

 mileage for use by the incumbent.

(cc). By giving the incumbent a Government Travel Card.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 48 of 66
49

(dd). By allowing the creation of Congressional Member Organizations (CMO’s) 

 that are purely political advertising for incumbent campaigns paid for by the 

 taxpayers.

(ee). By permitting all other applicable claims and allegations in this Amended 

 Complaint not included in the above list.

(ff). By sanctioning electioneering and Independent and Coordinated Expenses 

 against Plaintiff by corporations and politically active organizations like the 

 U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NRA.

(gg). By creating an electioneering system that favors members of Congress who 

 vote for corporate and special interests in return for monetary and 

 advertising support from the corporation and special interests.

(hh). By providing members of congress the ability to contribute funds received 

 from corporations they regulate to support State and local candidates for 

 office.

(ii). By allowing the United States to provide email lists and social networking 

 devices to the incumbent without equal access given to the challenger.

(jj). By permitting members of Congress to email constituents promotions about 

 the Congress person's success in representing the constituent.

(kk). By many other activities to which Plaintiff is not privy.

204. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 B. APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE CLAIM

205. Article II, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “... the Congress 

may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 49 of 66
50

alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” 

206. Because Congress does not have appointment power, it cannot appoint its members 

to act as Agents and civil Officers of their respective campaign committees. The FECA at 2 

U.S.C. §432, §434, §439, §439a, and §441i is therefore unconstitutional.

207. Through FECA, Congress combined the power to create offices with the power to 

appoint themselves as the office holders, which is a recipe for legislative corruption forbidden by 

the Appointments Clause.

208. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by this constitutional violation. 

 C. COMPENSATION CLAUSE CLAIMS

209. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution states, “The Senators and 

Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and 

paid out of the Treasury of the United States.”33

 33 Hereinafter this clause is referred to as the “compensation clause.”

 FECA violates the compensation clause at the 

very least by:

(a). Permitting members of Congress to act as Agents and civil Officers of 

 multimillion dollar campaign committees.

(b). Allowing the campaign committees of members of Congress to accumulate 

 wealth over decades and through multiple election cycles.

(c). Enabling members of Congress to mingle personal bank accounts in the 

 same financial institutions where they deposit campaign cash.

(d). Sanctioning members of Congress in their receipt of bribes and inside 

 knowledge from the corporations they regulate.

(e). Providing members of Congress the use campaign funds for personal 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 50 of 66
51

 extravagances, such as sporting event suites, coffee klatches and golf 

 tournaments.

(f). Enabling members of Congress to use campaign funds for any purpose listed 

 in 2 U.S.C. §439a.

(g). Failing to prevent the members of Congress from investing personal funds in 

 the corporations they both regulate and receive emoluments from.

(h). Allowing members of Congress to be given an elaborate, taxpayer funded, 

 political website.

(i). Giving members of Congress a press secretary paid for by the 

 government to draft and release campaign press releases enhancing the 

 members’ wealth and power.

(j). Permitting members of Congress to use federal employees to act as their 

 campaign surrogates which enhances their wealth and power.

(k). Allowing members of Congress to use campaign funds to purchase or lease an 

 automobile for personal use and pay for the expenses associated with its use. 

(l). By all other applicable claims and allegations in this Second Amended 

 Complaint not included in the above list.

210. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 D. EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE CLAIMS

211. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, the “Emoluments Clause”34

 

34 There is a clause forbidding the President from receiving emoluments in Article II, Seciton 1, 

Clause 7 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ Complaint only deals with the Article I Emoluments 

clause. The two portions of the clause are also known as the, “Ineligibility” and 

“Incompatibility” clauses.

of the Constitution states:

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 51 of 66
52

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be 

appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall 

have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during 

such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a 

Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” 

FECA allows members of Congress to appoint themselves to act as the agents of their campaign 

committees. This agency relationship is the same as a civil Officer under the Authority of the 

United States. This agency relationship is the same as a “Person holding any Office under the 

United States.”

212. By allowing members of Congress to use campaign funds, “for ordinary and 

necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal 

office,” FECA unconstitutionally commingled the office of an agent of a campaign committee 

with the office of a member of Congress. 

