IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )

AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. )

Washington, D.C. 20001, )

)

ANNE L. WEISMANN )

6117 Durbin Road )

Bethesda, MD 20817, )

) Civil Action No.

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION )

999 E Street., N.W. )

Washington, D.C. 20463, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________ )

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (“FECA” or “the Act”), 52 U.S.C § 30109(a)(8)(C), and the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, challenging as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and contrary to law the dismissal by the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or 

“Commission”) of an administrative complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 

Washington (“CREW”) and Anne L. Weismann (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Unknown 

Respondent(s) for violating the FECA’s ban on making political contributions in the name of 

another. This action seeks to remedy the injuries to Plaintiffs and the public resulting from “an 

egregious example of someone using a web of organizations to hide the true source of a $1.7 

million contribution to a super PAC – and getting away with it.” In the Matter of Amer. 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 17
2

Conservative Union, et al., Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Ellen L. Weintraub 1, MUR No. 

6920 (Dec. 19, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 1). 

2. As found by the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”), funds that were 

originally reported by Now or Never PAC as a contribution from a social nonprofit organization, 

American Conservative Union (“ACU”), actually originated from an unknown source and were 

passed through ACU and a previously undisclosed LLC, Government Integrity, LLC (“GI 

LLC”), before they reached their ultimate destination, the PAC, which used the funds to pay for 

political ads. Third General Counsel’s Report 2–3, MUR No. 6920 (Sept. 15, 2017) (attached as 

Exhibit 2). The use of these pass-throughs and the wrongful attribution of the contribution as 

originating with ACU had the effect of hiding the true source of the funds Now or Never PAC 

used to pay for its political ads. The Commission ultimately entered into a conciliation 

agreement with ACU, GI LLC, Now or Never PAC, and James C. Thomas III, the treasurer for 

Now or Never PAC and counsel for GI LLC, fining them $350,000 for their actions. See 

Conciliation Agreement, MUR No. 6920 (Oct. 31, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 3). 

3. Nevertheless, by a split decision, the Commission failed to adopt the OGC’s

recommendation to find reason to believe two additional participants in the pass-through scheme, 

the John Doe Trust and its trustee, John Doe Trustee (collectively, the “John Doe entities”),

violated the FECA. See Certification, MUR No. 6920 (Sept. 21, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 4). 

The true identities of the John Doe Trust and the John Doe Trustee are currently unknown to 

Plaintiffs.1 Moreover, because the Commission also split on whether to adopt the OGC’s 

recommendation to enforce outstanding subpoenas, the FEC failed to ascertain whether the John 

 1 Pursuant to a court order, the FEC is not currently able to disclose the name of the trust or 

identity of the trustee. Accordingly, the FEC materials that identify the true name of the John 

Doe Trust and John Doe Trustee are redacted. See, e.g., Certification 1 (Sept. 21, 2017), Ex. 4.

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 17
3

Doe Trust was merely a pass-through itself or was the true source of the contribution to Now or 

Never PAC, and thus did not conclude whether the John Doe Trust is an Unknown Respondent 

alleged in CREW’s complaint or whether some other entity or entities are the alleged Unknown 

Respondent(s). Those failures resulted in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint. 

4. On December 20, 2017, nearly two months after closing the file on Plaintiffs’ 

complaint, two of the three commissioners who refused to adopt the OGC’s recommendation to 

find reason to believe and to enforce the subpoenas issued a statement of reasons to explain their 

vote. Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Comm’r Lee E. Goodman, 

MUR No. 6920 (Dec. 20, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 5). While congratulating themselves for 

setting “clear precedent” that the ban on pass-throughs applies to social welfare nonprofits, id. at 

5, they refused to take any position on the use of LLC’s (or trusts) as pass-throughs, arguing the 

very lack of clarity in the law prevented them from doing their jobs to clarify the law, id. at 2–3.

Their statement fails to provide a reasonable basis for dismissal and rests on impermissible 

interpretations of law. Thus, their failure to find reason to believe the John Doe Trust and John 

Doe Trustee violated the FECA, their failure to pursue an investigation into the true source of the 

contribution and the identity of the Unknown Respondent(s), and the dismissal that resulted from 

those failures are contrary to law. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal 

jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 5 U.S.C. § 702. This 

Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201(a), and 2202. 

Venue lies in this district under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 3 of 17
4

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan corporation organized under Section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

7. CREW is committed to protecting the right of citizens to be informed about the 

activities of government officials, ensuring the integrity of government officials, protecting our 

political system against corruption, and reducing the influence of money in politics. CREW 

works to advance reforms in the areas of campaign finance, lobbying, ethics, and transparency. 

