UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

STOP THIS INSANITY INC ) 

EMPLOYEE LEADERSHIP FUND ) 

PO BOX 75021 ) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20013 ) 

 ) 

STOP THE INSANITY, INC. ) 

4856 E. BASELINE ROAD, STE 102 ) 

MESA, AZ 85206 ) 

 ) 

GLENGARY, LLC ) 

4856 E. BASELINE ROAD ) 

MESA, AZ 85206 ) 

 ) 

MR. TODD CEFARATTI ) 

619 E PARK AVE ) 

GILBERT, AZ 85234, ) 

 ) 

MR. LADD EHLINGER ) 

18016 S WESTERNAVE, #223 ) 

GARDENA, CA 90248 ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Case No. ________________ 

) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ) 

999 E STREET, NW ) 

WASHINGTON, DC 20463, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

____________________________________________ 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

____________________________________________ 

 Plaintiffs Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee Leadership Fund, Stop This Insanity, Inc., 

Glengary LLC, Todd Cefaratti, and Ladd Ehlinger bring this action for declaratory and 

injunctive relief, and complains as follows: 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 1 of 26
2 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This case challenges laws that, as interpreted and applied by the Federal Election 

Commission, abridge the freedom of speech and association guaranteed under the First 

Amendment to the Constitution. These challenges are brought as applied against 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(3), 441b(a) and 441b(b)(4)(A)(i). The Stop the Insanity Employee 

Leadership Fund (hereinafter “ELF”) is a connected committee or separate segregated fund 

of the corporation, Stop This Insanity, Inc. (hereinafter “STI”). ELF, STI, and its potential 

contributors’ First Amendment rights are infringed by laws enforced and interpreted by the 

Federal Election Commission that prohibit ELF from opening a non-contribution account 

(Carey account, see Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. D.C. 2011) to solicit, Cf. 2 

U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i), and accept contributions not subject to the limits of 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) or the source prohibitions of 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) to finance 

independent expenditures. Such contributions are called unlimited contributions or Carey 

contributions. These citizens include individuals in the general public, STI’s restricted class, 

STI’s employees (solicited no more than twice per calendar year subject to certain federal 

restrictions, see 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)), other political committees, corporations, and labor 

organizations 

2. Such contributions and expenditures from ELF’s Carey account are subject to the reporting 

requirements at 2 U.S.C. §434(a), 11 C.F.R. 100.19 and 11 C.F.R. 104.4 and should be 

subject to the Commission’s recent guidance on Carey Accounts and Carey Contributions in 

its October 5, 2011 “FEC Statement on Carey v FEC”. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 2 of 26
3 

3. The restricted class of ELF is very small. ELF can only engage in meaningful speech by 

making independent expenditures, and can only finance independent expenditures by 

associating with others in the general public. 

4. In Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the 

right of corporations, and all associations of American citizens, to speak out about candidates 

and elections as protected under the First Amendment. Subsequent to Citizens United, 

SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), EMILY’s List, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 

2009), and Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011), STI and its restricted class 

members are each constitutionally entitled to spend unlimited sums on independent 

expenditures themselves, to do so in conjunction with others, and to make Carey

Contributions to the Carey Accounts of other, non-connected, PACs. Because they may each 

engage in any and all of these activities themselves, or in concert with others, there is neither 

a compelling government interest nor a rational basis to deny STI and its restricted class 

members the speech and associational right to do so through a Carey account within ELF, its 

SSF. 

5. Though entitled to do so, STI, a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, has no interest in 

engaging in independent expenditures. STI should not be forced to do so merely to enable its 

restricted class employees to speak about candidates to federal office. Moreover, STI 

recognizes that disclosure is furthered by speaking through its SSF, a fully reporting political 

committee registered with the Commission. 

6. Subsequent to Citizens United, as a matter of law, independent expenditures do not create 

apparent, or actual, quid pro quo corruption. 130 S. Ct. at 890. According to the 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 3 of 26
4 

SpeechNow.org court, regulations burdening independent expenditures are outside the scope 

of government’s legitimate interest in preventing corruption. 599 F.3d at 690. 

7. Likewise, the Preliminary Injunction issued in Carey held that political action committees 

(“PACs”) are constitutionally entitled to solicit and accept amount- and source-restricted 

contributions to finance contributions to candidates, and solicit and accept unlimited Carey

contributions to a Carey account to finance independent expenditures. 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 

(D. D.C. 2011). 

