267 F. Supp. 3d 50
D.D.C.2017Background
- CREW and its executive director Noah Bookbinder filed an administrative complaint with the FEC alleging Murray Energy and Robert Murray coerced employee political donations and concealed true contributors to Murray Energy PAC in violation of FECA.
- Complaint asserted three counts: (1) coercion of employee contributions to a corporate PAC, (2) contributions made in the name of another (pass-through/misreporting), and (3) use of corporate treasury funds for federal contributions.
- The FEC’s Office of General Counsel recommended investigating, but only three of six commissioners voted to proceed, so the FEC dismissed the complaint for lack of a majority.
- Plaintiffs sued under FECA’s judicial-review provision and the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking review of the FEC’s dismissal; the FEC moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
- CREW claims an informational injury: inability to obtain contributor identities necessary to fulfill its mission to publicize campaign finance information; Bookbinder claims an informational injury as a voter denied information for an informed vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Counts 1 & 3 | CREW suffers harm from corporate spending and employee contributions because it impairs its mission to monitor and publicize campaign finance | Plaintiffs have no concrete, particularized injury from spending or employee donations themselves | Dismissed for lack of standing as to Counts 1 and 3 |
| Informational injury from Count 2 (misreporting/pass-through contributions) | Failure to enforce § 441f deprived plaintiffs of contributor identities — a statutory informational entitlement they would use to evaluate/publicize | An enforcement action under § 441f would not necessarily produce reporting or the specific information plaintiffs seek; relief is speculative | Plaintiffs’ informational injury is not redressable by FEC enforcement on Count 2; standing fails |
| Redressability via FEC enforcement | Plaintiffs assert FEC action could publicize coerced/reimbursed contributors or correct disclosures | FEC enforcement would at most prohibit conduct; § 441f does not compel disclosure, so any information is speculative/incidental | Court rejects redressability; enforcement unlikely to require the requested disclosures |
| Particularized use of information | CREW/Bookbinder claim they would use the information to evaluate candidates, expose corruption, and publicize violations | Plaintiffs failed to plead how they would use the information in a concrete, case-specific manner; general interest in law enforcement is insufficient | Court finds plaintiffs did not plead a concrete, particularized plan to use information; informational injury too generalized |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing elements)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (statutory entitlement to information can create cognizable informational injury)
- Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Secretary of State, 444 F.3d 614 (informational-injury principles)
- Am. Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, 659 F.3d 13 (prohibition-based relief that does not require disclosure does not create informational injury)
- Nader v. FEC, 725 F.3d 226 (generalized interest in law being obeyed is insufficient for standing)
- Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (no cognizable interest merely in knowing FECA was violated)