Case 1:04-cv EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Similar documents
Case 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:06-cv LFO Document 18 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:07-cv SI Document 25 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 32-2 Filed 06/25/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:12-cv BAH Document 105 Filed 12/22/14 Page 1 of 27

Case 3:07-cv SI Document Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 7

Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation move for leave to

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

United States Court of Appeals

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:05-cv CKK Document 24-1 Filed 06/06/2005 Page 1 of 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No (JDB) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2014 Page 1 of 7

DEVELOPMENTS : THE 2004 ELECTION CYCLE, SECTION 527 ORGANIZATIONS

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 11/03/14 Entry Number 27 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 46 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 05/29/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appellee s Response to Appellants Jurisdictional Statements

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv JDB Document 3 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION. Plaintiff,

Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Case 1:04-cv RJL-RWR Document 64 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:16-cv REP Document 24 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 447

No Sn t~e ~uprem~ (~ourt of the i~tnit~l~

Federal Restrictions on State and Local Campaigns, Political Groups, and Individuals

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv RDM Document 91 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Motion to Expedite Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule

APPENDIX. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE [Docket #40] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 53-3 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 4:16-cv ALM Document 10 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 779

Case 1:17-cv CKK Document 48 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv KBJ Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Case 1:12-cv RMC-DST-RLW Document 24 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 16

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:14-cv WES-LDA Document 99 Filed 05/11/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1879 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

Case 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:10-cv JDB Document 41 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 3:18-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1

Case 1:17-cv RDM Document 22 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:18-cv DLF Document 12 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1113

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/23/18 Page 2 of Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) and 5 U.S.C.

Case 1:14-cv GK Document 31 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 11

Case: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 79-1 Filed: 08/30/13 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:2288

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

SHIFTS IN SUPREME COURT OPINION ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS

Case 4:17-cv HSG Document 180 Filed 12/26/18 Page 1 of 3

February 12, E Street NW 999 E Street NW Washington, DC Washington, DC 20463

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

United States District Court, District of Columbia. Jack DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. Civil No (TG)(GK)(HK).

Case 1:04-cv HHK Document 48 Filed 02/14/2006 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:12-cv CKK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:02-cv TS-DN Document 441 Filed 12/16/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:17-cv RNS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:10-cv ESH -TBG -HHK Document 51 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case MFW Doc 151 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Case 2:16-cv DN Document 2 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 30

Case 1:06-cv JR Document 19 Filed 10/01/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv BAH Document 9 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CLOSED CIVIL CASE. Case 1:09-cv DLG Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2010 Page 1 of 10

Robert (Bob) Bauer Partner

USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#= :-- DATE FILED: 1/la/IT

Case 1:08-cv JR Document 13 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: Document: 88-1 Filed: 08/08/2014 Pages: 3 (1 of 45) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT


Case 1:16-cv BAH Document 30 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Plaintiff Appellee,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN

Case 1:18-cv MJG Document 1 Filed 04/12/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 9

Cory J. Swanson Anderson and Baker One South Montana Avenue PO Box 866 Helena, Montana Phone: (406) Fax: (406) (fax) Attorney

Case 1:06-cv GK Document 37 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

The Orantes Injunction and Expedited Removal

Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking Quorum, In Brief

Case 1:18-cv RC Document 23 Filed 12/03/18 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Transcription:

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUSH-CHENEY 04, et al., v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, No. 1:04-CV-01612 (EGS) Answer Defendant. DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMMISSION S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant Federal Election Commission ( FEC or the Commission ), through its undersigned counsel, responds as follows to the numbered paragraphs of plaintiff s complaint in this litigation. The Commission responses do not reflect any review of information that might be contained in a pending investigative file, since 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(12)(A) prohibits the Commission making public [a]ny notification or investigation... without the written consent of the person receiving such notification or the person with respect to whom such investigation is made. The Commission DENIES everything not specifically given a response: 1. Paragraph 1 contains plaintiff s characterizations of the matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The statutory provisions cited in paragraph 1 speak for themselves. Therefore, no response is required. 2. ADMIT that President George W. Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ( BCRA ) on March 27, 2002. The remainder of paragraph 2 contains plaintiff s characterizations of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The 1