Further, CREW seeks to ensure that campaign finance laws are properly interpreted, enforced, 

and implemented.

8. To advance its mission, CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, 

advocacy, and public education to disseminate information to the public about public officials 

and their actions, and the outside influences that have been brought to bear on those actions. A

core part of this work is examining and exposing the special interests that have influenced our 

elections and elected officials and using that information to educate voters regarding the integrity 

of public officials, candidates for public office, the electoral process, and our system of 

government.

9. Toward this end, CREW monitors the activities of those who run for federal

office as well as those groups financially supporting candidates for office or advocating for or

against their election. CREW regularly reviews campaign finance reports that groups,

candidates, and political parties file with the FEC disclosing their expenditures and, in some

cases, their contributors. Using the information in those reports, CREW, through its website,

press releases, reports, and other methods of distribution, publicizes the role of these individuals

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 4 of 17
5

and entities in the electoral process and the extent to which they have violated federal campaign

finance laws.

10. CREW also files complaints with the FEC when it discovers violations of the

FECA. Publicizing violations of the FECA and filing complaints with the FEC serve CREW’s

mission of keeping the public, and voters in particular, informed about individuals and entities

that violate campaign finance laws and deterring future violations of campaign finance laws.

11. CREW is hindered in carrying out its core programmatic activities when those

individuals and entities that attempt to influence elections and elected officials are able to keep

their identities hidden. Likewise, the FEC’s refusal to properly administer the campaign finance

laws, particularly the FECA’s reporting requirements, hinders CREW in its programmatic

activity, as compliance with those reporting requirements often provides CREW with the only

source of information about those individuals and groups funding the political process. As a

result of the FEC’s refusal to enforce the FECA, organizations and individuals are able to

launder their contributions through third parties. This deprives CREW of information critical to

advancing its ongoing mission of educating the public to ensure the public continues to have a

vital voice in our political process and government decisions.

12. As part of CREW’s work in carrying out its central mission CREW focuses on socalled “pay-to-play” schemes. Toward that end, CREW looks for correlations between donations

to the campaign of a member of Congress or candidate and that member’s subsequent

congressional activities, including advocating for policies and legislation that serve the interests

of the member’s donors. Information that an individual or entity made a large-dollar

contribution may be very revealing about the influences that donor has brought to bear on the

member post-election. Without information about the individuals and entities funding the

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 5 of 17
6

political activities of organizations and individuals, CREW is stymied in fulfilling its central

mission. 

13. As an example, in May 2013, CREW issued a report, Rise of the Machines,

detailing the growing political influence of high-frequency traders in Washington. CREW’s

analysis was based in large part on the lobbying and campaign contribution records of 48

companies specializing in high frequency trading. That data revealed that between the 2008 and

2012 election cycles, the campaign contributions of these firms increased by 673 percent, from

$2.1 million during the 2008 election cycle to $16.1 million during the 2012 cycle. CREW was

able to obtain this information because of the disclosure requirements to which the organizations

receiving those contributions – federal candidates, party committees, PACs, and super PACs –

are subject under the FECA.

14. As another example, CREW published Stealth Donors, a December 2012 report 

on donors who gave more than $1,000,000 to super PACs trying to influence the 2012 election. 

The report revealed a dozen donors with policy or business interests that depended on the 

outcome of the elections, but whose efforts to sway voters largely were out of the public view. 

CREW obtained the information used in this report from information the FECA requires political 

committees to disclose.

15. At the time the administrative complaint underlying this case was filed, plaintiff 

Anne L. Weismann was CREW’s Interim Executive Director, and she currently is CREW’s 

Chief FOIA Counsel. She is a citizen of the United States and a registered voter and resident of 

the state of Maryland. As a registered voter, Ms. Weismann is entitled to receive all the 

information the FECA requires those engaged in political activities to report publicly. She is 

further entitled to the FEC’s proper administration of the provisions of the FECA. Ms. 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 6 of 17
7

Weismann is harmed in exercising her right to an informed vote when a political committee fails 

to report the true source of its contributions, as the FECA requires.

16. When Plaintiffs file complaints against violators of the FECA, they rely on the 

FEC, as the preliminary civil enforcement authority, to comply strictly with the FECA when 

making its enforcement decisions. See 52 U.S.C. § 30107(e). Plaintiffs are harmed and are 

“aggrieved” parties when the FEC dismisses their complaints contrary to the FECA, refuses to 

enforce the FECA’s mandatory disclosure requirements, or otherwise acts contrary to the 

requirements of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). 

17. Defendant FEC is the federal agency established by Congress to oversee the 

administration and civil enforcement of the FECA. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30106, 30106(b)(1).

