UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

GARCIA FOR CONGRESS and 

SWATI PATEL, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) _______________________________ ) 

Civ. No. 13-2401-K 

ANSWER 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION'S ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

Defendant Federal Election Commission ("FEC" or "Commission"), through its 

undersigned counsel, hereby answers the Original Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Garcia for 

Congress and Swati Patel (hereinafter "Garcia") as follows: 

GENERAL DENIAL 

Any allegation or part of an allegation not specifically responded to below is denied. 

SPECIFIC DENIALS AND RESPONSES 

The Commission responds as follows to the numbered paragraphs of the Original 

Complaint: 

1. Plaintiffs' demand for a trial by jury on all issues "triable to a jury" requires no 

response; to the extent a response is required, the Commission denies that a trial by jury is 

permissible in this case. 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 86
2. This paragraph contains plaintiffs' characterization of their Original Complaint, 

and to the extent Plaintiffs allege that the FEC has acted illegally, the paragraph is denied. 

3. Admit. 

4. Admit that this Court has jurisdiction to review the Commission's underlying 

administrative determination challenged in this case. 

5. Admit. 

6. Admit. 

7. The Commission admits the first three sentences in this paragraph. In response to 

the fourth sentence of this paragraph, the Commission denies that plaintiffs filed the required 

disclosures in accordance with their legal obligations under the Federal Election Campaign Act 

("the Act"); admits that plaintiffs responded to the Commission's reason-to-believe finding; and 

admits that the Commission declined to modify that finding or the civil penalty that was 

calculated in accordance with the applicable Commission regulations. The Commission admits 

the fifth sentence of this paragraph. The Commission further admits plaintiffs' allegation in the 

sixth sentence of this paragraph that this Court has jurisdiction to review the Commission's 

underlying administrative determination challenged in this case. 

8. Deny. 

9. Deny. 

10. Deny. 

11. The Commission lacks sufficient information regarding which "incumbent United 

States Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen" and what alleged-but-unspecified reporting 

violations and/or penalties plaintiffs refer to in the first sentence ofthis paragraph to enable it to 

respond to such generalized allegations. The Commission likewise lacks sufficient information 

2 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 87
regarding plaintiffs' allegations in the fourth sentence of this paragraph about what unspecified 

"[l]egal commentators have noted" to enable it to respond to such generalized allegations. The 

Commission denies that the allegations in the second and third sentences of this paragraph -

which appear to relate to a ten-year-old, unrelated enforcement matter that was investigated and 

conciliated outside of the administrative-fines statutory scheme governing the Commission's 

determination in this case - identify an "example" in which the Commission "assessed a much 

smaller penalty or fine." The Commission further denies that such allegations are "a factor for 

this Court to assess in weighing the deference due to the final determination in this case." To the 

extent this paragraph otherwise alleges that the Commission's final determination in this case 

was unreasonable or contrary to law, or that the Commission's construction of the relevant 

statutes and regulations was factually or legally flawed or otherwise contrary to Congress's 

legislative intent, those allegations are denied. The Commission further denies the last sentence 

of this paragraph. 

12. The Commission admits that Plaintiffs are entitled to judicial review of its 

administrative findings. The remainder of this paragraph is denied. 

13. The Commission denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any dismissal or 

modification of the Final Determination, or any other relief. 

No response is required to Plaintiffs' prayer for relief, but the Commission denies that 

this Court should grant any relief to Plaintiffs. 

3 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 88
GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

1. The Original Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 

September 18, 2013 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson* 

Deputy General Counsel - Law 

Bar No. 457628 (D.C.) 

Kevin Deeley* 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

Bar No. 64448~ 

~CJl ... · 

Erin Chlopak* 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Bar No. 496370 (D.C.) 

Benjamin A. Streeter III* 

Attorney 

Bar No. 6181655 (IL) 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

(202) 219-0260 - facsimile 

* Counsel's pro hac vice applications (Docket Nos. 9-12) and the Commission's motion for 

waiver of fees and the local counsel requirement in Local Rule 83.10 (Docket No. 8) are 

pending. 

4 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 89
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Benjamin A. Streeter III, electronically submitted the foregoing document with the 

Clerk ofthe Court for the Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of 

the court. I hereby certify that I have served all counsel of record electronically or by another 

manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure S(b )(2). 

Dated: September 18, 2013 

Case 3:13-cv-02401-K Document 13 Filed 09/18/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 90