UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

 

 ) 

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ) 

ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 16-2255 (CRC) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ANSWER 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S ANSWER 

 Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) submits this answer 

to the Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory relief filed by plaintiffs Citizens for 

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) and Melanie Sloan. Any allegation not 

specifically responded to below is DENIED.1

 

1

 This litigation is commenced against the Federal Election Commission (Commission) 

following a remand order in another action, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Wash. 

(“CREW”) v. FEC, No. 14-1419 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2016). The same plaintiffs brought that 

earlier CREW case on the grounds that the Commission did not approve a recommendation of the 

Commission’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) to find “reason to believe” (RTB) that a 

violation of the FECA or of its regulations occurred in that case and that the file was 

consequently closed. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)). 

The reason for the initially challenged inaction of the Commission was because there 

were not four or more Commissioners’ votes to proceed on the RTB recommendation. Courts 

have held that, in order to properly review the inaction of the Commission, the court must be 

supplied with a “statement of reasons” of those Commissioners who voted against, or abstained 

from voting for, the OGC recommendation, who the court has called the “controlling group.” 

See Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131, 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987); FEC v. 

Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F. 2d 1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“[W]hen the 

Commission deadlocks 3-3 and so dismisses a complaint, that dismissal, like any other, is 

judicially reviewable under Section [30109(a)(8)]. . . . [T]o make judicial review a meaningful 

exercise, the three Commissioners who voted to dismiss must provide a statement of their 

reasons for so voting. Since those Commissioners constitute a controlling group for purposes of 

the decision, their rationale necessarily states the agency’s reasons for acting as it did.”); 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 15
2 

 1. This paragraph summarizes plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the allegations of 

which speak for themselves, and require no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint filed by plaintiffs, in which 

American Action Network (“AAN”) was the respondent and DENY that the Commission has 

failed to act on the administrative complaint in which Americans for Job Security (“AJS”) was 

the respondent. 

 2. This paragraph describes portions of this Court’s Memorandum Opinion in 

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. 2016) 

(“CREW”), which speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the decision contains the quoted text and sets forth the reasons the Court 

determined that the dismissals of the AJS and AAN matters were contrary to law. ADMIT that, 

in accordance with section 30109(a)(8)(C), the Court remanded the matters to the agency to 

conform with its decision. DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

 3. ADMIT that on remand, the Commission dismissed plaintiffs’ administrative 

complaint against AAN. DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

 

Common Cause v. FEC, 655 F. Supp. 619 (D.D.C. 1986), rev’d on other grounds, 842 F.2d 436 

(D.C. Cir. 1988). 

The Commission has historically voted by a majority vote (pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §§ 

30106(c) and 30107(a)(6) (formerly 2 U.S.C. §§ 437c(c) and 437d(a)(6))) to authorize the 

OGC’s appearance on behalf of the Commission in suits commenced pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 

30109(a)(8) (formerly 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)). Accordingly, the views of the Commissioners 

who voted to pursue enforcement are not defended by the OGC, although their statements of 

reasons are part of the administrative record and available for the Court’s consideration. 

Furthermore, the OGC’s representational role in this matter does not change OGC’s earlier 

recommendation to find RTB or any of the reasons supporting it, which are part of the 

administrative record. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 15
3 

 4. ADMIT that on remand, by a vote of 3-3, the Commission did not find reason 

to believe that AAN had violated Federal Election Campaign Act’s (“FECA”) registration and 

reporting requirements for political committees. DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

5. ADMIT that plaintiffs filed their original administrative complaint against AJS 

on March 8, 2012, that this Court remanded the AJS matter to the FEC in an order issued on 

September 19, 2016, and that the FEC has taken no final action with respect to AJS subsequent 

to the remand. DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

 6. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations regarding plaintiffs’ motivation in bringing this action. DENY the 

remainder of this paragraph. 

 7. ADMIT that FECA’s judicial review provision, 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), 

provides statutory jurisdiction; that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides federal question jurisdiction in the 

district court; and that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Commission. ADMIT that 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) provides for venue in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. DENY the remainder of this paragraph. 

