Herron for Congress v. Federal Election Commission, 903 F. Supp. 2d 9

Herron sues the FEC challenging its dismissal of his FECA complaint regarding Fincher’s campaign disclosures.
FECA requires campaign committees to disclose loans, sources, dates, amounts, interest, and collateral of loans.
FEC investigated Fincher’s disclosure issues; the Commission ultimately dismissed the complaint.
Fincher’s Gates Bank loan was reported with a zero interest rate but actually carried 6.5% interest; amended disclosures followed.
Herron’s standing to seek judicial review is at issue; the court separately assesses mootness and standing.
Court grants FEC cross-motion for summary judgment and denies Herron’s summary judgment, finding lack of jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness under capable of repetition, yet evading review	Herron asserts the controversy is capable of repetition.	FEC contends the case is moot as a past election cannot be meaningfully reviewed.	Moot; no demonstrable recurrence by Herron shown.
Standing to sue	Herron contends he has standing due to potential future campaigns and reputational/informational harms.	FEC argues no concrete injury or likelihood of redressable harm exists.	Lacks standing; no definite intent to run and no concrete, imminent injury.

Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (U.S. 2008) (mootness doctrine in electoral disputes; injury must be capable of repetition or resolved otherwise)
WRTL v. Fox Radio,, 551 U.S. 449 (U.S. 2007) (capable of repetition, yet evading review; election-cycle relevance)
Unity08 v. FEC, 596 F.3d 861 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (capable of repetition where conditional intent to participate exists)
LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standing for future election challenges in illegally structured campaigns)
Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (standing requires concrete injury beyond disappointment in agency action)