8. There is no compelling government interest in discriminating between the independent 

expenditure activities of non-connected PACs—such as the National Defense PAC discussed 

in Carey v. FEC or EMILY’s List discussed in the case of the same name—and the 

independent expenditure activity of PACs connected to a domestic non-profit corporation 

(”SSFs”) such as ELF. To do so would discriminate against speakers based on how they 

choose to associate, in derogation of Citizens United, without preventing quid pro quo 

corruption or its appearance. The First Amendment protections guaranteed to the nonconnected PACs in Carey and EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2009), should 

be extended to connected PACs known as SSFs. 

9. Likewise, there is no reason SSFs like ELF may not solicit members of the general public for 

contributions to a Carey account. When the Supreme Court upheld the solicitation 

restrictions at 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A)(i) in FEC v National Right to Work Committee, 459 

U.S. 197 (1982), they did so only to further a complete ban on political participation financed 

with corporate or union treasury funds. Id. Now that the participation ban has been lifted 

with regard to the funding of independent expenditures in Citizens United and other federal 

cases, there is no constitutional reason to prevent a domestic non-profit organization from 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 4 of 26
5 

raising the funds it needs for independent expenditures from any group of citizens choosing 

to associate with it. The only possible, relevant exception to that maxim, which Plaintiffs do 

not challenge in this case, is the prohibition on soliciting employees of the SSF not in the 

restricted class more than twice annually and subject to certain restrictions.1

 See 2 U.S.C. § 

441b(b)(4)(B). Neither ELF nor STI will solicit employees who are not included in STI’s 

restricted class outside the parameters set forth at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(B) and Commission 

regulations. 

10. A corporation or its SSF may solicit contributions for the SSF from the corporation’s 

executive or administrative personnel and their families, and where applicable, stockholders 

or members. 2 U.S.C. §§ 441b(b)(4)(A)(i), (b)(4)(C). After Citizens United, EMILY’s List, 

SpeechNow.org and Carey, there is no constitutional justification for prohibiting an SSF from 

soliciting a member of its restricted class—but not other non-restricted class employees of 

the corporation—to make unlimited contributions to the Carey account of the SSF for the 

purpose of making independent expenditures. 

11. An SSF may accept from the corporation or labor organization that serves as its connected 

organization, payments for the SSF’s establishment, administration or solicitation costs. 2 

U.S.C § 441b(b)(2)(C). Such payments are not “contributions” under the Act and are not 

prohibited. Id. At the time this statutory dispensation was provided to corporations and 

labor unions, corporate and labor participation in federal elections—both contributions and 

independent expenditures—was strictly prohibited. See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of 

Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990); rev’d in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). 

 

1

 The procedures for twice yearly solicitations include several requirements not applicable to restricted class 

personnel. The solicitations must be written and sent to employees at their residences and conducted in such a way 

that employees can make anonymous contributions of $50 or less and the solicitor cannot determine who makes the 

contribution of $50 or less. 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(B); 11 CFR 114.6(c), (d). 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 5 of 26
6 

12. Regulators and practitioners are unaccustomed to applying the dispensation to corporate 

administration of SSFs now that corporations may finance independent expenditures. But the 

dispensation only ever included funds to establish an SSF, administer its operating expenses 

and pay for its solicitations. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2)(C). Payments “made for the purpose 

of influencing an election,” 2 U.S.C. § 431(8), that is, “contributions” to finance independent 

expenditures were never included in the dispensation and are not included today. Corporate 

contributions to an SSF to finance independent political speech—well beyond mere 

administration—would be considered a “contribution” to the SSF, fully reportable to the 

public by the SSF under 2 U.S.C. §434(a) (political committee reporting). This is made plain 

by another provision in the Act. Exempt from the definition of “contribution” is “any 

payment” by a corporation which, “under section 441b(b) of this title, would not constitute 

an expenditure by such corporation.” 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(B)(vi)(emphasis added). Funds to 

make independent expenditures plainly would constitute an “expenditure” under the Act. 

Payments by STI to ELF to make independent expenditures would plainly constitute a 

“contribution,” fully reportable by ELF. Nonetheless, STI has no interest in financing 

independent expenditures, and ELF will not solicit STI for funds to ELF’s Carey account to 

finance independent expenditures. ELF will accept funds from STI only to pay the 

administrative expenses and solicitation costs of its Carey account. 

13. The Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) failed to grant an affirmative response to 

plaintiffs’ advisory opinion request, which sought a declaration that ELF’s desire to set up a 

separate, non-contribution account in accord with Carey would be lawful. Because of this, 

ELF is presently stymied in its ability to accept contributions and speak out about candidates 

in the ongoing 2012 election cycle. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 6 of 26
7 

14. In failing to extend the rights enumerated in Carey, SpeechNow.org, Citizens United and 

EMILY’s List to SSFs, the Commission has infringed upon the constitutionally protected 

rights of plaintiffs, caused and continues to cause injury by forcing plaintiffs to seek judicial 

relief to associate and speak freely. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

15. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 as a 

challenge arising under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 

Federal Election Campaign Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. 

16. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) because Defendant is an entity of the 

United States Government. 

PARTIES 

17. Plaintiff Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee Leadership Fund (“ELF”) is a political committee 

known as a separate segregated fund (“SSF” or “connected PAC”), 2 U.S.C. § 431(4)(B), of 

its connected organization, Stop the Insanity, Inc. ELF registered with the Federal Election 

Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) on January 4, 2012. 

18. Plaintiff Stop This Insanity, Inc. (“STI”) is a not-for-profit social welfare organization, 

incorporated in Arizona, whose exemption from taxation under §501(c)(4) of the Internal 

Revenue Code has been pending before the IRS for more than two years. STI is the 

connected organization of ELF.

19. Plaintiff Todd Cefaratti is a resident of the State of Arizona, the President of STI, and a 

member of the restricted class of ELF. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 7 of 26
8 

20. Plaintiff Glengary LLC is a limited liability corporation located in the State of Arizona.

21. Plaintiff Ladd Ehlinger is a resident of Georgia.

22. The Commission is the federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (“Act”) and is located in Washington, D.C. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

23. Plaintiff Employee Leadership Fund (“ELF”) wants to make contributions to federal 

candidates in the 2012 election cycle subject to the limits, source restrictions and reporting 

requirements of the Act. It is also interested in making independent expenditures with funds 

unlimited as to amount and unrestricted as to source. ELF will not solicit foreign nationals (2 

U.S.C. § 441e), national banks (2 U.S.C. § 441b(a)) or federal contractors. (2 U.S.C. § 

441c(a)(2)). ELF’s administrative expenses will be paid by its connected organization, Stop 

the Insanity, Inc. (“STI”), or out of ELF’s own receipts. 

24. ELF seeks to make Independent Expenditures calling for the election of Federal candidates, 

including Richard Mourdock (candidate for U.S. Senate in IN), Congressman Allen West 

(FL-07), and others who share the values of the restricted class employees of STI, and calling 

for the defeat of Federal candidates, including Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (CA-08), 

Senator Sherrod Brown (incumbent OH), and President Barack Obama, who do not share 

those values. 

25. Plaintiff Glengary LLC is a limited liability company interested in contributing at least 

$10,000 to a Carey account located within ELF to finance independent expenditures in 2012. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 8 of 26
9 

26. Plaintiff Todd Cefaratti, a restricted class employee of STI, wants to contribute $10,000 of 

his personal funds to the Carey account located within ELF to finance independent 

expenditures in 2012. 

27. Plaintiff Ladd Ehlinger is a political consultant who is neither an employee of STI nor a 

member of STI’s restricted class. Ehlinger is best described, vis-a-vis ELF and STI, as a 

member of the general public. Mr. Ehlinger shares the values of STI’s restricted class 

employees and has generally expressed an interest in supporting their independent 

expenditures for and against the candidates supported by or oppose by ELF. STI wants to 

solicit Mr. Ehlinger to make a $1,500 contribution to a Carey account to be located within 

ELF to finance independent expenditures. 

