951 F. Supp. 2d 175
D.D.C.2013Background
- Vroom filed FECA complaint with FEC challenging GE-Penske PAC disaffiliation; GE claimed loss of controlling financial interest in Penske; Penske PAC similarly affected; FEC required four votes to open an investigation and dismissed otherwise; Vroom amended complaint asserting informational injury; district court previously dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; court now evaluates standing and informational injury under Article III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Vroom have standing to sue in district court? | Vroom asserts informational injury suffices. | FEC argues no injury-in-fact; no standing. | No standing; injury insufficient. |
| Whether informational injury from withheld information suffices for standing under Akins/Common Cause | Vroom alleges inability to evaluate contributions due to disaffiliation. | Information available but not in desired form; no injury. | Informational injury insufficient where information is available from other filings or not the type recognized. |
| Does FECA’s broad language override standing requirements? | FECA allows review for aggrieved by FEC action. | Standing requirements apply; FECA language not dispositive. | FECA does not confer standing without Article III injury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Common Cause v. FEC, 108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (standing requires injury in fact; informational injury analyzed against withheld information)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury, causation, redressability fundamentals for standing)
- Akins v. FEC, 524 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1998) (informational injury when information to evaluate candidates is withheld)
- Wertheimer v. FEC, 268 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (informational injury depends on availability of information from other sources)