213. The following are some examples showing that Rep.FL6 acts as a civil Officer or a 

Person holding any Office under the United States as the agent of Friends of Rep.FL6:

(a). Rep.FL6 paid the National Republican Campaign Committee $550,000 in 

 an attempt to induce the upcoming Speaker of the House to appoint Rep.FL6

 to a committee chairmanship.

(b). Rep.FL6 manages a campaign fund worth $2.5 million dollars.

(c). “Friends of Rep.FL6” received in excess of $100,000 in interest payments 

 from financial institutions regulated by Rep.FL6.

(d). Rep.FL6 received $25,000 from a corporation in which he both owns stock 

 in and regulates.

(e). Rep.FL6 received hundreds of thousands of dollars from dozens of 

 corporations that he regulates.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 52 of 66
53

(f). Rep.FL6 supervises and is in charge of federal employees who campaign for 

 him.

(g). Rep.FL6 manages a fund that is separate from Congress, has a huge amount 

 of interest income, and is liable to the IRS for taxes.

(h). Rep.FL6 can or does use money from “Friends of Rep.FL6” to pay his 

 Congressional office expenses.

(i). Rep.FL6 uses official, sealed, U.S. government stationary for campaigning.

(j). Rep.FL6 uses a press secretary paid for by the government to draft and release 

 campaign press releases.

(k). Rep.FL6 uses federal employees to act as his campaign surrogates.

(l). Rep.FL6 uses a U.S. government district office for campaigning.

(m). Rep.FL6 uses video of his speeches on the floor of the House of 

 Representatives for campaigning.

(n). Rep.FL6 is provided with U.S. government mailing lists which he may use 

 for campaigning. 

(o). Rep.FL6 supervises government employees who photograph him for 

 campaign advertising.

(p). Rep.FL6 makes unsolicited mass communications using the Franking 

 privilege.

(q). Rep.FL6 provides earmarked legislation to gain voter support in his 

 congressional district.

(r). Rep.FL6 uses MRA funds for campaigning, as set forth in ¶ 203 above and 

 ¶¶ 219-225 below. 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 53 of 66
54

(s). Rep.FL6 uses government provided email lists to send emails to constituents 

 which link to his “.gov” taxpayer funded political advertising website.

(t). By all other applicable claims and allegations in this Second Amended 

 Complaint not included in the above list.

214. By allowing themselves to function as agents under the Authority of the United 

States, members of Congress unconstitutionally created a civil Office for themselves through the 

enactment of FECA.

215. By allowing themselves to function as agents under the Authority of the United 

States, members of Congress unconstitutionally made themselves persons “holding any Office 

under the United States” through the enactment of FECA. 

216. Through FECA, Congress combined the power to create offices with the power to 

appoint themselves as the office holders, which is a recipe for legislative corruption forbidden by 

the Emoluments Clause.

217. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations. 

E. ALLOWING THE MRA AND EARMARKED LEGISLATION

218. FECA is unconstitutional because it allows the MRA law and Earmarked 

Legislation to take place . This results in an unfair election advantage for the incumbent over 

the challenger.

 IX. CLAIMS THAT THE MRA LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 A. FIFTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS

219. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1- 218 above.

220. The MRA Law provides members of Congress, including Rep.FL6, with about 

$1,000,000 each as an MRA allotment each year.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 54 of 66
55

221. Members of Congress use this allotment as set forth in ¶¶163 and 203 above.

222. The MRA Law enables the Fifth Amendment violations set forth in ¶ 203 above, 

and it is therefore also unconstitutional.

223. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 B. COMPENSATION CLAUSE CLAIMS

224. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-223 above.

225. The MRA Law enables the constitutional violations set forth in ¶209 above. The 

MRA Law itself is therefore unconstitutional.

226. The MRA Law is unconstitutional by virtue of any other applicable claims and 

allegations in this Second Amended Complaint not included in the list in ¶209 above.

227. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 XI. CLAIMS THAT EARMARKED LEGISLATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

228. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-227 above.

 A. FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS

229. Earmarked legislation gives election votes to Rep.FL6 that he would not get, but for 

the earmarked legislation.

 B. COMPENSATION CLAUSE CLAIMS

230. Earmarked legislation provides unconstitutional compensation and an election 

advantage to Rep.FL6 in at least the following ways:

(a). By providing a job for and election support from his wife through Nepotism 

 by Proxy as set forth in ¶¶ 166-185 above.