28. In the wake of what most campaign-finance experts have deemed a sea change in election 

law through Carey v FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011), SpeechNow.org v. Federal 

Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir 2010), Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 

(2010), and EMILY’s List v. Federal Election Commission, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009), 

plaintiffs hope to secure and make full use of their First Amendment rights. ELF, which 

already maintains a traditional contribution account subject to the limitations, prohibitions, 

and reporting requirements of the Act, seeks to establish a Carey account to finance 

independent expenditures. ELF would solicit and disclose unlimited Carey contributions 

from other individual, corporate, and union contributors into this Carey account. The 

independent expenditure campaigns that ELF seeks to engage are campaigns advocating the 

election or defeat of clearly identified candidates for federal office. Because the restricted 

class of STI is very small, part and parcel of ELF’s ability to meaningfully engage in this 

speech is in its ability to raise funds to make independent expenditures to finance the cost of 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 9 of 26
10 

producing such advertisements and publishing them via television, radio, print, and/or online 

media. Thus, ELF seeks, as recognized in Carey, SpeechNow, EMILY’s List and Citizens 

United, to be free of contribution limits for contributions given for its independent 

expenditure campaigns. 

29. While the Carey and Citizens United courts could not have been clearer establishing and 

protecting these rights, the Commission refuses to extend these rights to SSFs such as ELF. 

The continued and unjustified stonewalling by the Commission has caused and continues to 

cause ongoing injuries to the would-be speakers before this court. 

The Advisory Opinion Request 

30. On January, 4 2012, Stop This Insanity, Inc. Employee Leadership Fund submitted an 

advisory opinion request (“AOR”), attached as EXHIBIT A, to the Commission pursuant to 2 

U.S.C. § 437f. ELF’s AOR asked: 

a. May a connected PAC establish a non-contribution account (Carey account) to solicit and 

accept contributions from the general public, corporations and unions (Carey

contributions) not subject to the restrictions of 2 U.S.C.§ 441b(b)(4)(A)(i) and 2 U.S.C. § 

441b(b)(4)(B)? and 

b. How must ELF report the administrative and operating expenses paid by STI, if any, in 

connection with ELF’s Carey account, particularly where such expenses may not be 

readily determinable? 

31. Pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 112.1, the Commission accepted the AOR for review, assigned it 

AOR number 2012-01, and posted it on the Commission’s website for public commentary. 

32. On February 17, 2012, the Commission’s general counsel issued a draft advisory opinion in 

response to ELF’s AOR. The draft advisory opinion, Draft A, concluded that the 

Commission is compelled by judicial decisions to hold that entities are permitted to establish 

non-contribution accounts or Carey accounts to finance independent expenditures. Thus, 

Draft A concluded that ELF may establish a separate, Carey account, into which it may 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 10 of 26
11 

receive unlimited contributions for the purpose of financing its independent expenditure 

activity. This “Draft A” advisory opinion is included as EXHIBIT B. 

33. An alternate draft, Draft B, was issued on February 17, 2012 and concluded that the Act and 

Commission regulations prohibit STI and ELF from establishing a Carey account for ELF 

that would receive unlimited contributions solicited from all STI employees and the general 

public for the purpose of financing independent expenditures. The alternative “Draft B” 

advisory opinion is included as EXHIBIT C. 

34. On March 1, 2012, at an open meeting of the Commission, the Commission failed by a vote 

of 3-3 to approve Draft A. The Commission also failed by a vote of 3-3 to approve Draft B. 

35. Pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 112.4(a), the Commission certified on March 2, 2012 that it was 

unable to approve ELF’s AOR because it lacked the necessary four votes. See generally 2 

U.S.C. §§ 437g(a)(2), (a)(4)(C) and (a)(6)(A). This certification is included as EXHIBIT D. 

The Commission’s failure to affirmatively provide a four-vote, binding advisory opinion in 

response to ELF’s request carries the equivalent legal effect that its proposed actions would 

be invalid under the Act and subject the organization to civil or criminal penalties under 2 

U.S.C. § 437g for speaking out about candidates and otherwise engaging in political 

association. 

36. The Commission's refusal to issue an advisory opinion deprives plaintiffs of a legal reliance 

defense that they could otherwise receive under 2 U.S.C. § 437f(c). The advisory opinion 

process in this matter is complete and deprived plaintiffs of a legal right – to engage freely in 

constitutionally protected speech and association. See Unity 08 v. Federal Election 

Commission, 596 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“parties are commonly not required to violate 

an agency's legal position and risk an enforcement proceeding before they may seek judicial 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 11 of 26
12 

review”); see also Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Federal Election 

Commission, 918 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1994). 

