UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON DIVISION 

 

 ) 

KUHN FOR CONGRESS, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Civ. No. 2:13-3337 (PMD-BHH) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) REPLY / RESPONSE 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S REPLY / RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION TO DENY [DEFENDANT’S] MOTION TO DISMISS” 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) files this brief in 

reply/response to “Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny [Defendant’s] Motion to Dismiss” (Docket No. 

38). That document’s title indicates that it is a motion, but plaintiff entered it into the docket 

through Electronic Case Filing as a “RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 MOTION to Dismiss.” 

Given that ambiguity, and notwithstanding this District’s discouragement of reply briefs (Local 

Civil Rule 7.07 DSC), the Commission submits this short responsive brief out of an abundance 

of caution to make clear that plaintiff’s filing is opposed. 

 For the reasons we have explained, the Commission’s imposition of the civil penalty here 

— uncontested during the administrative proceedings — was not unreasonable or contrary to 

law. (See Defendant Federal Election Commission’s Mem. in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s 

Pet. for Review (“FEC Mot.”), Docket No. 27.) Kuhn for Congress’s (“Kuhn Committee”) 

unsubstantiated characterization of the civil penalty amount as “exorbitant” does not controvert 

the Commission’s showing that the penalty was calculated in a manner consistent with the 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD-BHH Date Filed 04/21/14 Entry Number 39 Page 1 of 3
2 

applicable regulation and reasonable in light of the Kuhn Committee’s failure to timely disclose 

hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal campaign activity. (FEC Mot. at 15-19.) 

The Kuhn Committee also claims that it was denied a fair hearing in part because of 

comments by FEC staff. In fact, Commission staff informed the Kuhn Committee that it could

file a challenge to the Commission’s reason-to-believe finding, while also in candor explaining 

that the circumstances of the failure to timely file were unlikely to constitute a successful ground 

for challenge under the applicable regulation. (FEC Mot. at 21-22; AR065.) After explicitly 

being put on notice orally and in writing that it could file a challenge, the Kuhn Committee chose

not to participate in the administrative process. (FEC Mot. at 21-22.) That choice was a failure 

to take advantage of available procedures, not a denial of due process. (Id.) 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court should grant the Commission’s motion, dismiss 

the Kuhn Committee’s petition for review, and, to the extent that the Kuhn Committee has filed a 

cross-motion, deny the Kuhn Committee’s motion. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Deputy General Counsel – Law 

 Kevin Deeley 

Acting Associate General Counsel 

/s/ Erin Chlopak 

Erin Chlopak 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Benjamin A. Streeter III 

Attorney 

FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

April 21, 2014 (202) 694-1650 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD-BHH Date Filed 04/21/14 Entry Number 39 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, Erin Chlopak, an attorney of record in this case, hereby certify that on this 21st day of 

April, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the United States 

District Court for the District of South Carolina, using the Court’s electronic case filing system. 

I further certify that I have served all counsel of record electronically in the manner authorized 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) and Local Civil Rule 5.05 DSC. 

 /s/ Erin Chlopak 

 Erin Chlopak 

2:13-cv-03337-PMD-BHH Date Filed 04/21/14 Entry Number 39 Page 3 of 3