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 2 of 9 provisions of BCRA and the Supreme Court s decision in McConnell v. FEC, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003), speak for themselves. Therefore, no further response is required. 3. Paragraph 3 contains plaintiff s characterizations of the matters complained of and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The Supreme Court's decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and McConnell v. FEC, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003), and the unidentified lower court decisions referred to speak for themselves. Therefore, no response is required. 4. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4. 5. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5. 6. ADMIT the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 6, except for the legal conclusion in that sentence which requires no response. The statement of Senator McCain and FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 cited in the second and third sentences of paragraph 6 speak for themselves. Therefore, no further response is required. 7. Paragraph 7 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of and plaintiff s conclusions of law. DENY that the Commission has improperly and inadequately implemented the law. 8. Paragraph 8 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The newspaper article cited in the second sentence of paragraph 8 speaks for itself. Therefore, no further response is required. 9. DENY. 10. Paragraph 10 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law. The decisions in MCI Telecommunications. Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 322 (D.C. Cir. 1980), and PEPCO v. ICC, 2

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 3 of 9 702 F.2d 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1983), speak for themselves. Therefore, no further response is required. 11. Paragraph 11 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The district court s decision in Rose v. FEC, 608 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1984), which was effectively overruled in FEC v. Rose, 806 F.2d. 1081, 1090-1091 and n. 17 (D.C. Cir. 1986), speaks for itself. Therefore, no further response is required. 12. Paragraph 12 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The district court s decision in Common Cause v. FEC, 692 F.Supp. 1397 (D.D.C. 1988), speaks for itself. Therefore, no further response is required. 13. DENY. 14. The first sentence of paragraph 14 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of. The second sentence contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, and the statutes referred to in this paragraph speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 15. ADMIT. 16. ADMIT that plaintiff Bush-Cheney 04, Inc. registered with the Commission as a political committee, and as the principal campaign committee for George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for the November 2004 election for President and Vice-President of the United States. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 16. 17. The Commission is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 17. 18. Paragraph 18 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law; therefore, no response is required. 3

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 4 of 9 19. DENY. 20. ADMIT the first sentence of paragraph 20. The second sentence of paragraph 20 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law; therefore, no further response is required. 21. DENY. 22. DENY. 23. DENY. Plaintiff is not an office-holder and has no public responsibilities. 24. ADMIT that that defendant Federal Election Commission is an agency of the United States government with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The remainder of paragraph 24 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law; therefore, no further response is required. 25. Paragraph 25 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. The statutory provision cited by plaintiffs, 2 U.S.C. 437d(a)(8), speaks for itself. 26. Paragraph 26 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. The statutory provisions cited by plaintiff, 2 U.S.C. 433-434, speak for themselves. 27. Paragraph 27 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. The statutory provisions and Commission regulation cited by plaintiff speak for themselves. 28. Paragraph 28 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. The Supreme Court s decision in Buckley and the regulatory provisions cited by plaintiffs in paragraph 28 speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 29. Paragraph 29 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law. The Supreme Court s decision in McConnell, speaks for itself; therefore, no further response is required. 4

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 5 of 9 30. Paragraph 30 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The statutory provision and the court decisions cited in paragraph 30 speak for themselves. Therefore, no response is required. 31. Paragraph 31 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The court decisions cited by plaintiff speak for themselves. Therefore, no response is required. 32. Paragraph 32 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law. The decisions of the Supreme Court and the three-judge district court in McConnell speak for themselves. Therefore, no response is required. 33. Paragraph 33 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. Justice Thomas dissent in McConnell speaks for itself. Therefore, no further response is required. 34. Paragraph 34 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. The Supreme Court s decision in McConnell, and the statutory provision cited in paragraph 34, speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 35. The first sentence of paragraph 35 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. DENY the second sentence of paragraph 35. 36. Paragraph 36 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 speaks for itself; therefore, no further response is required. 5

