Of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. an Order Consistent With
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HAGELIN v. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COM’N 71 Cite as 332 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2004) under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules tion which could not lawfully sponsor pres- of Civil Procedure. idential debates. An Order consistent with this Opinion Holdings: The District Court, Kennedy, shall issue this same day. J., held that: SO ORDERED. (1) district court acted contrary to law when it dismissed administrative com- FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT plaint, as it ignored evidence that For the reasons stated in the Opinion CPD’s exclusion of third party candi- issued this same day, it is hereby dates from 2000 presidential debates was unrelated to a subjective or objec- ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to tive concern of disruption of debates, Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and was therefore partisan, and [2] is GRANTED; it is (2) appropriate remedy was to remand FURTHER ORDERED that this case case to allow FEC to follow procedures is dismissed without prejudice from the mandated by Federal Election Cam- docket of this Court. This is a final ap- paign Act (FECA). pealable order. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a). So ordered. SO ORDERED. , 1. Elections O311.1 Dismissal of a complaint by Federal Election Commission (FEC) is proper if the dismissal was not ‘‘contrary to law,’’ which occurs only if the dismissal was John HAGELIN, et al., Plaintiffs, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discre- tion. Federal Election Campaign Act of v. 1971, § 309(a)(8)(C), as amended, 2 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, U.S.C.A. § 437g(a)(8)(C). Defendant. See publication Words and Phras- es for other judicial constructions No. CIV.A.04–00731(HHK). and definitions. United States District Court, 2. Elections O311.1 District of Columbia. Standard of review under which dis- Aug. 12, 2004. missal of a complaint by Federal Election Background: Individuals who had sought Commission (FEC) is proper if the dis- presidential and vice-presidential election missal was not ‘‘contrary to law’’ is espe- and who were not members of Republican cially deferential when a plaintiff chal- and Democratic parties, and parties to lenges the FEC’s interpretation of its own which individuals belonged, brought action regulations, and not whether an FEC rule- alleging that Federal Election Commission making violates Federal Election Cam- (FEC) had erroneously dismissed their ad- paign Act (FECA) or the Constitution. ministrative complaint, in which they al- Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, leged that Commission for Presidential § 309(a)(8)(C), as amended, 2 U.S.C.A. Debates (CPD) was a partisan organiza- § 437g(a)(8)(C). 72 332 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES 3. Administrative Law and Procedure 8. Elections O311.1 O413 Appropriate remedy following deter- An administrative agency’s interpreta- mination that Federal Election Commis- tion of its own rules control unless plainly sion (FEC) acted contrary to law when it erroneous or inconsistent with the regula- dismissed administrative complaint in tion. which individuals who had sought presi- 4. Administrative Law and Procedure dential and vice-presidential election and O788 who were not members of Republican and Administrative agency decisions must Democratic parties, and parties to which be supported by the record, and a court individuals belonged, alleged that Commis- need not accept meekly administrative sion for Presidential Debates (CPD) was a pronouncements clearly at variance with partisan organization which could not law- established facts. fully sponsor presidential debates, was to remand case to allow FEC to follow proce- 5. Administrative Law and Procedure dures mandated by Federal Election Cam- O763 paign Act (FECA), rather than order di- Decisions made without proper refer- recting FEC to proceed to probable cause ence to the record suggest that an admin- determination within 30 days. Federal istrative agency has not genuinely engaged Election Campaign Act of 1971, in reasoned decision making. §§ 301(9)(B)(ii), 309(a)(8)(C), 2 U.S.C.A. 6. Elections O311.1 §§ 431(9)(B)(ii), 437g(a)(8)(C). Federal Election Commission (FEC) acted contrary to law when it dismissed 9. Administrative Law and Procedure administrative complaint in which individu- O817.1 als who had sought presidential and vice- In general, when a court has found presidential election and who were not that an administrative agency has acted members of Republican and Democratic contrary to law, the proper remedy is to parties, and parties to which individuals remand the case to that body for further belonged, alleged that Commission for proceedings consistent with the court’s Presidential Debates (CPD) was a partisan opinion. organization which could not lawfully spon- sor presidential debates, where FEC ig- 10. Elections O311.1 nored evidence that CPD’s exclusion of When a court finds that Federal Elec- third party candidates from audience at tion Commission (FEC) has acted contrary 2000 presidential debates was unrelated to to law, the proper remedy is to remand the a subjective or objective concern of disrup- case to FEC for further proceedings con- tion of debates, and was therefore parti- sistent with the court’s opinion. san. Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, § 301(9)(B)(ii), 2 U.S.C.A. 11. Elections O311.1 § 431(9)(B)(ii); 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.13(a)(1), Provision of Federal Election Cam- (b)(2), 114.4(f)(1). paign Act (FECA) that gives the court the 7. Administrative Law and Procedure power to declare that the dismissal of a O763 complaint or the failure to act by Federal A failure by an administrative agency Election Commission (FEC) is contrary to to consider relevant record evidence is ar- law, and to direct FEC to conform with bitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. such declaration within 30 days, simply HAGELIN v. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COM’N 73 Cite as 332 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2004) indicates that the FEC must conform with thus could not, and can not, lawfully spon- the court’s order, however formulated, sor presidential debates, events that can within 30 days, and nothing in provision only be staged lawfully by a non-profit, allows the court to make the FEC disre- non-partisan organization. Before the gard procedures mandated by FECA. court are the parties’ cross-motions for Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, summary judgment. Upon consideration § 309(a)(8)(C), as amended, 2 U.S.C.A. of the motions, the respective oppositions § 437g(a)(8)(C). thereto, and the record of this case, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ motion for 12. Elections O311.1 summary judgment [Dkt. # 7] must be Even when a party requests urgent granted in part and denied in part, and relief, laboring under the belief that the that defendant’s summary judgment mo- G¨otterd¨ammerung of representative de- tion [Dkt. # 11] must also be granted in mocracy is at hand, the court cannot re- part and denied in part. quire immediate action by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that would I. BACKGROUND force it to disregard procedures set forth A. Statutory Background in Federal Election Campaign Act The FEC is an independent agency with (FECA). jurisdiction to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (‘‘FECA’’). 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. FECA generally bars corporations from making ‘‘contribu- Alan Robert Kabat, Lynne A. Bernabei, tions’’ or ‘‘expenditures’’ in connection with Bernabei & Katz, PLLC, Washington, DC, any federal election. Id. § 441b(a). Polit- Brenda Wright, Bonita Tenneriello, Na- ical committees, id. § 431(4), may accept tional Voting Rights, Jason B. Adkins, Ad- contributions or make expenditures in con- kins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C., Boston, MA, nection with a federal election, but they for Plaintiffs. must first register with the FEC and re- Kathleen Monaghan, Federal Election port on all contributions and disburse- Commission, Washington, DC, for Defen- ments in accord with FECA and FEC dant. regulations. See id. § 433–34; 11 C.F.R. § 102.1(d). MEMORANDUM OPINION FECA provides safe harbors from these prohibitions and requirements. In partic- KENNEDY, District Judge. ular, one safe harbor provision indicates John Hagelin, Ralph Nader, Patrick Bu- that ‘‘expenditures’’ do not include ‘‘non- chanan, Howard Phillips, Winona LaDuke, partisan activity designed to encourage in- the Natural Law Party, the Green Party of dividuals to vote or to register to vote.’’ 2 the United States, and the Constitution U.S.C. § 431(9)(B)(ii). An FEC regulation Party (collectively ‘‘plaintiffs’’) bring this further interprets the safe harbor in action against the Federal Election Com- § 431(9)(B)(ii) by excluding from the defi- mission (‘‘FEC’’) charging that the FEC nitions of ‘‘contribution’’ and ‘‘expenditure’’ erroneously dismissed their administrative funds raised or spent to stage debates complaint. Their complaint alleged that between candidates for elected office. 11 the Commission for Presidential Debates C.F.R. § 114.4(f)(1). Therefore, a non- (‘‘CPD’’) is a partisan organization and profit organization that does not ‘‘endorse, 74 332 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES support or oppose political candidates or B. Factual Background political parties,’’ id. § 110.13(a)(1), may In 1987, members of the Democratic and accept and use corporate donations in or- Republican parties formed CPD, a private, der to stage candidate debates. Id. non-profit corporation that sponsors and § 114.4(f)(1). That is, the organization stages the debates for the United States staging a debate is eligible under the safe presidential elections. It has staged de- harbor only if, inter alia, it does not ad- bates for the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 vance ‘‘one candidate over another.’’ Id. presidential elections. For the 2004 elec- § 110.13(b)(2). tion, CPD will sponsor two presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate.