Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Iowa Values

• Decision Date: 19 November 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 21-cv-389-RCL
• Citation: 573 F.Supp.3d 243
• Parties: CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Plaintiff, v. IOWA VALUES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

573 F.Supp.3d 243

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER, Plaintiff,

v.IOWA VALUES, Defendant.

Case No. 21-cv-389-RCL

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed November 19, 2021

Molly E. Danahy, Erin R. Chlopak, Richard Austin Graham, Campaign Legal Center, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Ronald M. Jacobs, Vincent Edward Verrocchio, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge

The Federal Election Commission ("FEC") performs crucial work to preserve the integrity of our electoral system. Among other things, it works to "minimize[ ] the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system" by requiring disclosure to "arm[ ] the voting public with information." McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 572 U.S. 185, 223–24, 134 S.Ct. 1434, 188 L.Ed.2d 468 (2014). But Congress foresaw the possibility that the FEC could abdicate its responsibilities to serve as an electoral watchdog. Refusing to abandon its citizens to one agency's whims, Congress carefully constructed the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") to provide for citizen suits, where an aggrieved party can directly sue a potential FECA violator in federal court.

This is one of those citizen suits. Plaintiff Campaign Legal Center sued defendant Iowa Values, alleging that defendant has unlawfully concealed its election activities. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that plaintiff failed to state a claim. ECF No. 13. In the alternate, defendant moved to strike certain portions of the complaint. Id. Plaintiff opposed defendant's motion. ECF No. 19. Upon consideration of the record, the parties’ briefs, and defendant's reply, ECF No. 20, the Court will DENY defendant's motion to dismiss and to strike.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

Plaintiff alleges that in the summer of 2019, defendant launched "a comprehensive campaign to support the reelection of U.S. Senator Joni Ernst." ECF No. 1 at 1. Through this campaign, defendant expended over $30,000 on digital advertisements for Ernst on Facebook and Google. Id. ¶ 28–29. These advertisements featured pictures of Ernst campaigning and focused on Ernst's characteristics as a "leader." Id. ¶ 30. Iowa voters were targeted with messages declaring that "Joni Ernst is fighting for us" and "We Deserve Leaders Who Share Our Values Like Joni Ernst." Id. ¶ 27. Other advertisements recruited canvassers and featured Ernst smiling broadly at a crowd or posing in front of a bus. Id. ¶ 28.

That same summer, Claire Holloway Avella, a registered fundraiser for Ernst's campaign, sent an email to a potential donor requesting $50,000 "on behalf of Iowa Values." Id. ¶ 32. The email, which attached a strategy memorandum, noted that the organization planned to "target communications supportive of Senator Ernst to Iowa voters." Id. Plaintiff alleges defendant received donations in response to this solicitation email, which it used in part to fund its campaign "blitz." Id. ¶ 35.

Because defendant is not an organization registered as a federal political committee, plaintiff argues that these actions are in violation of FECA. Id. at 1. Political committees that receive contributions or make expenditures of over $1,000 annually are required to register with the FEC and "file periodic reports disclosing [their] contributions, expenditures, and debts." Id. ; see 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102 –04. Plaintiff alleges that by flouting these rules while accepting contributions and running campaign advertisements for Joni Ernst, defendant broke the law.

B. Procedural History

Armed with allegations, plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the FEC on December 19, 2019, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1). ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. The administrative complaint alleged that defendant failed to register as a political committee and report as required. ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. And then, plaintiff waited. But the FEC did not take any action on the complaint—in fact, the FEC never gave any indication it has acted on the matter. Id.

If the FEC either dismisses an administrative complaint or fails to act on the complaint in the 120-day period after it is filed, the party who filed the complaint may file a petition in this district. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A). Then, if a court finds that the FEC's action or inaction was "contrary to law," it may "direct the [FEC] to conform with some declaration within 30 days, failing which the complainant may bring, in the name of such complainant, a civil action to remedy the violation involved in the original complaint." 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(C). Notably, if the FEC determines in its prosecutorial discretion to decline enforcement and dismiss a complaint, that action cannot be held contrary to law. Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington ("CREW") v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 892 F.3d 434, 441 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, on June 30, 2020, 194 days after plaintiff filed its complaint with the FEC without a response or a dismissal, it brought a civil action against the FEC in this Court. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. There, too, the FEC failed to respond or enter an appearance, and so on October 14, 2020, this Court granted plaintiff's motion for default judgment against the FEC. Order, ECF No. 14, Campaign Legal Center v. Fed. Election Comm'n , No. 20-cv-1778 (RCL) (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 2020). The Court found that the FEC's failure to act on the administrative complaint was "contrary to law" and ordered the FEC to act upon plaintiff's complaint within 90 days. Id. But 90 days came and went, and the FEC took no further action. On February 11, 2021, this Court found that the FEC failed to conform to its Order and held that the plaintiff could proceed with a civil action directly against defendant. Order, ECF No. 24; Campaign Legal Center v. Fed. Election Comm'n , No. 20-cv-1778 (RCL) (Feb. 11, 2021).

The next day, plaintiff filed this action against defendant Iowa Values. ECF No. 1. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, and, in the alternate, to strike a portion of the complaint. ECF No. 13. This motion is now ripe.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standing

To maintain any claim in federal court, a plaintiff must show that it suffers an "injury in fact" that is "fairly traceable" to defendant's challenged actions and that the injury would be "redressed" by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The injury must be particularized—in other words, the injury must "affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." Id. at 560 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 2130. If, in contrast, the plaintiff only alleges a "generalized grievance" such as "a common concern for the obedience to law," the plaintiff has no standing. Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins , 524 U.S. 11, 23, 118 S.Ct. 1777, 141 L.Ed.2d 10 (1998).

B. Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Before a court may "proceed at all in any cause" it must ensure that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle , 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868) ). While a court "must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true" when considering whether there is subject matter jurisdiction, Info. Handling Servs., Inc. v. Def. Automated Printing Servs. , 338 F.3d 1024, 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2003), the plaintiff bears the burden to establish jurisdiction. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. "For this reason, ‘the [p]laintiff's factual allegations in the complaint ... will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion’ than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim." Grand Lodge of Fraternal Ord. of Police v. Ashcroft , 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13–14 (D.D.C. 2001) (alterations in original). And the Court is not limited to the pleadings—it may consider "such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate" to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Scolaro v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics , 104 F. Supp. 2d 18, 22 (D.D.C. 2000).

C. Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter which, if accepted as true, "state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Put another way, the factual content included in the complaint must "allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. In evaluating the complaint, a court must accept as true all allegations within the complaint and "construe[ ] reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff's favor." Sissel v. Dep't Health & Human Servs. , 760 F.3d 1, 4 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Here, again, a court is not limited to just the facts in the complaint—it can also consider " ‘documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint’ or ‘documents upon which the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies even if the parties do not produce the document.’ " Tefera v. OneWest Bank, FSB , 19 F. Supp. 3d 215, 220 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Busby v. Capital One, N.A. , 932 F. Supp. 2d 114, 133–34 (D.D.C. 2013) ) (cleaned up).

D. Motion To Strike

Rule 12(f) permits a court to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). But motions to strike are particularly "disfavored" by the federal courts. Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 853 F. Supp. 457, 457 (D.D.C. 1994). Only if the allegations in a complaint are both irrelevant and prejudicial to defendant will a motion to strike be...