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 6 of 9 37. Paragraph 37 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 speaks for itself; therefore, no further response is required. 38. Paragraph 38 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 speaks for itself; therefore, no further response is required. 39. Paragraph 39 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 and the regulatory provision cited in paragraph 39, speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 40. Paragraph 40 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 and the statutory provision cited in paragraph 40, speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 41. Paragraph 41 contains plaintiff s characterization of matters complained of, and plaintiff s conclusions of law. FEC Advisory Opinion 2003-37 speaks for itself; therefore, no further response if required. 42. ADMIT that on March 10, 2004, Bush-Cheney 04 filed an administrative complaint with the Commission. ADMIT that on March 31, 2004, Bush-Cheney 04 and the Republican National Committee filed an administrative complaint with the Commission. The remainder of the first sentence of paragraph 42 describes these administrative complaints, and no response is necessary because the administrative complaints speak for themselves. ADMIT that no action by the Commission on those complaints has been made public, but only because 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(12)(A) prohibits the Commission from making public [a]ny 6

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 7 of 9 notification or investigation... without the written consent of the person receiving such notification or the person with respect to whom such investigation is made. 43. Paragraph 43 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. DENY that 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(8) requires the Commission to act upon administrative complaints within 120 days of filing. ADMIT that plaintiff filed a lawsuit, Bush-Cheney 04 v. FEC, No. 1:04-CV-1501 (JR) (D.D.C.) on September 1, 2004, and ADMIT that copies of the administrative complaints referenced in paragraph 42 were attached to the judicial complaint in that litigation. ADMIT that the Commission answered the complaint in that litigation on November 1, 2004. ADMIT that Judge James Robertson denied plaintiff s motion for preliminary injunction in that case. The complaint, answer and transcript of the September 15, 2004 motion hearing in that case speak for themselves; therefore, no further response is required. 44. ADMIT that, on March 11, 2004, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 69 FR 11736 (Mar. 11, 2004). No response to plaintiff s characterization of that notice is necessary, because the Federal Register notice speaks for itself. 45. Paragraph 45 contains plaintiffs' characterization of matters complained of, and FEC Agenda Document 04-48 speaks for itself; therefore no response is required. Actions taken at the Commission's May 13, 2004 open meeting are reflected in the publicly available minutes of that meeting; those minutes also speak for themselves, therefore no response is required. 46. DENY that the Commission took final agency action with respect to this rulemaking in August 2004. Actions taken at the Commission's August 19, 2004 open meeting are reflected in the publicly available minutes of that meeting; those minutes speak for themselves, therefore no response is required. ADMIT that on October 28, 2004, the 7

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 8 of 9 Commission approved an Explanation and Justification and revised Final Rules for publication in the Federal Register and transmittal to Congress. 47. Paragraph 47 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. 48. DENY. 49. DENY. 50. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, cited in paragraph 50, speaks for itself; therefore, no response is required. 51. DENY. 52. DENY. 53. The first sentence of paragraph 53 contains plaintiff s conclusions of law, as to which no response is required. The decision in Perot v. FEC, 97 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1996), speaks for itself. DENY the second sentence of paragraph 53. 54. Plaintiff s prayer for relief does not require a response, but insofar as an answer is deemed necessary, the Commission DENIES that plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief or to any relief whatsoever. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiff s complaint, in whole or part, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this suit. 8

Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 7 Filed 11/19/2004 Page 9 of 9 3. Plaintiff s suit was premature, since this suit was filed before the Commission s final agency action. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Lawrence H. Norton General Counsel /s/ Richard B. Bader Associate General Counsel (D.C. Bar # 911073) /s/ Colleen T. Sealander Acting Assistant General Counsel /s/ Robert W. Bonham III Senior Attorney (D.C. Bar # 397859) November 19, 2004 FOR THE DEFENDANT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 (202) 694-1650 9