United States v. Danielczyk
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57158
E.D. Va.2011Background
- Seven-count indictment against William Danielczyk, Jr. and Eugene Biagi for soliciting and reimbursing campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton's 2006 Senate and 2008 Presidential Campaigns; charges include conspiracy, false-name contributions, pass-through concerns, corporate contributions, obstruction, and false statements; grand jury returned Feb. 16, 2011; joint trial set for July 6, 2011; defendants moved to dismiss Counts 2-4 and related allegations on statutory construction, mens rea, and Citizens United grounds.
- Indictment alleges Danielczyk recruited individuals to contribute to campaigns and that Galen reimbursed those donors’ contributions; Counts 2-3 target contributions made in the name of another and reimbursement; Count 4 targets direct corporate contributions; Counts 6-7 involve false statements and reporting to the FEC; Count 1 charges conspiracy; government opposed motions; court to rule on motions.
- Court reviews Rule 12(b)(3)(B) standards for sufficiency of the indictment, focusing on whether elements are charged and conduct is described with specificity; analyzes statutory construction of § 441f, mens rea standards, and the impact of Citizens United on § 441b; concludes some counts are dismissed while others proceed.
- Court discusses FECA provisions: § 441f prohibits making a contribution in the name of another; § 437g(d)(1)(D) mens rea for § 441f; § 2(b) and § 431(8)(A)(i) definitions; analyzes whether reimbursements through straw donors fall within § 441f and rejects a narrow reading that would limit “make” to direct transfers only.
- Court concludes that Counts 2 and 3 (and related Counts 6-7) survive under Bryan-style mens rea, not the higher Ratzlaf/Cheek standard, applying knowledge of general unlawfulness rather than knowledge of the exact statutory command; Count 4 is unconstitutional post-Citizens United and is dismissed; conspiracy object against Count 4 is struck; overall dismissal granted only for Count 4 and related paragraph 10(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 441f: pass-through prohibited? | Government | Danielczyk: § 441f bans only false-name contributions | § 441f covers pass-through conduct; dismissal denied on this issue |
| Mens rea for Counts 2, 3, 6, 7 | Government | Danielczyk/Biagi: require heightened, Cheek/Ratzlaf standard | Bryan standard (knowledge of general unlawfulness) applies for Counts 2,3,6,7; not the strict Cheek/Ratzlaf level |
| Count Four and Citizens United | Government | Citizens United invalidates direct corporate ban | Count Four dismissed as unconstitutional post-Citizens United; conspiracy object regarding Count Four struck |
| Bill of Particulars for Count Six | Government | Danielczyk seeks more detail | Bill of particulars not necessary; sufficient information provided in opposition and discovery |
| Conspiracy objects—relevance of Count Four | N/A | Counts 2-4 tied to conspiracy; Count 4 dismissed affects object | Paragraph 10(b) struck; conspiracy counts limited to remaining valid counts |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. O'Donnell, 608 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.2010) (applies broad view of § 441f reach to pass-through conduct)
- United States v. Curran, 20 F.3d 560 (3d Cir.1994) (early discussion of mens rea for § 2(b) and 1001 in related context)
- United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.2009) (discusses mens rea for § 2(b) and 1001 in composite statutes)
- Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (establishes knowledge of general unlawfulness as baseline for willfulness)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (requires knowledge of the unlawful conduct in highly technical statutes (structuring))