 8-10. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in these paragraphs. 

 11. To the extent this paragraph contains allegations about unspecified information 

on CREW’s website and in unspecified reports and press releases, such sources speak for 

themselves and require no response. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny CREW’s descriptions of its work in this paragraph. 

 12. The Commission ADMITS that CREW has filed administrative complaints 

with the FEC, but is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny CREW’s 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 15
4 

allegations in this paragraph concerning the circumstances surrounding its decision to file such 

complaints. 

 13. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in the first sentence of this paragraph. The remainder of the paragraph is 

DENIED. 

 14. The Commission ADMITS that information about contributions to campaigns 

of Congressional candidates aids in detecting quid pro quos. The Commission is otherwise 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

 15-17. These paragraphs describe reports issued by CREW, which speak for 

themselves, and require no response. To the extent the paragraphs set forth allegations about 

how CREW obtained information discussed in reports it has issued or discuss CREW’s webposting practices, the Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny such allegations. 

 18. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in this paragraph concerning CREW’s access to and potential use of 

information concerning organizations’ sources of money for unspecified “political purposes.” 

The remainder of this paragraph is DENIED. 

 19. ADMIT that Melanie Sloan was formerly the executive director of CREW; the 

Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations 

concerning Ms. Sloan in the second sentence of this paragraph. ADMIT that registered voters 

(and others) may legally review information that is publicly reported pursuant to FECA’s 

disclosure requirements. DENY that the Commission has failed to properly administer FECA. 

The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 15
5 

allegations in this paragraph, which are vague and refer, inter alia, to unspecified provisions of 

FECA and the unspecified “political activities” of an unidentified political committee. 

 20. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or 

deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

 21. ADMIT that CREW and Ms. Sloan are the administrative complainants in this 

case and have filed other administrative complaints with the Commission. The Commission is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this 

paragraph. 

 22. ADMIT. 

 23. ADMIT that FECA and FEC regulations contain provisions requiring groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to comply with certain organizational, 

registration, and disclosure requirements. 

 24. This paragraph quotes a provision of FECA and Commission regulations, 

which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that the quoted language in this paragraph appears in the statutory and regulatory 

definitions of the term “political committee,” but DENY that this paragraph sets forth all the 

requirements for constituting such a committee. 

 25. This paragraph quotes portions of the statutory provision defining 

“expenditure,” and a Supreme Court decision construing that definition, which speak for 

themselves and require no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the 

quoted language in the first sentence of this paragraph appears in the statutory definition of the 

term “expenditure,” but DENY that the first sentence of this paragraph sets forth the complete or 

accurate statutory definition of that term, and ADMIT that the Supreme Court in Buckley v. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 15
6 

Valeo construed “expenditure” in certain contexts to reach only “funds used for communications 

that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” 424 U.S. 1, 80 

(1976) (per curiam). 

 26. This paragraph purports to describe the legal requirements for determining 

whether a group is a political committee based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that the Supreme Court in Buckley adopted a “major purpose” 

requirement for certain organizations but DENY that this paragraph sets forth a complete 

description of that analysis. 

 27. This paragraph describes the Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v. 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (“MCFL”), which speaks for itself and 

requires no response. 

 28. The first sentence of this paragraph, to the extent it is factual allegation, is too 

vague to admit or deny. The remainder of this paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of 

certain provisions of FECA and Commission regulations, which speak for themselves, and 

requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the quoted language in 

this paragraph appears in the statutory and regulatory definitions of the term “independent 

expenditure” and “electioneering communication,” but DENY that this paragraph sets forth the 

complete statutory or regulatory definition of those terms. ADMIT that groups making 

electioneering communications or independent expenditures are subject to certain reporting 

requirements, but DENY this paragraph to the extent that it suggests that all of the reporting 

requirements applying to political committees extend to groups that are not political committees 

when they make independent expenditures or electioneering communications. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 15
7 

 29. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain provisions of FECA 

and Commission regulations, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that FECA and Commission regulations require groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to file a statement of organization with the 

Commission within 10 days of becoming a political committee. 

