Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Election Com'n, CIV. 01-2527(RJL).
| Decision Date | 30 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 01-2527(RJL).,CIV. 01-2527(RJL). |
| Citation | 293 F.Supp.2d 41 |
| Parties | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Larry Elliot Klayman, Lead Atty., Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Judicial Watch, Inc., Peter F. Paul.
Lawrence Howard Norton, Leigh Gipson Hildebrand, Richard Blair Bader, Stephen E. Hershkowitz, William S. Shackelford, Lead Attys., Federal Election Com'n, Washington, DC, for Federal Election Com'n.
Plaintiffs Judicial Watch, Inc., ("Judicial Watch") and Peter Paul ("Mr. Paul," "Paul") bring this action against the Federal Election Commission ("Commission," "FEC"), claiming that the Commission has failed to respond to or investigate the administrative complaint filed by Mr. Paul with the Commission within the 120 days provided by statute. According to the plaintiffs, the Commission's failure to do so has resulted in "informational injury" to both Mr. Paul and Judicial Watch, as they have been deprived of information they sought when the administrative complaint was filed.
The Commission has filed a motion for summary judgment, now fully briefed. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees, and grants the Commission's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the instant action with prejudice.
Plaintiff Judicial Watch is a non-profit legal organization, and states that its purpose is to "educate, stimulate, and inform public discussion about important issues of public policy." Mr. Paul was a Hollywood executive and partner in Stan Lee Media, Inc., a global entertainment company. He is currently a fugitive from criminal charges pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and is in Brazilian custody.
On August 12, 2000, Mr. Paul produced a "Hollywood Tribute to the President," a fundraiser for the DNC and a tribute to President Clinton, and donated significant amounts to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on a number of occasions. Mr. Paul claims that he fronted $1.9 million of the cost of the "Hollywood Tribute" fundraiser, and that this amount represented contributions both in cash and in kind to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's New York Senatorial campaign committee. Moreover, he asserts in his Commission complaint that he made these contributions with the intention of "influencing the outcome" of the New York Senate election.1 Mr. Paul also claims that funds raised at the "Hollywood Tribute" event went directly to Senator Clinton's campaign committee, rather than the DNC.
In addition, Paul directly contributed $2,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senatorial Campaign Committee, although his donation was ultimately returned.2 Senator Clinton's Commission reports note both the donation, and the return of it, to Mr. Paul.
On July 16, 2001, Mr. Paul, with the assistance of his counsel, Judicial Watch, filed an administrative complaint with the Commission.3 In the Commission complaint, Mr. Paul alleges that Senator Clinton's campaign committee failed to report approximately two million dollars in cash and in-kind contributions from Mr. Paul, made in connection with the "Hollywood Tribute" fundraiser, in violation of federal election law. Mr. Paul, therefore, requested that the Commission investigate these charges. Mr. Paul claims that he was concerned that he would become the subject of a future Commission investigation due to Senator Clinton's alleged reporting discrepancies, and that he filed the complaint proactively in order to "clear the air."
As of December 7, 2001, the day Mr. Paul and Judicial Watch filed their complaint in this Court, the Commission had not responded to their administrative complaint. Plaintiffs claim that the Commission is required by 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A) to act on all complaints within 120 days of filing, and that the Commission failed to do so here. That 120-day statutory period, according to plaintiffs, expired on December 3, 2001, four days before plaintiffs filed in this Court.
Defendant Commission has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, in essence, that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring the instant action. If the Court determines that plaintiffs have satisfied the standing requirement, the Commission argues that Paul is nonetheless precluded from bringing suit under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine because he is a fugitive from justice from charges pending in federal court in New York. The Commission further argues that Judicial Watch is precluded from seeking relief here because it was not a party to the administrative claim, a prerequisite to seeking judicial relief from an administrative action.
Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule 56(c) "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." See also Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C.Cir.1995). All evidence presented must be construed in favor of the non-moving party, here, the plaintiff. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
To determine which facts are material, the Court must examine the substantive law underlying the claim. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A "genuine issue" is one whose resolution could establish an element of a claim or defense, thereby affecting the outcome of the action. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
Judicial Watch seeks relief in this Court for the Commission's failure to act on Paul's administrative complaint pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A). Section 437g(a)(8)(A) of provides that "[a]ny party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party ... or by the failure of the Commission to act on such complaint during the 120-day period ... may file a petition with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." (emphasis added). While the statute provides for judicial relief from Commission administrative actions, the plain language of the statute makes clear that it is only available to parties to the administrative complaint.