(b). By emoluments such as VIP seating at sporting events.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 55 of 66
56

(c). By the creation of monuments in Rep.FL6’s name, such as the CCF Learning 

 Center.

(d). By all other methods referenced in this Second Amended Complaint but not 

 included in this list. 

(e). In many ways to which Plaintiff is not privy.

231. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 XII. CLAIMS THAT BCRA IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

232. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-231 of this Complaint. BCRA §§101, 202, 203, 

204, 211, 214, and 301 are unconstitutional. 

 A. FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAIMS

233. BCRA is unconstitutional because it denies the challenger in a campaign for the 

U.S. House of Representative equal protection:

(a). By providing the incumbent with a monetary advantage.

(b). By allowing the incumbent to have a taxpayer funded political website.

(c). By allowing the incumbent to have taxpayer funded internet search engine 

 privileges.

(d). By permitting an incumbent to put large amounts of cash in multiple financial 

 institutions among the electorate in the incumbent’s district.

(e). By allowing bribes to members of Congress that prevent the challenger from 

 having equal access to health insurance.

(f). By authorizing incumbents to use federal employees to campaign for them.

(g). By forcing a challenger to pay a tithe to the incumbent in order to get health 

 insurance.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 56 of 66
57

(h). By creating an electioneering system that favors members of Congress who 

 accept bribes from corporations that are regulated by these members of 

 Congress.

(i). By allowing the incumbent to raise campaign funds from the corporations 

 she/he regulates in committee assignments.

(j). By permitting the incumbent to use interest income for campaigning.

(k). By sanctioning the incumbent’s use of official, sealed, U.S. government 

 stationary for campaigning.

(l). By giving the incumbent a press secretary paid for by the government 

 to draft and release campaign press releases.

(m). By enabling the incumbent to use federal employees to act as campaign 

 surrogates.

(n). By sanctioning the incumbent’s use of official district business offices for 

 campaigning.

(o). By allowing the incumbent’s use of government video from the floor of the 

 House of Representatives in campaign advertising.

(p). By permitting an incumbent to use government created mailing lists for their 

 political campaigns.

(q). By providing the incumbent a government employed photographer for 

 campaign photographs.

(r). By empowering the incumbent to use government funded, unsolicited mass 

 communications containing the Franking privilege.

(s). By failing to prevent the incumbent’s use of sealed, official, U.S. government 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 57 of 66
58

 stationary in campaign ads.

(t). By enabling the incumbent unlimited, government funded Town Hall 

 meetings.

(u). By permitting the lease or purchase of an automobile for the incumbent’s 

 personal and office use.

(v). By providing voice and data telecommunication access in the personal 

 residence of the incumbent.

(w). By allowing Cable TV in the incumbent’s district offices for campaign use.

(x). By allotting radio, TV, and Internet advertising for Town Hall and other 

 official and representational activities by the incumbent.

(y). By providing a government studio for recording audio and video 

 advertisements by the incumbent.

(z). By permitting the purchase of government funded advertising booths by the 

 incumbent.

(aa). By sanctioning official stationary that says, “Ranking Republican Member,” 

 “Deputy Ranking Republican Member,” and “CONGRESSIONAL HORSE 

 CAUCUS co-chairman.”

(bb). By supplying taxpayer funded short-term vehicle rentals with unlimited 

 mileage for use by the incumbent.

(cc). By giving the incumbent a Government Travel Card.

(dd). By allowing the creation of Congressional Member Organizations (CMO’s) 

 that are purely political advertising for incumbent campaigns paid for by the 

 taxpayers.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 58 of 66
59

(ee). By permitting all other applicable claims and allegations in this Second 

 Amended Complaint not included in the above list.

(ff). By sanctioning electioneering and Independent and Coordinated Expenses 

 against Plaintiff by corporations and politically active organizations like the 

 U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the NRA.

(gg). By providing members of congress the ability to contribute funds received 

 from corporations they regulate to support State and local candidates for 

 office.

(hh). By allowing the United States to provide email lists and social networking 

 devices to the incumbent without equal access given to the challenger.

(ii). By many other activities to which Plaintiff is not privy.

234. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 B. APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE CLAIM

235. Article II, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, “... the Congress 

may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President 

alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” 

236. Because Congress does not have appointment power, it cannot appoint its members 

to act as Agents and civil Officers of their respective campaign committees. BCRA as applied 

and §301 and 116 STAT. 84 are therefore unconstitutional.

237. Through BCRA, Congress authorized itself the power to create offices with the 

power to appoint its members as the office holders, which is a recipe for legislative corruption 

forbidden by the Appointments Clause.

238. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by this constitutional violation. 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 59 of 66
60

 C. COMPENSATION CLAUSE CLAIMS

239. Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution states, “The Senators and 

Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and 

paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” BRCA violates the compensation clause at the 

very least by:

(a). Permitting members of Congress to act as Agents and civil Officers of 

 multimillion dollar campaign committees.

(b). Allowing the campaign committees of members of Congress to accumulate 

 wealth over decades and through multiple election cycles.

(c). Enabling members of Congress to mingle personal bank accounts in the 

 same financial institutions where they deposit campaign cash.

(d). Sanctioning members of Congress in their receipt of bribes and inside 

 knowledge from the corporations they regulate. 

(e). Providing members of Congress the use campaign funds for personal 

 extravagances, such as sporting event suites, coffee klatches and golf 

 tournaments.

(f). Enabling members of Congress to use campaign funds for any purpose listed 

 in 2 U.S.C. §439a., BCRA §§301,313.

(g). Failing to prevent the members of Congress from investing personal funds in 

 the corporations they both regulate and receive emoluments from.

(h). Allowing members of Congress to be given an elaborate, taxpayer funded, 

 political website.

(i). Giving members of Congress a press secretary paid for by the 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 60 of 66
61

 government to draft and release campaign press releases enhancing the 

 members’ wealth and power.

(j). Permitting members of Congress to use federal employees to act as their 

 campaign surrogates which enhances their wealth and power.

(k). Allowing members of Congress to use campaign funds to purchase or lease an 

 automobile for personal use and pay for the expenses associated with its use. 

(l). By all other applicable claims and allegations in this Second Amended 

 Complaint not included in the above list.

240. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations.

 D. EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE CLAIMS

241. Article I, Section 6, Clause 2, the “Emoluments Clause” of the Constitution states:

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be 

appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall 

have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during 

such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a 

Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” 

BRCA allows members of Congress to appoint themselves to act as the agents of their campaign 

committees. This agency relationship is the same as a civil Officer under the Authority of the 

United States. This agency relationship is the same as a “Person holding any Office under the 

United States.”

242. By allowing members of Congress to use campaign funds, “for ordinary and 

necessary expenses incurred in connection with duties of the individual as a holder of Federal 

office,” BRCA unconstitutionally commingled the office of an agent of a campaign committee 

with the office of a member of Congress. 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 61 of 66
62

243. The following are some examples showing that Rep.FL6 acts as a civil Officer or a 

Person holding any Office under the United States as agent of Friends of Rep.FL6:

(a). Rep.FL6 paid the National Republican Campaign Committee $550,000 in 

 an attempt to induce the upcoming Speaker of the House to appoint Rep.FL6 

 to a committee chairmanship.

(b). Rep.FL6 manages a campaign fund worth $2.5 million dollars.

(c). “Friends of Rep.FL6” received in excess of $100,000 in interest payments 

 from financial institutions regulated by Rep.FL6.

(d). Rep.FL6 received $25,000 from a corporation in which he both owns stock 

 in and regulates.

(e). Rep.FL6 received hundreds of thousands of dollars from dozens of 

 corporations that he regulates.

(f). Rep.FL6 supervises and is in charge of federal employees who campaign for 

 him.

(g). Rep.FL6 manages a fund that is separate from Congress, has a huge amount 

 of interest income, and is liable to the IRS for taxes.

(h). Rep.FL6 can or does use money from “Friends of Rep.FL6” to pay his 

 Congressional office expenses.

(i). Rep.FL6 uses official, sealed, U.S. government stationary for campaigning.

(j). Rep.FL6 uses a press secretary paid for by the government to draft and release 

 campaign press releases.

(k). Rep.FL6 uses federal employees to act as his campaign surrogates.