 30. This paragraph contains plaintiffs’ descriptions of certain provisions of FECA 

and Commission regulations, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, ADMIT that FECA and Commission regulations require groups 

meeting the definition of “political committee” to file periodic reports with the FEC that disclose 

the information described in this paragraph. 

 31-37. These paragraphs describe FECA’s statutory provisions governing the FEC’s 

administrative enforcement process, which speak for themselves, and require no response. To 

the extent responses are required, ADMIT that these paragraph generally describe FECA’s 

administrative enforcement procedures, including the procedures for obtaining judicial review of 

a Commission dismissal decision. 

 38-39. ADMIT that these paragraphs generally contain AAN’s self-description as set 

forth on its website and response submitted in MUR 6589. 

 40. The allegations in this paragraph that AAN spent certain amounts “largely” on 

certain advertisements in 29 unspecified primary and general elections are too vague to admit or 

deny. ADMIT that AAN reported independent expenditures of approximately $4,096,910 during 

the period alleged. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are DENIED. 

 41. ADMIT that AAN reported spending $725,000 on advertisements referencing 

Representative Ed Perlmutter (CO-07), and ADMIT that the advertisement referencing Rep. Ed 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 15
8 

Perlmutter included the first two quotations in paragraph 41. DENY that this paragraph includes 

a complete and accurate description of the referenced advertisement. 

 42. This paragraph contains allegations regarding unspecified advertisements 

being similar in an unspecified way to the example it cites and is too vague to admit or deny. 

 43. This paragraph references AAN’s spending reported in tax returns filed with 

the IRS, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. The FEC is without knowledge 

or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph regarding information 

in plaintiffs’ possession. 

 44. This paragraph alleges the amounts AAN reported spending in tax returns filed 

with the IRS, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. This paragraph also alleges 

amounts AAN reported spending on independent expenditures and electioneering 

communications in disclosure reports filed with the FEC, which also speak for themselves and 

require no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that AAN reported spending a 

total of $25,692,334 on its 2010 tax return. ADMIT that AAN reported to the FEC spending 

approximately $17,796,000 on independent expenditures and electioneering communications in 

its 2010 fiscal year. 

 45. The allegations in this paragraph regarding amounts that AAN “may have 

spent . . . on politics” or “political activity” are too vague to admit or deny. This paragraph 

further alleges the amounts AAN reported spending in tax returns filed with the IRS and 

disclosure reports filed with the FEC, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To 

the extent a response is required, ADMIT that AAN reported spending the alleged amount on the 

tax return. ADMIT that AAN reported to the FEC spending approximately $17,796,000 on 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 15
9 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications in its 2010 fiscal year. The 

remaining allegations in the paragraph is DENIED. 

 46. This paragraph alleges the amounts ANN reported spending in tax returns filed 

with the IRS and disclosure reports filed with the FEC, filings which speak for themselves, and 

requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that AAN reported spending 

the alleged amounts on the tax returns referenced in the first sentence of this paragraph. ADMIT 

that AAN reported spending a total of $1,446,675 on all activities on its 2009 tax return. 

ADMIT that AAN reported spending a total of $25,692,334 on its 2010 tax return. The 

remaining allegations in this paragraph are DENIED. 

 47. This paragraph alleges the amounts AAN reported spending in tax returns filed 

with the IRS, which speak for themselves, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that AAN reported spending $185,108 on political expenses on its 2009 tax 

return referenced in this paragraph. The allegations in this paragraph regarding “political 

spending” are too vague to admit or deny. The remainder of this paragraph is DENIED. 

 48. ADMIT that on June 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint that 

was designated by the Commission as MUR 6589. The remainder of this paragraph describes 

the administrative complaint, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that plaintiffs’ administrative complaint alleged that AAN violated 

certain provisions of FECA. 

 49. ADMIT the first sentence. This paragraph describes portions of the First 

General Counsel’s Report, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a 

responses is required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contains 

the statements alleged in this paragraph. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 15
10 

 50. ADMIT that on June 24, 2014, the Commission considered the allegations in 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against AAN and, by a 3-3 vote, did not find reason to 

believe AAN violated FECA; further ADMIT that the Commission then voted 6 to 0 to close the 

file. This paragraph is otherwise DENIED. 