Ensuing Harm to Plaintiffs 

37. At the time of filing the advisory opinion request, several primary elections were less than 60 

days away. ELF filed its request as promptly as possible to ensure that its planned speech 

and association would be deemed lawful under the Act and related regulations. More than 40 

days later, the Commission decided not to issue an advisory opinion. Given that the 

Commission could not issue a definitive statement concerning the legality of ELF’s planned 

actions, ELF was required to mute itself and curtail its activities during the 2012 primary 

election cycle. 

38. During the 2012 primary election cycle, ELF planned to deploy independent expenditure 

communications targeting for defeat those candidates who do not reflect the values of STI’s 

restricted class employees, including among others Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Dick 

Lugar of Indiana. While ELF was free to endorse its preferred candidates, 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a 

and 441b curtailed the class of persons from whom ELF could solicit contributions, as well 

as the size of these contributions. Because the FEC did not permit ELF to accept unlimited 

contributions to fund its independent expenditures, ELF has been unable to gather the 

resources necessary to run independent expenditure campaigns and to be heard during many 

races in the 2012 primary and general election cycles. 

Ongoing Harm to Plaintiffs 

39. As soon as possible, and certainly before the 2012 general election, ELF would like to make 

independent expenditures from a Carey Account expressly advocating for or against clearly 

identified candidates of its choice. See Exhibit E, contract for production of advertisements. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 12 of 26
13 

40. ELF would like to make additional independent expenditures in the months leading up to the 

2012 general election based on issues and candidates that present themselves. Without the 

ability to solicit unlimited contributions to fund such communications, it will not be able to 

speak during the 2012 electoral season. Without an immediate ruling from this court, it will 

not possess the necessary time to fundraise and generate support for its message from 

likeminded individuals. 

41. As soon as possible, and certainly before the 2012 general election, ELF would like to solicit 

contributions for its independent expenditures from more persons than the individuals in its 

restricted class and in amounts greater than $5,000.00 per calendar year. ELF has contacted 

donors willing to give more than $5,000.00 in single contributions to fund independent 

expenditures, but has not solicited or accepted such amounts due to the effect of 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3). In addition, ELF has not solicited contributions from the 

general public, though not employees not in the restricted class of ELF, because of the 

solicitation restrictions at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A). Nor has ELF solicited unlimited 

contributions to a Carey account from members of its restricted class. 

42. As soon as possible, and certainly before the 2012 primary and general elections, Plaintiffs 

Todd Cefaratti, Ladd Ehlinger and Glengary LLC would like to make Carey contributions to 

ELF to finance independent expenditures 

43. ELF would like to solicit Carey contributions in the amount of $1,500 or more from Ladd 

Ehlinger, a member of the general public, despite the prohibition at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4). 

ELF also would like to solicit contributions greater than $5,000 to a Carey account from 

Todd Cefaratti, a member of ELF’s restricted class, to finance independent expenditures. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 13 of 26
14 

44. As soon as possible, and certainly before the 2012 general election, ELF would like to 

receive contributions to fund contributions, subject to source and amount limits found at 2 

U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and (2)(C), to favored candidates for federal office. Because it 

plans to make unlimited independent expenditures while receiving unlimited contributions 

for them, current operation and interpretation of the law by the Commission prohibits it from 

concurrently soliciting and receiving limited contributions. 

ELF’s Structure and Operations 

45. ELF does not coordinate any of its activities with candidates or national, state, district or 

local political party committees or their agents as defined in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(7)(B) and 

(C); 11 C.F.R. 109.21 et seq. In addition, ELF does not and will not coordinate its activities 

with other political committees. 

46. ELF’s expenditures for advertisements will be “independent expenditures” under 2 U.S.C. § 

431(17), defined as expenditures made by a person “expressly advocating the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified candidate” that are “not made in concert or cooperation with or 

at the request or suggestion of such candidate, the candidate’s authorized [campaign] 

committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.” 

47. ELF has not yet solicited or accepted any contributions in excess of the $5000 limit imposed 

by 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C), because doing so would subject it to civil and criminal 

penalties. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(d). 

