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
- ›
      Groups have standing to challenge dismissal of some straw donor complaints (Campaign Legal Center, et al. v. FEC)

FEC Record: LitigationGroups have standing to challenge dismissal of some straw donor complaints (*Campaign Legal Center, et al. v. FEC*)April 7, 2017 On March 29, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Commission’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing a challenge brought by Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 (plaintiffs) that alleged that the Commission’s dismissal of five separate administrative complaints was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue their challenge regarding three of the five administrative complaints, but dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims regarding two of the administrative complaints. Background and challenge to dismissal of administrative complaints The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) expressly prohibits any person from making a "contribution in the name of another" or knowingly permitting his or her name to be used to effect such a contribution, and further provides that no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person. 52 U.S.C. § 30122. The Commission's regulations state that examples of a contribution in the name of another include "giving money, or anything of value, all or part of which was provided to the contributor by another person (the true contributor) without disclosing the source of the money..." and "making a contribution of money or anything of value and attributing as the source of the money or thing of value another person when in fact the contributor is the source." 11 CFR 110.4(b)(2). The plaintiffs had filed five sworn administrative complaints with the Commission against various entities and individuals alleging that they had violated the Act by using so-called "straw donors," including limited liability companies (LLCs), to make
    contributions in the name of another, thereby evading the Act's disclosure requirements. Further, the plaintiffs alleged that some of the entities that made contributions qualified as “political committees” under the Act, which would have required
    them to register with the Commission and file periodic disclosure reports of receipts and disbursements. See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101(4) and 30104(b). (Note that entities which do not make contributions to candidates and only make independent expenditures
    may register as “independent expenditure-only” political committees (commonly referred to as “Super PACs”) and accept unlimited contributions (including contributions from corporations and labor organizations).) The first complaint, which was designated Matter Under Review (MUR) 6485 by the Commission, was against W Spann LLC. The plaintiffs allege that the LLC was used as a conduit to hide the true source of a $1 million dollar contribution to a political action
    committee called Restore Our Future, which was supporting a then-presidential candidate in 2011. The plaintiffs allege that a single individual formed W Spann LLC for the sole purpose of concealing his contribution to Restore Our Future. The second and third complaints, MURs 6487 and 6488, involved two LLCs that the plaintiffs allege were used as conduits to "hide the true source of two $1 million contributions to Restore Our Future" in 2011. The plaintiffs contend that a single individual
    made the contributions through the LLCs. The fourth complaint, MUR 6711, alleged that an individual contributed more than $12 million to a Super PAC named FreedomWorks for America using the names of a corporation and an LLC established solely to make such contributions. The final complaint, designated as MUR 6930, also involved allegations that contributions were made to a Super PAC from an LLC in order to hide the true source of the donors. In their court challenge, the plaintiffs alleged that the Commission’s dismissal of the complaints effectively denied them access to complete and accurate information concerning the campaign contributions. The Commission argued that the plaintiffs’ lacked
    standing to pursue their court challenge because, among other things, the plaintiffs already had all relevant information about the contributions in question and had suffered no injury as a result of the Commission’s dismissal of the five complaints. District court decision The court agreed with the Commission’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the dismissal of two of their administrative complaints. In the first complaint (MUR 6485), the Super PAC that received the $1 million contribution has since amended its public reports to make clear that the individual and not the LLC had made the contribution. Since the contribution at issue has been publicly reported, the court stated that “it is not clear what additional information [the] plaintiffs seek.” The court also noted that the issue in the second administrative complaint (MUR 6930) was similar in that the plaintiffs argue that an individual rather than an LLC should have been reported as the true source of the contributions in question. Since the plaintiffs do not contend that the LLC should register and file reports as a political committee, the court stated that “the Commission’s dismissal has not deprived them of the information that would normally be obtained by that route.” The court held that plaintiffs “failure to obtain that legal determination is not an informational injury.” The court thus found plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Commission’s decisions in MURs 6485 and 6930. With respect to the remaining three administrative complaints at issue in the case however, the court held that the plaintiffs did have standing and had incurred informational injuries because they were denied information concerning the contributions
    in each case: “From the publicly available portions of the administrative record cited in plaintiffs’ opposition, it is clear that the Commission’s General Counsel did not believe it knew the entire story about the contributions identified in these
    three administrative complaints. If the General Counsel did not know the whole story then, there is little reason to believe that plaintiffs know it now. Under the Act, plaintiffs have ‘a right to truthful information regarding campaign contributions
    and expenditures.’” The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged informational injuries in connection with the contributions identified in three of their dismissed administrative complaints; that those injuries are traceable to the Commission’s dismissal
    “without requiring any of the alleged straw donors to register as political committees under the Act”; and that those injuries are likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. The court further held that plaintiffs need not also establish “organizational standing.” The court found that the plaintiffs already established informational standing, and that “there is no reason to doubt their claims that the information would be
    helpful to them.” The court thus concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the portions of their challenge that relate to the remaining three dismissed administrative complaints. Resources:  Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (16-752) litigation page
    Search enforcement cases
 Author
          Myles MartinIcon of email being sentPublic Affairs Specialist


Read next: District Court allows challenge to administrative complaint outcome in CREW v. FEC and Crossroads GPS (16-259)
 Related: Explore legal resources »


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