(l). Rep.FL6 uses a U.S. government district office for campaigning.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 62 of 66
63

(m). Rep.FL6 uses video of his speeches on the floor of the House of 

 Representatives for campaigning.

(n). Rep.FL6 is provided with U.S. government mailing lists which he may use 

 for campaigning. 

(o). Rep.FL6 supervises government employees who photograph him for 

 campaign advertising. 

(p). Rep.FL6 makes unsolicited mass communications using the Franking 

 privilege.

(q). Rep.FL6 provides earmarked legislation to gain voter support in his 

 congressional district.

(r). Rep.FL6 uses MRA funds for campaigning, as set forth in ¶ 203 and 

 ¶¶ 219-225 above. 

(s). Rep.FL6 uses government provided email lists to send emails to constituents 

 which link to his “.gov” taxpayer funded political advertising website.

(t). By all other applicable claims and allegations in this Second Amended 

 Complaint not included in the above list.

244. By allowing themselves to function as agents under the Authority of the United 

States, members of Congress unconstitutionally created a civil Office for themselves through the 

enactment of BCRA.

245. By allowing themselves to function as agents under the Authority of the United 

States, members of Congress unconstitutionally made themselves persons “holding any Office 

under the United States” through the enactment of BCRA. 

246. Through BCRA, Congress combined the power to create offices with the power to 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 63 of 66
64

appoint themselves as the office holders, which is a recipe for legislative corruption forbidden by 

the Emoluments Clause.

247. Plaintiff is harmed and damaged by these constitutional violations. 

 E. ALLOWING THE MRA AND EARMARKED LEGISLATION

248. BCRA is unconstitutional because it allows the MRA law and Earmarked 

Legislation to take place . This results in an unfair election advantage for the incumbent over 

the challenger. 

XIV. CONCLUSIONS

249. Public-only financing of federal election campaigns will help reduce bribery and 

corruption in Congress. Abolishing the FEC is the first step toward public-only campaign 

financing. Abolishing the FEC will allow the Department of Justice to prosecute all bribes given 

to members of Congress.

250. Elimination of the MRA will force Congress to reassess how its members are 

provided a staff and funds to run each member’s office. 

251. Ending government fraud, waste and abuse by the Court’s ruling that earmarked 

legislation is unconstitutional would be “a dream come true” for most of the People of the United 

States.

252. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for Congress to wind up being the 

“best that money can buy.” The emoluments clause, the appointments clause, and the 

compensation clause of the Constitution are to be interpreted as anti-corruption clauses.

253. Fair elections for seats in Congress can only take place if the incumbent and the 

challenger are treated equally by the laws of the United States.

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 64 of 66
65

 XV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Courts enter judgment:

A. Declaring that, as to Congressional elections, FECA and BCRA violate the Fifth 

Amendment, the Appointments Clause, the Compensation Clause and the Emoluments Clause of 

the United States Constitution.

B. Enjoining the Defendant Federal Election Commission from enforcing FECA and 

BCRA for Congressional Elections.

C. Immediately freezing all the assets of all campaign committees under the authority of 

Defendant Federal Election Commission and ordering the funds returned to the donors.

D. Immediately freezing all the assets of all campaign committees under the authority of 

Defendant Federal Election Commission that cannot be returned to the donors so that proper 

disposition of the funds can be ordered by the Court.

E. Declaring the MRA Law unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the 

Compensation Clause of the United States Constitution.

F. Prospectively ruling that any future “MRA Law” that fails to provide transparency 

and specific United States Code criminal penalties for violations is unconstitutional.

G. Declaring that the legislative earmarks identified in paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 above are 

unconstitutional.

H. Prospectively ruling that any earmarked legislation for Florida that is obtained with 

the assistance of Rep.FL6 in the 112th Congress and signed into law by the President be declared 

unconstitutional, but only as to the earmarked portion of such bills.

I. Granting costs and attorney fees as may be permitted should Plaintiff find counsel to 

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 65 of 66
66

represent him.

J. Whatever other and further relief the Court deems just.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Steve Schonberg

Steve Schonberg, Pro Se

 7938 SE 12th Circle

 Ocala, FL 34480

352-789-0610

Email: sschonberg@aol.com

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 31 Filed 02/15/11 Page 66 of 66