Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across all legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
      FEC Record: Litigation
- ›
      La Botz v. FEC (Dismissal)

FEC Record: Litigation*La Botz v. FEC* (Dismissal)August 5, 2014 On July 25, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by former U.S. Senate candidate Dan La Botz challenging the Commission’s decision to dismiss an administrative complaint he submitted in 2010. In that complaint,
    Mr. La Botz alleged he had been unlawfully excluded from televised candidate debates in Ohio.  **Background** Mr. La Botz’s lawsuit – filed on July 1, 2013 – arises from a previous challenge filed in the same court in July 2011 (*La Botz v. FEC*, 11-1247RC). In that case, Mr. La Botz alleged that the Commission wrongfully dismissed the administrative
    complaint that he filed against the Ohio News Organization and its member newspapers (“ONO”). Mr. La Botz alleged that the ONO failed to use pre-established and objective standards when inviting participants to a series of televised debates from which
    Mr. La Botz was excluded, and as a result, the costs of the debates constituted prohibited, in-kind corporate contributions to the participating campaigns. The Commission dismissed the administrative complaint, finding no reason to believe that ONO
    violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) or Commission regulations because ONO’s criteria for participation in the debate were pre-established and objective. On September 5, 2012, the district court concluded that the Commission’s dismissal
    of the administrative complaint was not supported by substantial evidence and remanded the matter to the agency. *La Botz v. FEC*, 889 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2012).  Upon remand, the Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and again dismissed Mr. La Botz’s administrative complaint. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide reason to believe that the ONO failed to use pre-established objective
    criteria in selecting debate participants. The Commission also decided that further pursuit of the matter would not be an efficient use of the agency’s limited resources.  **Court complaint** In response, Mr. La Botz filed a second complaint with the district court alleging that the Commission erred as a matter of law in dismissing the complaint in the remanded matter (*La Botz v. FEC*, 13-997RC). He alleged that the Commission’s
    findings contradicted the district court’s holdings, the Act and the Commission’s regulations. Mr. La Botz sought a declaration from the court that the Commission''s dismissal of his administrative complaint was arbitrary and capricious, contrary
    to law, and an abuse of discretion. On September 13, 2013, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.   **Court decision** The court agreed with the FEC that it lacked jurisdiction because Mr. La Botz did not have standing. To meet the constitutional requirements of standing, a plaintiff must show at the time the suit commences that 1) he has suffered an injury in fact;
    2) there is a causal connection between the alleged injury and the conduct at issue that is fairly traceable to the defendant; and 3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. *La Botz v. FEC*, ___ F. Supp. 2d
    ___, 2014 WL 3686764 (D.D.C. July 25, 2014), citing *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, and *Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. U.S.*, 570 F.3d 316, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2009).) The court determined that Mr. La Botz did not
    have standing when he filed his 2013 claim because his injury was no longer redressable: Mr. La Botz said that he would not run for office in Ohio, since he has relocated to New York. “Given that he will not be running for office again in Ohio, a
    favorable decision by this court will not redress his injuries, as the ONO’s selection criteria will no longer affect his campaigning.” Since there was no way for the court to redress Mr. La Botz’s injury, the court found that he lacked standing.  The court added that even if it found Mr. La Botz had standing, it also lacked jurisdiction because the case is moot. To overcome an argument of mootness, the challenged practices must be “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The court found that
    Mr. La Botz could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation that he (or a similarly situated party) would be subject to the ONO’s alleged unfair debate practices in the future. “The ONO’s debate selection criteria are now pre-existing and in written
    form, so there is no chance that a candidate ... will be subject to purportedly post-hoc rationales by the ONO.” Further, since Mr. La Botz has relocated to New York, it is no longer likely that he will run for Senate again in Ohio and would not be
    subject to the same action by the ONO. Therefore, the court held that Mr. La Botz’s claim is moot and the court therefore lacks jurisdiction. The court then concluded that even if it found jurisdiction, it would still dismiss the case on the merits given the Commission’s broad prosecutorial discretion. It found that Mr. La Botz failed to meet the substantial burden of showing that the Commission’s
    dismissal of his complaint was contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. The court determined that it was “entirely reasonable for the FEC to opt not to pursue Mr. La Botz’s claim, but rather to expend its resources on more salient and potentially
    fruitful matters.” **Resources:** *La Botz v. FEC* litigation page
    Record article: *La Botz v. FEC*
    MUR 6383: Complaint


Read next: FEC cites committees in Michigan, Missouri and Washington for failure to file 12-day Pre-Primary reports (2014)
 Related: Explore campaign finance data »


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          No FEAR Act
          Strategy, budget and performance
 Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
          FOIA
 OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms