507 F.Supp.3d 79
D.D.C.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Campaign Legal Center and Catherine Hinckley Kelley filed an FEC administrative complaint (Oct 2016) alleging Hillary for America (HFA) and super PAC Correct the Record (CTR) coordinated over $6 million in expenditures, violating FECA contribution limits and disclosure rules.
- The FEC deadlocked 2–2 and dismissed the complaint; Plaintiffs sued in district court under FECA (52 U.S.C. §30109(a)(8)) and the APA (5 U.S.C. §706(2)). HFA and CTR intervened.
- CTR had already publicly disclosed the date, amount, recipient, and purpose of every expenditure at issue; Plaintiffs sought a Commission determination identifying which expenditures (or portions) were coordinated (i.e., in-kind contributions).
- The core legal question became whether Plaintiffs suffered an Article III "informational injury" that is concrete and particularized, sufficient to challenge the FEC’s dismissal.
- Relying principally on D.C. Circuit precedent (Wertheimer), the court held that a finding of "coordination" is a legal conclusion (with law‑enforcement consequences) rather than a factual datum subject to FECA’s informational-right rule, and thus Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their FECA claim.
- The court dismissed the FECA claim for lack of jurisdiction but ordered supplemental briefing on whether Plaintiffs have independent standing to pursue their APA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (informational injury) to challenge FEC dismissal under FECA | Plaintiffs say denial of a Commission determination about which CTR expenditures were coordinated deprives them of information needed to evaluate candidates. | Defendants say Plaintiffs already have the factual disclosures (date, amount, purpose, recipient); they seek only a legal conclusion (coordination), which is not protected informational injury. | Court: No standing for FECA claim; informational injury absent because coordination is a legal conclusion (Wertheimer). |
| Nature of "coordination": factual datum vs. legal conclusion | Coordination is factual information voters can use; so denial harms political participation. | Coordination is a legal characterization that triggers enforcement consequences and is not a FECA disclosure fact. | Court: Adopts Wertheimer — coordination is a legal conclusion, not a factual disclosure for standing purposes. |
| Disaggregation of lump‑sum expenditures (e.g., salary) as new factual information | Breaking out portions of disclosed payments that supported coordinated activity would reveal new, concrete facts (extent of coordination). | Any disaggregation would only reveal the legal conclusion that a portion was coordinated; purpose, date, and amount are already public. | Court: Rejected as a workaround to Wertheimer; disaggregation would only reveal coordination (legal), so no standing. |
| Plaintiffs' standing to bring APA claim | Plaintiffs suggest the APA claim rests on a broader informational injury and might survive even if FECA claim fails. | Defendants contend the APA claim rises or falls with the same standing theories and may be precluded by FECA. | Court: APA standing unresolved; ordered short supplemental briefing to address whether Plaintiffs have independent standing on APA grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (FECA creates an informational right to know who is spending to influence elections)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (Article III injury‑in‑fact requirements)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (injury‑in‑fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (coordinated expenditures treated as contributions)
- FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (expenditures coordinated with a candidate are contributions)
- Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (coordination is a legal conclusion, not a factual disclosure; plaintiffs lack informational injury)
- Campaign Legal Ctr. v. FEC, 952 F.3d 352 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (discusses FECA informational‑injury framework)
- Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (statutory informational interest must be concrete to confer standing)
- Nader v. FEC, 725 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (disclosure aimed at informing political participation can create standing)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no informational injury where information is already publicly available)
- Free Speech for People v. FEC, 442 F. Supp. 3d 335 (D.D.C. 2020) (applies Wertheimer to reject standing where plaintiffs seek a legal determination)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC, 293 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2003) (no standing where plaintiff seeks merely a legal finding of violation)