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

18. The FECA imposes a number of disclosure requirements to ensure the public and 

voters are fully apprised of election-related spending. In particular, the law requires 

organizations that engage in significant electioneering, called “political committees,” see 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(4); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976), to disclose the source of their 

contributions, 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A).

19. To ensure the public learns the true-source of a contribution and to prevent the 

reporting of a mere pass-through entity as that source, the FECA and FEC regulations prohibit 

making a contribution in the name of another person, knowingly permitting one’s name to be 

used for the purpose of making a contribution in the name of another person, and knowingly 

accepting a contribution made by one person in the name of another person. Specifically, 52 

U.S.C. § 30122 provides: “No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 7 of 17
8

knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall 

knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.” 

20. FEC implementing regulations echo these prohibitions on making a contribution 

in the name of another, knowingly permitting one’s name to be used to effect a contribution, 

knowingly helping or assisting another to do so, and knowingly accepting a contribution made 

by one person in the name of another person. 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b). The regulation includes, as 

an example of a prohibited contribution, giving money, “all or part of which was provided to the 

contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of money[.]” 

Id. at § 110.4(b)(2).

21. Under the FECA, any person who believes there has been a violation of the Act 

may file a sworn complaint with the FEC. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1). Based on the complaint, the 

response from the person or entity alleged to have violated the Act, facts developed by the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”), and any OGC recommendation, the FEC then votes on whether 

there is “reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). A 

“reason to believe” exists where a complaint “credibly alleges” a violation of the FECA “may 

have occurred.” FEC, Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the 

Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545, 12545 (Mar. 16, 2007). If four 

commissioners find there is “reason to believe” a violation of the FECA has occurred, the FEC 

must notify the respondents of that finding and “shall make an investigation of such alleged 

violation.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2).

22. If four commissioners fail to find reason to believe a violation of the FECA has 

occurred and the Commission then dismisses the matter, the complainant, as a “party aggrieved” 

by the dismissal, may seek judicial review of the failure to find reason to believe in the United 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 8 of 17
9

States District Court for the District of Columbia. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). All petitions 

from the dismissal of a complaint by the FEC must be filed “within 60 days after the date of the 

dismissal.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(B).

23. The district court reviewing the FEC’s dismissal of a complaint may declare the 

FEC’s actions “contrary to law.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). The court also may order the FEC 

“to conform with such declaration within 30 days.” Id. If the FEC fails to abide by the court’s 

order, the FECA provides the complainant with a private right of action, brought in the 

complainant’s own name, “to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint.” Id.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24. On February 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the FEC against ACU, 

Now or Never PAC (a political committee), James C. Thomas III (in his capacity as Treasurer of 

Now or Never PAC), and Unknown Respondent (“MUR 6920”). The complaint alleged that 

ACU permitted its name to be used to effect a contribution in the name of another person, by 

acting as a conduit to contribute $1.7 million to Now or Never PAC, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30122. The complaint further alleged that Now or Never PAC knowingly accepted a 

contribution from ACU in the name of another, in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30122. Finally, the 

complaint alleged that Unknown Respondent, the “true source” of the funds ultimately donated 

to Now or Never PAC, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by contributing to Now or Never PAC in the 

name of ACU.

25. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that Now or Never PAC disclosed 

receiving $8,200,500 in contributions in the 2012 election cycle, the largest being a $1,710,000 

contribution from ACU. The vast majority of Now or Never PAC’s spending went towards its 

independent expenditures. Despite this report by Now or Never PAC, ACU first reported in its 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 9 of 17
10

tax filings that it engaged in no direct or indirect political campaign activities. About two years

after Now or Never PAC’s report, in May 2014, ACU’s amended 2012 tax return reported the 

contribution to Now or Never PAC. However, this tax return stated that the funds did not 

originate with ACU. Rather, according to ACU’s amended tax return, ACU admitted to acting 

as a conduit for a contribution earmarked to Now or Never PAC, stating that “$1,710,000 was a 

political contribution received by the Organization and promptly and directly delivered to a 

separate political organization.” In violation of the FECA, neither ACU nor Now or Never PAC 

had identified the source of the funds that flowed through ACU to Now or Never PAC.

26. Based on Plaintiffs’ complaint, the FEC conducted an investigation which 

uncovered that, on October 31, 2012, ACU received $1.8 million from GI LLC. On the very 

same day ACU received the funds from GI LLC, it sent $1.71 million of the money it received 

from GI LLC to Now or Never PAC. Thomas, who was GI LLC’s attorney as well as Now or 

Never PAC’s treasurer, transferred the funds from GI LLC and received them at Now or Never 

PAC. Correspondence between individuals at ACU and Thomas confirmed everyone knew the

purpose of the transfer to ACU was to send the funds to Now or Never PAC, stating that ACU 

would “take action immediately upon receipt.” Conciliation Agreement ¶ 9, Ex. 3, see also

Weintraub Statement 2, Ex. 1.