Mr. Paul is the only person listed as a party to the Commission complaint, dated July 16, 2001.4 In the Commission complaint, which is printed on Judicial Watch letterhead, Judicial Watch identifies Mr. Paul as its "client," and states that "Mr. Peter F. Paul, in the public interest, and based upon his personal knowledge, complains to the Federal Election Commission ...."5 Nowhere does the complaint mention that Judicial Watch is a co-complainant. Moreover, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1), the administrative complaint must be "signed and sworn to by the person filing such complaint"; Mr. Paul is the only party who signed the complaint. In a subsequent letter dated August 3, 2001, from Judicial Watch to the Commission, Judicial Watch again identifies Mr. Paul as "[o]ur client" and refers to the complaint before the Commission as the "Peter F. Paul Complaint."6 As with the complaint, in the August 3, 2001 letter, Judicial Watch does not refer to itself as a party to the complaint, but only as counsel to Mr. Paul.
Judicial Watch contends that this argument is mere "form over substance." Judicial Watch claims that it identified itself as a co-complainant before it stated that Mr. Paul was a party to the complaint; the language of the complaint, however, does not support Judicial Watch's argument. While the introduction section of the administrative complaint describes Judicial Watch as a "non-profit, public interest law firm," only Mr. Paul is mentioned as the party who "complains" to the Commission against Senator Clinton and various other individuals associated with her U.S. Senate campaign. In the August 3, 2001 letter, Judicial Watch refers to the Commission complaint as the "Peter F. Paul Complaint," not the "Judicial Watch and Peter F. Paul Complaint." Further, Judicial Watch argues that it never stated it was not a party to the administrative complaint; while this may be true, this argument crumbles in light of the fact that Judicial Watch never explicitly identified itself as a administrative party, but only as counsel to Mr. Paul.
All evidence before the Court indicates that Judicial Watch only acted as counsel, not a party, to the underlying administrative complaint and, as such, is not entitled to seek judicial relief here. Judicial Watch's claims, therefore, are dismissed with prejudice.
The Commission argues that summary judgment must be granted against Mr. Paul because (1) Mr. Paul is precluded from seeking relief because he has suffered no injury, and therefore lacks standing, and (2) Mr. Paul is not entitled to seek relief from this Court under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Because the Court concludes that Mr. Paul has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury cognizable by this Court, and therefore lacks standing, it does not need to address the Commission's argument regarding the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Accordingly, the Court also grants the Commission's motion for summary judgment as to Mr. Paul.7
Standing is "an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). In Lujan, the Supreme Court set forth the three elements that, as a "constitutional minimum," must be demonstrated to satisfy the Article III standing requirement: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beethoven.Com LLC v. Librarian of Congress
...language in the context of the Federal Election Campaign Act limits it to parties to the administrative complaint. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC, 293 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.D.C.2003) (interpreting 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A)). It is thus consistent with precedent to similarly construe 17 U.S.C. § 802(g......
-
Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, Civil Action No. 19-2336 (JEB)
...or a "legal determination whether the [campaign] violated FECA by failing to [make certain] disclos[ures]"); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC, 293 F. Supp. 2d 41, 47 (D.D.C. 2003) (same where what plaintiff was "really seeking [was] a legal determination by the Commission that [certain activitie......
-
Freedman v. Fed. Elections Comm'n
...of the law[,]” his alleged informational injury “is not cognizable injury under FECA, sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement. Id. at 47 (footnote Likewise, Plaintiff cannot create standing by contending that the Commission erred by declining to investigate, or by generally insinuati......
-
Alliance for Democracy v. Federal Election Com'n
...required to be disclosed by the statute has already been disclosed. The present case is more analogous to Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC, 293 F.Supp.2d 41 (D.D.C.2003). In Judicial Watch, a nonprofit legal organization, and a Hollywood executive and alleged contributor ("contributor") to Senat......