CDP CDP Complaint-1
CDP CDP Complaint-1
)
COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE )
PRESIDENT, )
203 South Union Street, Suite 300 )
Alexandria, VA 22314 )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )
1050 First Street NE )
Washington, DC 20463, )
)
Defendant, )
_______________________________________)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE PRESIDENT brings this action for injunctive
INTRODUCTION
1. This lawsuit seeks to compel the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) to take action on
an administrative complaint the Committee to Defend the President (“CDP”) filed with the
FEC four months ago disclosing the existence of an unprecedented nationwide scheme to
violate federal campaign finance law in which $84 million was effectively laundered over
more than a year by the Hillary Victory Fund (“HVF”) through dozens of state political
2. The 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton; Hillary Victory Fund,
committee; the DNC; and dozens of Democratic state parties across the country entered
1
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 20
into the exact type of arrangement the Supreme Court declared in McCutcheon v. FEC
would so flagrantly violate campaign finance law that it was “unlikely” to occur. The Court
was unable to anticipate the extent and sheer audacity with which Democrats would
3. Federal law does not permit the FEC to investigate alleged violations of campaign finance
law unless and until the Commission votes there is “reason to believe” a violation occurred
U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). This standard is far lower than either “probable cause,” cf. id.
§ 30109(a)(3), or the preponderance standard a district court would apply, cf. id.
§ 30109(a)(6).
4. The Administrative Complaint CDP filed with the FEC contained detailed spreadsheets
and explanations citing to the hundreds of specific line-item entries in scores of publicly
a. virtually every single reported disbursement from HVF to a state party resulted in an
immediately reported transfer of the same amount of funds from the state party to the
DNC; and
b. over 99% of funds reportedly transferred through HVF to state parties wound up at the
DNC.
5. CDP’s Administrative Complaint also contained public statements from both the then
Chairwoman of the DNC, Donna Brazile, and HFA’s Chief Financial Officer, Gary
Gensler, confirming HFA controlled the DNC’s finances, strategy, and expenditures. That
is, the funds raised through HVF ended up under the direction and control of HFA. Press
2
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 3 of 20
accounts reveal the Clinton campaign controlled the transfer of funds into and out of state
party accounts, and some state party officials were unaware of transfers until after the fact.
6. The state parties’ reports also contain dozens of inconsistencies with HVF’s and DNC’s
reports that both violate federal reporting requirements on their own and raise troubling
finance law in a failed attempt to secure the Presidency for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the
amount of money involved, the nationwide scope, and the fact that the 2020 presidential
cycle is already underway, it is imperative this Court ensure the FEC take appropriate
the FEC’s failure to find “reason to believe” federal campaign finance law has been
violated, despite the voluminous evidence set forth in CDP’s complaint is arbitrary,
8. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201, because
9. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendant is an entity of
PARTIES
3
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 4 of 20
11. Defendant FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (“FEC”) is the federal agency charged
with enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) and is located in
Washington, D.C.
12. On December 15, 2017, CDP filed a Complaint (hereafter, “Administrative Complaint”)
with the FEC against Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee for President
of the United States; Hillary for America (“HFA”), Clinton’s principal authorized
William Q. Derrough, Treasurer of the DNC; 38 state political party committees; Hillary
Victory Fund (“HVF”), the joint fundraising committee formed by HFA, the DNC, and
13. The Administrative Complaint was written, signed, notarized and verified under penalty of
specific FEC filings, page numbers, and transaction identification numbers for each
the DNC.
14. A true and complete copy of the Administrative Complaint and all exhibits is appended to
4
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 5 of 20
15. On or about December 21st, 2017, The FEC acknowledged it received the Administrative
Complaint on December 15, 2017. A true and complete copy of the FEC’s
16. On or about December 21, 2017, the Enforcement Division of the FEC’s Office of General
Counsel (“OGC”) assigned Matter Under Review (“MUR”) number 7304 to the
Administrative Complaint.