48. The solicitation prohibitions contained in 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i) prevent ELF from 

accepting the contributions from Ladd Ehlinger as described in paragraphs 41 and 42 above. 

49. The contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) prevent ELF 

from soliciting additional Carey contributions above those limits for its Carey account. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 14 of 26
15 

50. Even if ELF, with its very limited restricted class, could somehow raise sufficient sums in 

increments of $5,000 or less per donor per calendar year to pay for its advertisements, the 

contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) would, by making 

it harder to gather funds, limit the type and number of times it could run advertisements. The 

limits would also diminish ELF’s ability to run additional advertisements concerning other 

federal candidates in other races. This constitutes a direct impediment on ELF’s rights and 

that of its donors to association and speech. 

51. ELF will face a credible threat of prosecution if it solicits or accepts contributions to a Carey

account in excess of the limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) to fund 

its advertisements as described herein. 

52. ELF will face a credible threat of prosecution if its solicits contributions to a Carey account 

in derogation of the restriction at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i). 

COUNT 1 

Contribution Limits — ELF

53. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations contained in all of the 

preceding paragraphs. 

54. The application of the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 

441a(a)(3) to ELF’s independent expenditure communications severely burden its right to 

freedom of speech. In application, these provisions act as expenditure limits, denying ELF 

the ability to speak effectively and efficiently. 

55. 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) are the functional equivalent of a speech ban 

imposed by the FEC against certain groups of individuals. As the Supreme Court noted in 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 n.18 (1976), “Being free to engage in unlimited political 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 15 of 26
16 

expression subject to a ceiling on expenditures is like being free to drive an automobile as far 

and as often as one desires on a single tank of gasoline.” The FEC imposes this limit against 

certain groups of individuals wishing to speak out about candidates for public office without 

constitutional support. 

56. ELF has prepared advertisements calling for the defeat of candidates for federal office and 

wishes to distribute those advertisements in the state and district in which those candidates 

are running for office. But for the Commission’s unjustified interpretation of law, ELF is 

prepared to run independent expenditures in the Ohio to defeat U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown 

and other federal candidates. See EXHIBIT F. 

57. ELF would like to produce and broadcast additional advertisements calling for the election or 

defeat of candidates for federal office in the 2012 election cycle and in future election cycles. 

58. ELF has donors who are ready, willing, and able to donate more than $5,000 each to finance 

its advertisements calling for the election or defeat of candidates for federal office as 

described herein. 

59. Under 2 U.S.C. §§ 431(8), 441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(3), and the FEC’s regulations, as 

interpreted and applied by the FEC, in contradistinction to the First Amendment and opinions 

of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EMILY’s List v. FEC, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, and 

Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. D.C. 2011), ELF is prohibited from accepting these 

and other contributions that exceed the limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 

441a(a)(3) that are made to finance its advertisements as described herein. 

60. The application of the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 

441a(a)(3) to ELF’s independent expenditure communications severely burden its right to 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 16 of 26
17 

associate with its potential donors by placing constitutionally unjustified limits on how much 

money it may receive from likeminded individuals. 

61. ELF poses no threat of corruption or its appearance because all of its contributions to 

candidates, party committees or the hard money accounts of other PACs will be made from a 

separate traditional account comprised of funds received from individuals in amounts of 

$5,000 or less. It will pay the expense of administering its contributions to candidates from 

the same account, or through STI as is permitted of an SSF. See 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(2)(C) 

Independent expenditures will be made from a separate Carey account. 

62. The application of contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) 

to ELF’s Carey account violates its contributors’ rights to freedom of speech and association 

under the First Amendment. By denying ELF’s contributors the meaningful ability to 

associate and speak through the act of contributing in furtherance of their political ideas, its 

constitutional rights are abridged. 

63. As recognized by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, associations of 

individuals wishing to speak out about candidates for federal office are “constitutionally 

entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office.” 

EMILY’S List, 581 F.3d at 9. 

64. It is never constitutionally permissible to restrict the amount of money individuals may 

contribute to an organization that makes independent expenditures. See, e.g., Carey v. FEC, 

791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. D.C. 2011), EMILY’S List, 583 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 

SpeechNow.org, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc); N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 

525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008). As a result, 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(3), and the 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 17 of 26
18 

FEC’s regulations, as interpreted and applied by the FEC must necessarily fail to survive 

constitutional scrutiny. 

