31 F.4th 781
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley (Appellants) filed an FEC complaint alleging Correct the Record (a political committee) coordinated with Hillary for America and made undisclosed in-kind contributions during the 2016 cycle.
- The FEC Office of General Counsel recommended a "reason to believe" finding, concluding many Correct the Record expenditures were not merely unpaid internet communications and should be disclosed as coordinated contributions.
- The four Commissioners then deadlocked 2–2; two Commissioners issued a controlling Statement of Reasons accepting a broad unpaid-internet exemption and the Commission dismissed the complaint.
- Appellants sued in District Court under FECA and the APA; the District Court initially found merit and standing but later dismissed the FECA claim for lack of standing, relying on Wertheimer (duplicative/only legal conclusion).
- The D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court, holding Appellants have Article III standing because victory would require disaggregation of lump-sum disclosures into quantified coordinated contributions — new, statutorily required factual information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing based on an informational injury under FECA | Appellants: denial of access to FECA-required, disaggregated amounts, dates, recipients, and purposes of coordinated in-kind contributions is a concrete informational injury | Intervenors: All expenditures were already publicly reported in aggregate; plaintiffs would only obtain a legal conclusion, not new facts | Held: Standing exists — plaintiffs would obtain new, factual disaggregated amounts that FECA requires to be disclosed |
| Whether existing aggregate disclosures defeat standing (Wertheimer issue) | Appellants: aggregate reporting does not reveal which portions funded coordinated activity; disaggregation would produce new factual information | Intervenors: Plaintiffs merely seek the legal determination of coordination; information is duplicative | Held: Wertheimer inapplicable — here disaggregation would reveal unknown numerical amounts, not merely a legal label; duplicative-reporting rule does not bar standing |
Key Cases Cited
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (denial of access to statutorily required information is an Article III injury and helps voters evaluate candidates)
- Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (plaintiff lacks standing when sought information is already available from another source)
- Shays v. FEC, 528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (informational injury analogous to Akins supports standing to challenge nondisclosure of coordinated in-kind expenditures)
- Campaign Legal Ctr. & Democracy 21 v. FEC, 952 F.3d 352 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (denial of access to information qualifies as injury where statute would require disclosure on plaintiff's view)
- Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (disclosure interests — e.g., knowing how much a candidate spent — support informational standing)