17. On information and belief, the FEC notified the respondents of the Administrative
Complaint within five days of its receipt, pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 111.5(a), and provided
111.6(a). On information and belief, OGC has not yet prepared a report for the Commission
pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 111.7 containing a preliminary legal and factual analysis of the
Administrative Complaint based on the complaint itself, attached exhibits, and any
almost entirely of public filings with the FEC, and a surfeit of time, the Commission has
not yet voted on whether there exists “reason to believe” a “possible violation” of federal
Complaint’s allegations.
18. The Administrative Complaint CDP filed with the FEC alleges the existence of a
committee), and then through a series of nearly 40 state parties to the DNC. Public
statements from the DNC’s former chairwoman Donna Brazile reveal that the DNC
5
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 6 of 20
transferred the HVF funds it received through the state parties to HFA. She further
disclosed that the Clinton campaign also directly controlled the DNC’s funds. And the
DNC made coordinated expenditures with HFA, which campaign finance law treats as
contributions to HFA.
Exh. 1 at 8; see also id. at 10 (“[T]he virtually unbroken pattern demonstrates state parties
were being used as intermediate pass-through entities to funnel over 80 million dollars in
20. The Administrative Complaint further alleges, “The DNC, in turn, contributed most of
those funds to HFA, made coordinated expenditures with HFA and otherwise transferred
control of its money to HFA, as both the DNC’s own public filings and former DNC
21. The Administrative Complaint reiterated, “[V]irtually every single disbursement HVF
[made] to a state party resulted in an immediate transfer of the same amount of funds from
the state party to the DNC. Over 99% of funds transferred through HVF to state parties
wound up at the DNC (which, as explained below, made coordinated expenditures with
6
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 7 of 20
HFA and otherwise spent its funds subject to the oversight, direction, and control of HFA).”
Id. ¶ 52.
22. Each row in the spreadsheet labeled Exhibit 1 to the Administrative Complaint identifies a
distinct series of transactions through which funds collected by HVF were reported to flow
directly through a series of state parties to the DNC, almost always on the same day. The
spreadsheet documents each step in each transaction by citing the particular FEC report
documenting it.
23. Each transaction identified in the spreadsheet is structured in substantially the same
manner:
a. HVF reported transferring a certain amount of funds to its state party members on
b. Most of those state party members reported receiving transfers in the identical
amounts of funds from HVF on the very same day. The Mississippi Democratic
Party did not report receiving any funds from HVF on or about that day, however.
c. Most of HVF’s state party members then reported contributing the same amount of
money they received from HVF to the DNC on the very same day (or occasionally
the next day). The Mississippi Democratic Party did not report transferring any
d. Finally, the DNC reported receiving the same amount of funds, also generally on
the same day. For example, the DNC reported receiving $19,500 from the
7
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 8 of 20
Democratic Party did not report receiving funds from HVF or transferring funds to
the DNC, shows many of the transfers in this complex scheme were inconsistently
e. Each transfer of funds from HVF, allegedly through a state party committee, to the
The last cell in each row cites the specific FEC reports that document—or fail to
Administrative Complaint sets explains the $43,500 transfer through the Alaska
Democratic Party:
24. Paragraph 101 of the Administrative Complaint summarizes the total amounts of the pass-
through transfers from HVF through the state parties to the DNC (where the funds were
then either controlled by HFA, used for coordinated expenditures with HFA, and/or
transferred to HFA):
8
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 9 of 20
9
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 10 of 20
25. The Administrative Complaint also drew three connections between HFA and the funds
a. First, former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile publicly admitted funds funneled
from HVF through state parties to the DNC were then passed along to HFA. Exh.
