Campaign Legal Center v. Federal Election Commission
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46098
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 filed five administrative complaints with the FEC alleging contributions were made "in the name of another" and that certain entities should have registered and reported as political committees under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
- The FEC dismissed all five complaints by 3–3 votes, so no investigation proceeded; plaintiffs sued under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) challenging the dismissals as arbitrary and contrary to law.
- Plaintiffs claim informational injury: being denied statutorily required disclosure that they say is essential to their organizational work (public education, litigation, rulemaking, legislative advocacy).
- The FEC moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing plaintiffs already possess the information for some complaints and lack an informational injury for the others.
- The Court found plaintiffs lacked standing for two complaints (contributions later disclosed or where plaintiffs seek only a legal reclassification) but had informational standing for three complaints where the administrative record showed uncertainty and no public committee reports existed.
- The Court denied dismissal in part (Counts II and III survive) and granted dismissal in part; motion to defer transmission of the administrative record was denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Informational standing to challenge FEC dismissal | Plaintiffs were deprived of information FECA requires to be publicly disclosed; that deprivation is an Article III injury | Plaintiffs already have the relevant information for some complaints or only seek a legal determination, so no informational injury | Plaintiffs have informational standing for three complaints where disclosures or reports were missing and General Counsel acknowledged uncertainty; no standing for two complaints where information was already public or only a legal reclassification was sought |
| Standing to seek reclassification of reported contributions | Reclassification of reported contributor names is necessary to obtain truthful disclosure | Reclassification is merely a legal determination based on existing public facts, not an informational injury | No standing where plaintiffs sought only a legal determination (e.g., Michel/SPM; reclassification only) |
| Requirement that entities register/file as political committees | Plaintiffs argue entities (F8, Eli Publishing, Specialty Investment Group, Kingston Pike) should have registered and filed reports producing new, useful information | FEC notes some true-donor facts are publicly available and that duplicative reporting would add nothing | Court found plausible that registration/reports would yield additional information in three complaints; thus plaintiffs suffered an informational injury traceable to the dismissals |
| Scope of § 30109(a)(8)(A) / who may sue | Plaintiffs invoke the statutory right for “any party aggrieved” to seek review | FEC suggests the provision is focused on voters/participants seeking voting-related info and may limit who can sue | Court treated statutory right as non-jurisdictional; did not resolve authorization question here and held Article III standing is the dispositive issue for the Rule 12(b)(1) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. FEC, 524 U.S. 11 (statutory disclosure injury can confer informational standing)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Article III standing requires concrete and particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements)
- Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 824 F.3d 1033 (D.C. Cir.) (informational standing framework)
- Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir.) (no standing when only legal determination sought or information is duplicative)