Nader v. Federal Election Commission
823 F. Supp. 2d 53
D.D.C.2011Background
- Nader filed FECA complaint against FEC in MUR 6021 alleging a broad conspiracy to deny ballot access in 2004; counts included unreported contributions and coordination theories.
- FEC reviewed the complaint, notified only some respondents, and ultimately found no reason to believe violations occurred, closing the MUR in 2011.
- Nader challenged the FEC dismissal in district court, arguing the agency acted contrary to law,/arbitrary and capricious, and failed to notify all respondents.
- FECA provides complaint procedures, notification duties, and enforcement discretion; the court defers to agency judgments absent clear legal error.
- Court conducted deferential review to determine whether FEC’s decisions to dismiss were supported by the record and not contrary to law.
- Notable procedural context includes the agency’s prioritization of the matter and eventual resource-based rationale for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEC’s dismissal on Count 1 was contrary to law | Nader asserts the agency ignored evidence and misapplied FECA | FEC reasonably concluded insufficient coordination or contributions | Not contrary to law |
| Whether SEIU/ACT allegations in Count 2 warranted investigation | Nader alleges coordination and unreported contributions | FEC found no proof of coordination or violations | Not contrary to law |
| Whether Count 3 (Section 527 groups) warranted further inquiry | Groups failed to register and violated FECA | Many groups defunct or defied investigation due to time/resource concerns | Not contrary to law |
| Whether Count 4 involving Romanelli and related claims warranted investigation | Broad alleged misuses of taxpayer funds in ballot challenges | Claims speculative; ongoing state investigations; resource constraints | Not contrary to law |
| Whether FEC’s failure to notify all respondents violated FECA but was harmless | Notice requirements were violated | Harmless error given outcome and lack of prejudice to Nader | Harmless error; not reversible under FECA |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagelin v. FEC, 411 F.3d 237 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (highly deferential standard for agency dismissal, review for lawfulness)
- City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency discretion and deference in regulatory review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (Supreme Court 1985) (policies governing agency decision not to prosecute; deference to agency choices)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court 1992) (standing requirements and causation basics for suits challenging agency action)