COUNT 2 

Contribution Limits—Individual Plaintiffs

65. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations contained in all of the 

preceding paragraphs. 

66. Plaintiff Ladd Ehlinger, a member of the general public and not a member of ELF’s restricted 

class, is able to be solicited to contribute more than $1,500 to finance ELF’s independent 

expenditures. 

67. Plaintiff Todd Cefaratti, a member of ELF’s restricted class, is ready, willing, and able to 

contribute more than $5,000 to finance ELF’s advertisements as described herein. 

68. Mr. Cefaratti would like to make additional contributions in the future to finance ELF’s 

advertisements as described herein and as may arise in future circumstances. 

69. Plaintiff Glengary LLC is ready, willing and able to contribute more than $5,000 of its 

corporate treasury to finance ELF’s independent expenditures. 

70. Glengary LLC would like to make additional contributions in the future to finance ELF’s 

advertisements as described herein and as may arise in future circumstances. 

71. Under 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) and the FEC’s regulations, as incorrectly 

interpreted and applied by the FEC, in contradistinction to the First Amendment and opinions 

of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in EMILY’s List and SpeechNow.org, Plaintiffs 

Glengary LLC and Ehlinger are prohibited from making any contributions to ELF at all, see

Count 3, infra, and Plaintiff Cefaratti is prohibited from making a contribution that would 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 18 of 26
19 

exceed $5,000 in any calendar year even if made and used solely to finance independent 

expenditures by ELF. 

72. Application of the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) 

to Plaintiffs severely burdens their rights to associate with and speak via ELF, and to 

associate with other contributors. As noted by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals, if one person is “constitutionally entitled to spend $1 million to run advertisements 

supporting a candidate (as Buckley held), it logically follows that 100 people are 

constitutionally entitled to donate $10,000 each to a non-profit group that will run 

advertisements supporting a candidate.” EMILY’s List, 581 F.3d at 10. 

73. The application of the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 

441a(a)(3) severely burden Plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and association. Indeed, 

organizations like ELF “offer an opportunity for ordinary citizens to band together to speak 

on the issue or issues most important to them.” EMILY’s List, 581 F.3d at 11 (internal 

citation omitted). 

74. Plaintiffs’ contributions to a Carey account located within ELF pose no threat of corruption 

or its appearance because ELF’s contributions to candidates, party committees or the hard 

money accounts of other PACs will be made from a separate traditional account comprised of 

funds received from restricted class members only in amounts of $5,000 or less. Independent 

expenditures will be made from a separate Carey account. 

75. The application of contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3) 

as applied to ELF and to Plaintiffs Todd Cefaratti, Ladd Ehlinger and Glengary LLC violate 

their rights to freedom of speech and association under the First Amendment. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 19 of 26
20 

COUNT 3 

Solicitation Restrictions – ELF and Individual Plaintiffs 

76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all of the allegations contained in all of the 

preceding paragraphs. 

77. ELF would like to solicit Carey contributions from Ladd Ehlinger, a member of the general 

public, to a Carey account that would finance ELF’s independent expenditures. However, 

the solicitations restrictions at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4) prevent an SSF like ELF from soliciting 

the general public (outside of the restricted class). ELF has no interest in soliciting 

contributions from employees of its connected organization STI who are not already 

members of the restricted class, except as provided under 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(B). 

78. ELF seeks to solicit Carey contributions from Glengary LLC, a corporation and not a 

member of ELF’s restricted class, to a Carey account that would finance independent 

expenditures. However, the solicitations restrictions at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4) prevent an SSF 

like ELF from soliciting the general public (outside of the restricted class). 

79. ELF has no interest in soliciting contributions to a Carey account from the general treasury 

funds of STI. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 

1. A declaratory judgment that the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3), as well as any applicable rules and regulations regarding 

these provisions, are unconstitutional as applied to ELFs Carey Account; 

2. A declaratory judgment that the contribution limits contained in 2 U.S.C. §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(a)(3), as well as applicable rules and regulations regarding those 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 20 of 26
21 

provisions, are unconstitutional as applied to any Carey Contributions that the individual 

Plaintiffs and other supporters wish to make to ELF for its independent advertisements as 

described herein; 

3. A declaratory judgment that the prohibition on soliciting beyond the restricted class of an 

SSF like ELF, in 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i), is unconstitutional as-applied to soliciting 

Carey contributions from Ladd Ehlinger and other individuals in the general public—

other than soliciting the non-restricted class employees of STI not more than twice per 

year, see 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(B)—for contributions to a Carey account to finance 

independent expenditures. 

