Defendant FEC's Motion for Summary
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ) LOUISIANA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 15-1241 (CRC-SS-TSC) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT Defendant. ) ) DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) respectfully moves this Court for an order (1) granting summary judgment to the Commission pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7(h), and (2) denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion (Docket No. 33). In support of this motion, the Commission is filing a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, a Statement of Material Facts and accompanying Exhibits, and a Proposed Order. Pursuant to the protective order entered in this case, the Commission is separately submitting under seal unredacted versions of its Statement of Material Facts and Exhibits that plaintiffs have designated as confidential. Respectfully submitted, Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) Seth Nesin Acting General Counsel Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) Deputy General Counsel — Law Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 131 Kevin Deeley /s/ Charles Kitcher Acting Associate General Counsel Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) [email protected] Attorney [email protected] Harry J. Summers Assistant General Counsel COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT [email protected] FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20463 March 18, 2016 (202) 694-1650 2 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ) LOUISIANA, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civ. No. 15-1241 (CRC-SS-TSC) ) v. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) MEMORANDUM ) Defendant. ) ) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Daniel A. Petalas (D.C. Bar No. 467908) Seth Nesin Acting General Counsel Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) Greg J. Mueller (D.C. Bar No. 462840) Deputy General Counsel — Law Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Kevin Deeley Charles Kitcher (D.C. Bar No. 986226) Acting Associate General Counsel Attorney [email protected] [email protected] Harry J. Summers COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT Assistant General Counsel FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [email protected] 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20463 March 18, 2016 (202) 694-1650 Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 131 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................2 I. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................................2 A. Early Examples of Party-Related Corruption and Efforts at Campaign Finance Regulation ...............................................................2 B. Watergate Era Corruption and Congress’s Reforms in FECA ..............6 C. Soft Money Era Corruption and Congress’s Response in BCRA ..........7 D. Other Regulation of Political Party Committees .................................12 II. COURT CHALLENGES AFTER BCRA .......................................................13 A. McConnell v. FEC (2003) ....................................................................13 B. RNC v. FEC (2010) ..............................................................................14 C. RNC v. FEC and Rufer v. FEC (2014) .................................................16 III. PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ..................................................................................16 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................19 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................19 II. THE COURT EVALUATES PLAINTIFFS’ CHALLENGES TO BCRA’S SOFT MONEY PROVISIONS USING INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY......................................................................................................20 1. Contribution Limit Standard of Scrutiny .............................................20 2. Disclosure Requirement Standard of Scrutiny .....................................24 i Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 5 of 131 III. SECTION 30125(B) IS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS CLOSELY DRAWN TO MATCH THE GOVERNMENT’S IMPORTANT INTERESTS IN LIMITING QUID PRO QUO CORRUPTION AND ITS APPEARANCE ...............................................................................................25 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail As a Matter of Law ..........................................25 1. This Court Is Required to Follow McConnell and RNC ..........25 2. Plaintiffs Cannot Distinguish McConnell and RNC .................28 B. The Risks of Corruption and Its Appearance Justify the Soft Money Restrictions As Applied to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Federal Election Activity ................................................................................................34 1. Permitting Plaintiffs to Raise Unlimited Soft Money Will Again Turn Them Into Conduits for Corruption......................35 2. Decades of Evidence Confirms That Plaintiffs’ Request to Reopen the Soft Money Loophole Will Lead to Actual and Apparent Quid Pro Quo Corruption .........................................40 3. Section 30125(b) Is Very Closely Drawn ................................45 IV. SECTION 30104(e)(2) IS ALSO CONSTITUTIONAL .................................49 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................50 ii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 6 of 131 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) ...............................................................................27 *Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ................................6, 7, 20, 21, 23-25, 34-35, 40, 45-48, 50 Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ......................................................................6, 31 Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) ......................................................................................40 Cao v. FEC, 688 F. Supp. 2d 498 (E.D. La. 2010) ..................................................................30, 48 Carey v. FEC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011) .......................................................................31 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ..............................................................................19 *Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ..................................... 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 49-50, 50 Colo. Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) ..............................................................................................12, 28, 29, 32 Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ....................................................................19, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ...............................................................................................2 EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................31 FEC v. Colo. Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ....................................................................................................30, 40, 41 FEC v. Nat’l Conservative Pol. Action Comm., 470 U.S. 480 (1985) ...........................................45 In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................30 King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) ........................................................................................28 Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce v. City of Long Beach, 603 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................31 *McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) ................ 1, 8, 11, 13-15, 19-23, 25-35, 38-40, 44-48, 50 McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003) ...........................11, 13, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48 iii Case 1:15-cv-01241-CRC-SS-TSC Document 41 Filed 03/18/16 Page 7 of 131 McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) ...............................................................................24 *McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014) ...............................................20, 23, 24, 27, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 49, 50 N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008) .............................................. 31, 32 *Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 561 U.S. 1040 (2010).................................................. 8, 15, 27 *Republican Nat’l Comm. v. FEC, 698 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2010) .......................8, 14, 15, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 38, 49 Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 2013) ..............................................31