1, ¶ 104 (quoting Donna Brazile, Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the
10
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 11 of 20
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-
215774). The article described HVF as “‘essentially . . . money laundering’ for the
b. Second, between October 1, 2015 and Election Day, while funds were being
funneled from HVF through state parties to the DNC, the DNC also made at least
c. Third, throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton and HFA exercised
oversight, direction, and control over the expenditure of DNC funds, causing DNC
finance law. Former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile publicly allocuted, “As
Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on
a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-
the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America. . . . specified that in
exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the
party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right
of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make
final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with
the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
11
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 12 of 20
Id. (emphasis added). Gary Gensler, the Chief Financial Officer of HFA, stated the
Democratic Party was “fully under the control of the Clinton campaign . . . . The
campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its
basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising
clearinghouse.” Id. In July 2016, Politico reported, “[W]hat happens to the cash in
the Hillary Victory Fund after its initial distribution is left almost entirely to the
discretion of the Clinton campaign’s chief operating officer, Beth Jones, who
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-
exercised oversight, direction, and control over funds over the DNC’s funds,
including funds the DNC obtained from HVF that were reported as flowing through
26. The Administrative Complaint alleges the hundreds of transactions it identifies violated
27. Count I, against all Respondents, alleges the use of Democratic state parties to funnel
money from HVF, Clinton’s joint fundraising committee, to the DNC, and ultimately to
coordinated expenditures with HFA that legally constitute in-kind contributions, or the
grant of control over DNC funds to HFA personnel) constitutes illegal earmarking in
12
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 13 of 20
28. Count II, against Respondents DNC and its Treasurer, William Q. Derrough, alleges they
accepted contributions made by one person in the name of another in violation of 52 U.S.C.
¶ 30122, because over 99% of contributions to HVF, totaling over $80 million, were
HVF’s member state party committees were playing an essentially ministerial role,
acting as shells in a shell game, with no autonomy, agency, or control of their own.
committees, but rather sham contributions papered through the intermediary state
party committee members to the DNC itself (and ultimately HFA). The DNC
committees, however, rather than reporting the actual sources of the funds: HVF’s
29. Count III, against Respondents DNC and its Treasurer, William Q. Derrough, alleges they
contributions to HVF that were funneled through the state parties to the DNC should be
through HVF’s member state party committees to the DNC, and HVF’s member
13
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 14 of 20
state party committees were playing an essentially ministerial role and acting as
b. These hundreds of virtually instantaneous transfers involving over $80 million were
among HVF, its member state party committees, the DNC, and HFA. Any
contributions to HVF that would have resulted in more than $33,400 per contributor
passing through its member state party committees to the DNC would violate
30. Count IV, against Respondents DNC and its Treasurer, William Q. Derrough, alleges they
filed false, inaccurate, and/or incomplete reports in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30104. When
funds were funneled through HVF and the state parties to the DNC, the DNC reported
those funds as originating from the state parties rather than either HVF or its contributors.
treated as contributions to its member state party committees, but rather as contributions to
31. Count V, against all Respondents, alleges they violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104 by filing false
reports, if the funds they reported as being transferred from HVF through the state parties
to the DNC actually were transferred directly from HVF to the DNC.
a. It is reasonably possible HVF did not actually transfer contributions into its state
party members’ accounts for moments before they were immediately re-transferred
to the DNC, but rather transferred those funds directly to the DNC.
14
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 15 of 20
featuring quotes from state party committees that HVF, the DNC, and/or HFA, or
executed the transactions to funnel those funds through the state party committees’
accounts to the DNC without the state party committees’ prior knowledge or
consent concerning those transfers. In either case, Respondents’ reports to the FEC
claiming the funds were transferred through HVF’s member state party committees
32. Count VI, against the DNC, its Treasurer William Q. Derrough, HFA, and Clinton, for
Chairwoman Donna Brazile and HFA Chief Financial Officer Gary Gensler, the
DNC allowed HFA and its agents to exercise oversight, direction, and control over
the expenditure of DNC funds, specifically including but not limited to funds the
b. Politico reports, “While state party officials were made aware that Clinton's
committees, one operative who has relationships with multiple state parties said
that some of their officials have complained that they weren't notified of the
transfers into and out of their accounts until after the fact.” Kenneth P. Vogel &
Isaac Arnsdorf, Clinton Fundraising Leaves Little for State Parties, POLITICO (May
fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670.
