442 F.Supp.3d 335
D.D.C.2020Background
- Free Speech for People filed an administrative complaint (Feb 16, 2018; twice amended) with the FEC alleging AMI paid Karen McDougal $150,000 to suppress stories and that the payment was not reported as an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign; later amendments added Donald J. Trump and Michael Cohen as respondents.
- DOJ filings (Cohen plea and AMI non-prosecution agreement) publicly admitted the $150,000 payment and that it was intended to influence the 2016 election; Cohen admitted causing AMI to make the payment.
- The FEC did not act on Plaintiff’s administrative complaint within the 120-day period prescribed by FECA § 30109(a)(8), so Plaintiff sued the FEC in D.D.C. seeking an order compelling the agency to act.
- The FEC moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Plaintiff’s claimed informational injury is not the kind of statutorily protected disclosure that confers standing and that Plaintiff seeks enforcement/legal determinations rather than new FECA-mandated information.
- The district court concluded Plaintiff lacked informational standing because Plaintiff already knew all information FECA requires be disclosed about the McDougal payment and was effectively seeking an enforcement determination; it granted the FEC’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff has Article III standing based on an informational injury from FEC’s failure to act | Plaintiff: FEC inaction deprived it of information necessary for its mission (to clarify campaign involvement and coordination) | FEC: Plaintiff already possesses all FECA-required information; it seeks a legal determination/enforcement, not additional statutorily-mandated disclosure | Court: No standing—Plaintiff seeks law enforcement/ legal finding, not new FECA-mandated information; dismissal with prejudice |
| Whether APA claim is barred because FECA provides the exclusive review mechanism | Plaintiff did not meaningfully press this theory in opposition | FEC: FECA is the exclusive judicial-review mechanism for FEC handling of administrative complaints | Court: Did not decide this issue because it dismissed for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (statute-based informational rights can confer standing)
- Nader v. FEC, 725 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (statute defines scope of informational injury; must relate to informed political participation)
- Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (plaintiff cannot establish standing merely to force enforcement or a legal determination)
- Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (seeking a legal finding of coordination does not create informational standing)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (no standing when requested information would only trivially add to public record)
- Campaign Legal Center v. FEC, 245 F. Supp. 3d 119 (D.D.C. 2017) (distinguished: standing existed where the true source of contributions remained unresolved)