4. A declaratory judgment that the prohibition on soliciting beyond the restricted class of an 

SSF like ELF, at 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(4)(A)(i), is unconstitutional as-applied to soliciting 

Glengary LLC to contribute to a Carey account to finance independent expenditures. 

5. Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendant FEC from enforcing §§ 

441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(3), and 441b(b(4) as described in this complaint, as well as any 

applicable rules and regulations regarding those provisions, against ELF; 

6. Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendant FEC from enforcing 2 

U.S.C. §§ 441a(a)(1)(C), 441a(a)(3), and 441b(b)(4) as described in this complaint, as 

well as any applicable rules and regulations regarding those provisions, against the 

individual Plaintiffs and ELF’s other supporters for any Carey contributions they may 

make to a Carey Account established by ELF for independent advertisements as 

described herein; 

7. An award of nominal damages of $1 for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; 

8. Costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to any applicable statute or authority; 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 21 of 26
22 

9. Any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate. 

Date this 10th day of July, 2012. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen M. Hoersting* 

__/s/_Dan Backer__________________ 

Dan Backer (D.C. Bar No. 996641) 

DB CAPITOL STRATEGIES, PLLC 

209 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 2109 

Washington, DC 20003 

202. 210.5431 

202. 478.0750 facsimile 

shoersting@dbcapitolstrategies.com

dbacker@dbcapitolstrategies.com

 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 *Motion for Pro Hac Vice to be filed. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 22 of 26
VERIFICATION 

I, Todd Cefaratti, declare as follows: 

1. My name is Todd Cefaratti. 

2. I am the President ofSTI, and a Member of the restricted class of ELF 

3. I have personal knowledge of the operations of the Employee Leadership Fund and its 

connected organization, Stop This Insanity, Inc., including those set out in this 

Complaint, and if called upon to testify I would testify competently as to matters stated 

herein. 

4. I verify under penalty of petjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

factual statements in this Complaint concerning the Employee Leadership Fund and Stop 

This Insanity, Inc. are true and correct. 

Executed on July,£, 2012. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 23 of 26
I, Ron Dove, declare as follows: 

I 

I 

VERIFICATION 

1. My name is Ron Dove. 

2. I am t officer of Glengary LLC. 

3. I havJ personal knowledge of the operations of the Glengary LLC, including those set out 

in thi$ Complaint, and if called upon to testify I would testify competently as to matters 

stated herein. 

4. I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

factual statements in this Complaint concerning Glengary LLC are true and correct. 

Executed on July~, 2012. 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 24 of 26
I, Ladd Ehling,r, declare as follows: 

1. My na 

1 

e is Ladd Ehlinger. 

VERIFICATION 

2. I am no a Member of the restricted class of ELF 

3. I have ersonal knowledge of the statements made with regard to my interest in 

support ng independent expenditures by ELF, including those set out in this Complaint, 

and if c lled upon to testify I would testify competently as to matters stated herein. 

4. I verify!' under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

factual tatements in this Complaint concerning my interest in contributing $1,500 to 

ELF ar i true and correct. 

! ~ 

Executed on July~, 2012. 

M~ Ladd Ehlinger 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 25 of 26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 10th day of July 2012, I caused to be served the Verified 

Complaint and accompanying Exhibits, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction with proposed 

order, and the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 

postage prepaid, first class mail, upon the following persons: 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20436 

(202) 694-1650 

Civil Process Clerk 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

501 Third Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20530 

Attorney General Eric H. Holder 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Respectfully submitted, 

__/s/_Dan Backer__________________ 

Dan Backer (D.C. Bar No. 996641) 

DB CAPITOL STRATEGIES, PLLC 

209 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 2109 

Washington, DC 20003 

202. 210.5431 

202. 478.0750 facsimile 

dbacker@dbcapitolstrategies.com

 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case 1:12-cv-01140-BAH Document 1 Filed 07/10/12 Page 26 of 26