 51. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this 

paragraph describes portions of the Statement of Reasons of then-Chairman Lee E. Goodman 

and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in MUR 6589, which speaks 

for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that that 

Statement of Reasons was the “controlling” explanation for the decision in MUR 6589 and that 

the Statement contains the quoted language. 

 52. This paragraph describes portions of the Statement of Reasons of thenChairman Lee E. Goodman and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in 

MUR 6589, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the statement did not include genuine issue advocacy in its application of 

the major-purpose test and did not limit its analysis to a single calendar year. The remaining 

allegations are DENIED. 

 53. This paragraph describes plaintiffs’ complaint filed in CREW v. FEC, No. 14-

1419 (CRC) (D.D.C.), which speaks for itself, and requires no responses. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that the complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, pursuant to 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), and named the FEC as a defendant. 

 54. This paragraph quotes portions of the district court’s decision in CREW v. 

FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. September 19, 2016), which speaks for itself and requires no 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 15
11 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the quoted language in this 

paragraph appears in decision. 

 55. ADMIT that on October 19, 2016, the FEC notified plaintiffs that, by a vote of 

3-3, the Commission did not find reason to believe that AAN had violated FECA’s registration 

and reporting requirements for political committees. The remainder of this paragraph describes 

the Statement of Reasons of then-Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioners Caroline C. 

Hunter and Goodman in MUR 6589R (“Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman Statement of Reasons”), 

which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT 

that the Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman Statement of Reasons in MUR 6589R was authored by 

the same Commissioners that authored Statement of Reasons reviewed in CREW, No. 14-1419. 

This paragraph is otherwise DENIED. 

 56. This paragraph describes and quotes portions of the Petersen, Hunter, and 

Goodman Statement of Reasons in MUR 6589R, which speaks for itself, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the Petersen, Hunter, and Goodman 

Statement of Reasons contains the quoted language. 

 57. This paragraph describes and quotes portions of the Petersen, Hunter, and 

Goodman Statement of Reasons in MUR 6589R, which speaks for itself, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required it is DENIED. 

 58. This paragraph describes and quotes portions of the Petersen, Hunter, and 

Goodman Statement of Reasons in MUR 6589R, which speaks for itself, and requires no 

response. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the quoted text appears in the 

statement and that the Commissioners found, after conducting a fact-intensive case-by-case 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 11 of 15
12 

analysis, that less than half of AAN’s spending indicated a major purpose of nominating or 

electing candidates. 

 59-60. ADMIT that these paragraphs generally contain AJS’s self-description as set 

forth in its response submitted in MUR 6538, its website, and its 2009 tax return. 

 61. The allegations in this paragraph that AJS spent certain amounts “largely” on 

certain advertisements in 20 unspecified primary and general elections are too vague to admit or 

deny. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are DENIED. 

 62. ADMIT that AJS reported spending approximately $4,414,524 on independent 

expenditures between January 15, and October 31, 2010, and approximately $4,908,846 on 

independent expenditures for calendar year 2010. The remaining allegations in the first sentence 

are DENIED. ADMIT the last sentence of this paragraph. 

 63. ADMIT that AJS reported spending $479,268 on January 15, 2010, for an 

advertisement that contained the quoted text, and ADMIT that Scott Brown was a Republican 

candidate in the January 19, 2010 Massachusetts special election for United States Senate. To 

the extent this paragraph contains plaintiffs’ characterizations of AJS’s spending and the content 

of the quoted advertisement, no response is required. 

 64. ADMIT that AJS reported to the IRS spending a total of $12,417,809 from 

November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010, and ADMIT that AJS’s reported spending on 

independent expenditures and electioneering communications for this period comprised 

approximately 72 percent of that amount. The FEC is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in the second and third sentence of this paragraph 

because the terms “political expenditures” and “political expenses” are too vague to permit a 

response. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 12 of 15
13 

 65. ADMIT that on March 8, 2012, plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint that 

was designated by the Commission as MUR 6538. The remainder of this paragraph describes 

the administrative complaint, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that plaintiffs’ administrative complaint alleged that AJS violated 

certain provisions of FECA. 