15
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 16 of 20
c. By allowing Clinton and HFA to exercise direction, oversight, and control over the
DNC’s funds, the DNC made a contribution of those funds to Clinton and HFA.
The amount of DNC funds over which Clinton and HFA exercised oversight,
33. Count VII, against Respondent state political party committees, alleges they filed
transferring funds to one or more state parties, or the DNC reported receiving funds
from one or more state parties, yet those state parties’ reports did not contain
investigation, but rather are immediately apparent from the face of FEC filings from
HVF, the DNC, and the state parties; it is indisputable that dozens of transfers HVF
reported making to state parties did not appear as receipts on the state parties’
reports, and contributions the DNC reported receiving from state parties did not
34. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) authorizes any person to file a written, signed, sworn, and
notarized complaint with the FEC alleging a violation of federal campaign finance law.
16
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 17 of 20
35. Within 5 days of receiving the administrative complaint, the FEC must notify “any person
Any such person “shall have the opportunity to demonstrate, in writing, to the Commission
within 15 days after notification that no action should be taken” pursuant to the Complaint.
Id.
36. After the respondents have been given an opportunity to submit a responsive filing, the
Commission must vote on whether “it has reason to believe” a person violated federal
campaign finance law. It takes the votes of four Commissioners to approve such a “reason
to believe” (“RTB”) finding. The RTB vote is based solely on the administrative complaint,
any responsive filings, and potentially public FEC records; the Commission is not
permitted to undertake any investigation of the complaint or its allegations prior to an RTB
37. Upon making an RTB finding, the Commission must notify the person alleged to have
violated the law, and “make an investigation of such alleged violation, which may include
38. At the conclusion of the Commission’s investigation, OGC must prepare a report setting
forth “the legal and factual issues of the case.” A copy of the report is provided to each
respondent, and they have an opportunity to submit a responsive filing. Id. § 30109(a)(3).
39. In most cases, upon receiving OGC’s report of the investigation, the Commission must
vote whether “probable cause” exists to believe federal campaign finance law was violated.
It takes the votes of four Commissioners to make such a probable cause determination. Id.
§ 30109(a)(3), (a)(4)(A)(i).
17
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 18 of 20
40. After the Commission makes a probable cause determination, it must attempt to enter into
a conciliation agreement with the respondents for a period of 30-90 days. It takes the votes
§ 30109(a)(4)(A)(i).
41. If the Commission is unable to reach a conciliation agreement with the respondent, then
upon a vote of four Commissioners it may seek monetary or injunctive relief in U.S.
§ 30104(a), (c), (e)-(g), (i); id. § 30105, in contrast, the Commission does not make
“probable cause” determinations, but instead simply determines that the disclosure
43. CDP hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
44. CDP filed its Administrative Complaint alleging violations of federal campaign finance
45. Over 120 days have elapsed since CDP filed its Administrative Complaint, and the FEC
has failed to act. In particular, on information and belief, the FEC has not even made a
18
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 19 of 20
46. Without a Reason to Believe finding, the FEC cannot even initiate an investigation into the
§ 30108(a)(2).
47. CDP is aggrieved by the Commissions’ failure to act on its Administrative Complaint. 52
to act” on an Administrative Complaint “during the 120-day period beginning on the date
the complaint is filed, may file a petition with the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.” The Court may rule the Commission’s “failure to act is contrary to
law, and may direct the Commission to conform with such declaration within 30 days.”
(C) and the FEC’s failure to act on the Administrative Complaint is arbitrary, capricious,
a. to vote pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2), no more than thirty (30) days from the
date of this Court’s order, on whether there exists reason to believe each of the
19
Case 1:18-cv-00888-RDM Document 1 Filed 04/16/18 Page 20 of 20
b. in the event the Commission makes one or more “reason to believe” findings in
whether probable cause exists to believe campaign finance laws have been violated
pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(3), and take any other subsequent steps necessary
3. Costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to any applicable statute or authority, including but not
Respectfully submitted,
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
20