27. The FEC’s investigation also uncovered, however, facts to show GI LLC was not 

the true source of these funds either. The investigation shows that on October 31, 2012—the 

same day GI LLC contributed funds to ACU to pass on to Now or Never PAC—John Doe Trust, 

through John Doe Trustee, transferred $2.5 million to GI LLC. GI LLC had only been formed a 

few weeks earlier, in September 2012, and its “only known organizational purpose was to 

support conservative organizations and causes.” Third General Counsel’s Report 4, Ex. 2. The 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 10 of 17
11

John Doe Trust or John Doe Trustee “funded GI LLC.” Id. at 5. Thomas’s correspondence once 

again confirms that GI LLC itself was merely a pass-through, stating that “[t]he 2.5 million is 

here [at GI LLC]. I am about to wire the $1.8 million to American Conservative Union.” Id. at 

6; accord Weintraub Statement 2 n.5, Ex. 1.

28. Due to the stonewalling of the respondents and their obstruction of the FEC’s 

investigation, the FEC was unable to identify whether the John Doe Trust was the true source of 

the funds, or whether it was merely a pass-through itself for some other entity or entities. 

Weintraub Statement 2, Ex. 1 (noting subpoenaed witnesses “refused to cooperate”); Third 

General Counsel’s Report 5-6. Nevertheless, three commissioners of the FEC voted against 

enforcing the FEC subpoenas against the uncooperative witnesses, Certification (Sept. 21, 2017) 

1, Ex. 4, thereby stymieing the investigation into the true source of the contribution to Now or 

Never PAC, Weintraub Statement 2, Ex. 1. 

29. Following this investigation, the FEC found reason to believe that GI LLC, ACU, 

Now or Never PAC, and James C. Thomas, III (in his capacity as treasurer of Now or Never 

PAC) violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122. The FEC further found reason to believe that Now or Never 

PAC and Thomas also violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A). Certification, MUR No. 6920 (July 

12, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 6); Certification, MUR No. 6920 (Jan. 24, 2017) (attached as 

Exhibit 7).

30. On October 31, 2017, the FEC entered into a conciliation agreement with the 

respondents ACU, Now or Never PAC, Thomas, and GI LLC. Per this agreement, GI LLC, 

ACU, Now or Never PAC, and Thomas, agreed not to contest the Commission’s conclusion they 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122, and Now or Never PAC and Thomas agreed not to contest violating 

section 30104(b)(3)(A).

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 11 of 17
12

31. The FEC’s Office of General Counsel also recommended that the Commission 

find reason to believe that the John Doe Trust and John Doe Trustee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 

by making or assisting in the making of a contribution in the name of another. Third General 

Counsel’s Report 9–15, Ex. 2. However, on September 20, 2017, the FEC failed, by a vote of 2-

3, to find reason to believe. See Certification (Sept. 21, 2017) 1, Ex. 4. The same three 

commissioners who refused to vote to enforce the FEC’s subpoenas were also the ones who 

refused to vote to approve the OGC’s recommendation to find reason to believe the John Doe 

Trust and John Doe Trustee violated the FECA. Id. at 2.

32. On October 24, 2017, the Commission voted to close the file and dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ complaint. Certification, MUR No. 6920 (Oct. 24, 2017) (attached as Exhibit 8).

33. On December 19, 2017, Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who voted to find reason 

to believe against the John Doe entities and to enforce the outstanding subpoenas, issued a 

Statement of Reasons. She noted that, by reason of the failure of the other commissioners to 

pursue the case, “whoever concocted this elaborate scheme—in which money was funneled 

through at least four organizations (that we know of) in order to influence elections—succeeded 

in hiding their identity from the American public.” Weintraub Statement 1, Ex. 1. She also 

noted that the reason the Commission was only considering the 2012 contribution so many years 

later was because “[t]he information underlying the complaint did not surface until years after 

the events took place” due to ACU’s false IRS filings and due to the failure of respondents to 

report the true source of the contribution, because the respondents engaged in “deliberate [acts 

of] concealment” during the investigation, and because “the Commission failed to act for a full

year” after it received the OGC’s first set of recommendations. Id. at 3. Due to pending 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 12 of 17
13

litigation, Commissioner Weintraub redacted the names of the John Doe entities from her 

statement. Id. at 2. 

34. On December 20, 2017, two of the three commissioners who voted against 

finding reason to believe the John Doe entities violated the FECA and against enforcing the 

subpoenas issued a Statement of Reasons. Hunter, Goodman Statement, Ex. 5. The two 

commissioners argued it was unclear whether the FECA’s ban on contributions in the name of 

another would apply to LLCs like GI LLC and “[i]t would have been unfair and possibly 

inefficient to pursue enforcement against [redacted] for engaging in similar conduct where the 

issue was not clear, we had dismissed similar legal theories against other persons, and a federal 

court is currently reviewing the reasonableness of our action.” Id. at 2. The two commissioners 

therefore decided not to clarify the law. Rather, based on these concerns, the two commissioners 

decided to abdicate enforcement of the conduit contribution laws to LLCs, refusing even to 

clarify the law for other contributors who may use LLCs to deprive Plaintiffs (and the public) of 

access to the identity of the true source of contributions. 

35. In addition, the two commissioners, citing the “risk” of the running of the statute 

of limitations, argued in favor of entering a conciliation agreement with the four disclosed 

entities immediately. Id. at 3–4. The two commissioners never explained why an investigation 

into the John Doe entities and any other Unknown Respondent(s) would prevent entry and 

enforcement of the conciliation agreement with the disclosed parties. Nor did they explain how 

the statute of limitations—which would only prevent entry of a civil penalty if it ran but would 

not prevent the FEC from requiring disclosure of the true source of the contribution—justified 

their refusal to vote to enforce outstanding subpoenas. Rather, the controlling commissioners 

voted to end the investigation leaving Plaintiffs and the public little better off than they were 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 13 of 17
14

previously: possessing the name of another straw donor but still in the dark about the true source 

of the contribution used to fund Now or Never PAC. 

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

The FEC’s Failure to Find Reason to Believe that John Doe Trust and John Doe Trustee 

Violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b) was Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse 

of Discretion, and Contrary to Law

36. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully 

set forth herein.

37. The evidence in the records shows the John Doe Trust and John Doe Trustee 

made a contribution or assisted in the making of a contribution to Now or Never PAC by routing 

that contribution first through GI LLC and then through ACU, without any respondent disclosing 

the John Doe Trust as the source of the funds, in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.4(b). Accordingly, the three commissioners’ refusal to vote to find reason to believe the 

John Doe Trust and John Doe Trustee violated the FECA was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, and contrary to law. 

38. The statement by two of the three commissioners who voted against the OGC’s 

recommendation to find reason to believe the John Doe Trust and John Doe Trusted violated 52 

U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b) fails to adequately justify their vote not to find reason 

to believe and relies on impermissible interpretations of law. Furthermore, the third 

commissioner has failed to provide any reason to justify his vote. Accordingly, the three 

commissioners’ refusal to vote to find reason to believe the John Doe Trust and John Doe 

Trustee violated the FECA was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to 

law.

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 14 of 17
15

39. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to relief in the form of a declaratory order that 

defendant FEC is in violation of its statutory responsibilities under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8) and 

5 U.S.C. § 706, and has acted arbitrarily and capriciously, abused its discretion, and acted 

contrary to law in dismissing MUR 6920.

PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

The FEC’s Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint Without Identifying the True Source of the 

Funds Contributed to Now or Never PAC was Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse of 

Discretion, and Contrary to Law

40. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as fully 

set forth herein.

41. Plaintiffs’ complaint identified as an “Unknown Respondent” the “true source” of 

the funds that were passed-through ACU and ultimately contributed to Now or Never PAC.

42. The FEC investigation revealed GI LLC was an additional pass-through entity of 

the funds and that it received its funds from John Doe Trust. 

43. Nevertheless, the FEC investigation has neither confirmed that the John Doe Trust 

was the true source of the contribution nor identified the true source of the contribution if it 

originated elsewhere. 

44. The FEC’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint against this Unknown Respondent(s)

who is the true source of the funds, and who was not identified as the source of the contribution 

in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30122 and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b), is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and contrary to law.

45. Further, three commissioners voted against authorizing the enforcement of 

subpoenas against uncooperative witnesses stymied the FEC’s investigation and led to the 

dismissal of the complaint against the Unknown Respondent(s) who is the true source of the 

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 16 of 17
17

Adam J. Rappaport

(D.C. Bar No. 479866)

arappaport@citizensforethics.org

Anne L. Weismann

(D.C. Bar No. 298190)

aweismann@citizensforethics.org

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics

in Washington

455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

Phone: (202) 408-5565

Facsimile: (202) 588-5020

December 22, 2017

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:17-cv-02770 Document 1 Filed 12/22/17 Page 17 of 17