Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ) ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

Case Number 1:04CV02145 (JDB) ANSWER

DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIONS ANSWER Defendant Federal Election Commission (FEC or Commission), through its undersigned counsel, responds to the judicial Complaint filed on December 13, 2004 by Plaintiff Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Plaintiff or CREW) as follows: 1. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that CREW filed an administrative complaint with the Commission on February 4, 2004, which is attached as Exhibit B to its judicial Complaint. CREWs administrative complaint speaks for itself, and therefore no response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1, which simply characterize the document. 2. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that Mark Allen sent to CREW, on November 2, 2004, the letter attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. This letter speaks

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 2 of 8

for itself, and therefore no response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2. To the extent that Paragraph 2 characterizes the Commissions actions on October 19, 2004, the Commission ADMITS that it found reason to believe as characterized in this Paragraph, but DENIES that such characterization is complete. 3. No response is required to the allegation in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, which simply quotes from a November 2, 2004 letter to CREW from Mark Allen, which speaks for itself. 4. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that it did not impose sanctions upon the respondents in CREWs administrative complaint, DENIES any implication that it has authority to unilaterally impose sanctions upon such respondents, and DENIES that it has failed to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). No response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, as these allegations simply describe Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, which speaks for itself. 5. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission DENIES that the Court has jurisdiction over this action. No response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5, as these allegations simply describe Plaintiffs Complaint, which speaks for itself. 6. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 7. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. The Commission DENIES any implication in Paragraph 7 that CREW filed any

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 3 of 8

administrative complaints with the FEC concerning alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws prior to filing the administrative complaint that is the subject of this lawsuit. 8. The Commission lacks sufficient knowledge or information regarding CREWs programmatic activity to form a belief as to the general allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. The Commission DENIES that any such programmatic activity has been hindered by the Commissions decision not to take further action in response to CREWs administrative complaint. 9. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to how much, if any, time and money CREW has spent to learn the value of the list and in pursuing its administrative complaint. The Commission DENIES the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9, including any allegation that it had an affirmative duty to disclose the value of the list on its website. 10. The Commission ADMITS the allegations contained in the first sentence of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. No response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 10, which simply characterize the FECA, which speaks for itself. 11. The Commission ADMITS that CREW filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on February 4, 2004 alleging violations of FECAs reporting requirements, but DENIES any implication that such alleged reporting violations were the primary focus of CREWs administrative complaint. The Commission further ADMITS that the

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 4 of 8

FEC dismissed CREWs administrative complaint. The Commission DENIES that CREW has standing to bring the present enforcement action. 12. No response is required to the allegation contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, which simply characterizes the FECA and quotes from a Supreme Court decision, which speak for themselves. 13. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that, as a general matter, administrative respondent Bush-Cheney 04 was required to disclose certain information regarding certain contributions to Bush-Cheney 04, as provided by the FECA. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 express legal conclusions and cite judicial decisions, to which no response is required. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges it has suffered an injury in fact as a result of the Commissions dismissal of its administrative complaint, the Commission DENIES this allegation. 14. The Commission DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 15. The Commission DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 16. The Commission ADMITS the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 17. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that Plaintiffs administrative complaint was designated MUR 5409. No response is required to the remaining allegations in

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 5 of 8

Paragraph 17, as these allegations simply characterize CREWs administrative complaint, which speaks for itself. 18. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize CREWs administrative complaint, which speaks for itself. 19. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize CREWs administrative complaint, which speaks for itself. 20. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that Mark Allen sent to CREW, on November 2, 2004, the letter attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. This letter speaks for itself, and therefore no response is required to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20. To the extent that Paragraph 20 characterizes the Commissions actions on October 19, 2004, the Commission ADMITS that it made the findings as characterized in this paragraph, but DENIES that such characterization is complete. 21. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize Mark Allens November 2, 2004 letter to CREW, which speaks for itself. To the extent that Paragraph 21 characterizes the Commissions actions on October 19, 2004, the Commission ADMITS that the quoted language appears in the November 2 letter, but DENIES that such characterization is complete. 22. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that the FECs Office of General Counsel

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 6 of 8

(General Counsel) submitted a report to the Commission concerning CREWs administrative complaint. No further response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 22, as these allegations simply characterize this report, which speaks for itself and is attached as Exhibit C to Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 23. In response to the first sentence in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, the Commission ADMITS that its General Counsel requested and received certain materials from Bush-Cheney 04, but lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine whether those materials are identical to the materials obtained by BushCheney 04 from Mr. Norquist. No further response is required to the second and third sentences in Paragraph 23, as these sentences simply characterize the General Counsels report, which speaks for itself. 24. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize the General Counsels report, which speaks for itself. 25. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize the General Counsels report, which speaks for itself. 26. No response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, as these allegations simply characterize the General Counsels report, which speaks for itself. 27. The Commission incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint, inclusive.

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 7 of 8

28. The Commission DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. 29. The Commission DENIES the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint. Plaintiffs requested remedies speak for themselves. To the extent that any response to them is required, the Commission DENIES that any relief is appropriate. Moreover, to the extent that any factual statement in any paragraph of Plaintiffs judicial Complaint has not been specifically answered, it is DENIED. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs judicial Complaint fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon

which relief may be granted. 2. This Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Respectfully submitted, _______/s/________________ Lawrence H. Norton General Counsel _______/s/_________________ Richard B. Bader Associate General Counsel (D.C. Bar # 911073) ______/s/__________________ David Kolker Assistant General Counsel (D.C. Bar #394558)

Case 1:04-cv-02145-JDB

Document 3

Filed 02/11/2005

Page 8 of 8

_______/s/_________________ Kai Richter Attorney FOR THE DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 (202) 694-1650 (202) 219-0260 (FAX) Date: February 11, 2005