 66. This paragraph describe portions of the First General Counsel’s Report in 

MUR 6538, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the extent a response is 

required, ADMIT that the Commission’s First General Counsel’s Report contains the statements 

in this paragraph, including the calculation that AJS spent a total of $4,598,518 on electioneering 

communications in 2010. The FEC avers that it has since determined that the $4,598,518 

calculation was incorrect, and that the correct total of AJS’s spending on electioneering 

communications in 2010 was $4,556,518. 

67. ADMIT that on June 24, 2014, the Commission considered the allegations in 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaint against AJS and, in a 3-3 vote, did not find reason to believe 

AJS violated FECA, and then voted 6-0 to close the file. This paragraph is otherwise DENIED. 

 68. ADMIT the first sentence of this paragraph. The second sentence of this 

paragraph describes portions of the Statement of Reasons of then-Chairman Lee E. Goodman 

and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen in MUR 6538 (“Goodman, 

Hunter, and Petersen Statement of Reasons”), which speaks for itself, and requires no response. 

To the extent a response is required, ADMIT that the Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen Statement 

of Reasons in MUR 6538 was the “controlling” explanation for the decision in MUR 6538 and 

that it contains the quoted language. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 13 of 15
14 

 69. This paragraph describes portions of the Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen 

Statement of Reasons in MUR 6538, which speaks for itself, and requires no response. To the 

extent a response is required, DENY plaintiffs’ characterization of the statement. 

 70. ADMIT. 

 71. This paragraph describes portions of the district court’s decision in CREW v. 

FEC, 209 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D.D.C. September 19, 2016), which speaks for itself, and requires no 

responses. To the extent a response is required, ADMIT the court found the FEC’s dismissal of 

plaintiffs’ administrative complaints contrary to law, granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgement, and remanded the matters to the FEC for further consideration. 

 72. ADMIT that the FEC has complied with its statutory obligation not to publicly 

disclose information regarding the remanded AJS matter, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(12). The 

FEC has provided plaintiffs with information regarding that matter as necessary to defend 

against plaintiffs’ challenge in CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419, pursuant to a protective order 

entered in that case. See Protective Order, CREW v. FEC, No. 14-1419 (CRC) (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 

2016) (Docket No. 63). 

 73. ADMIT that AJS filed an amended disclosure report with the FEC on February 

16, 2017. That disclosure report speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent a 

response is required, ADMIT that AJS’s amended disclosure report showed a contribution from 

the Center to Protect Patient Rights on August 24, 2010, for $46,518.98. ADMIT that plaintiffs 

filed an administrative complaint with the Commission against AJS, the Center to Protect Patient 

Rights, and other groups, which was designated as MUR 6816, and which resulted in a publicly 

available conciliation agreement. The Commission is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 14 of 15
15 

 74. ADMIT that the Commission has not taken final action with respect to AJS 

subsequent to the remand. This paragraph is otherwise DENIED. 

 75. This paragraph incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. The 

Commission likewise incorporates by reference its preceding responses. 

 76. DENIED. 

 77. The first sentence quotes portions of the decision in CREW, 209 F. Supp. 3d 

77, which speaks for itself and requires no response. To the extent a response is required, 

ADMIT that the quoted language in this sentence appears in decision. This paragraph is 

otherwise DENIED. 

 78-82. DENIED. 

 83. This paragraph incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs. The 

Commission likewise incorporates by reference its preceding responses. 

 84-85. DENIED. 

REQUESTED RELIEF 

The Court should deny plaintiffs’ requested relief.

 Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) 

Acting General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

Erin Chlopak (D.C. Bar No. 496370) 

Assistant General Counsel 

April 28, 2017 

/s/ Greg J. Mueller 

Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) 

Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) 

Attorneys 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

 

Case 1:16-cv-02255-CRC Document 15 Filed 04/28/17 Page 15 of 15