FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

)
COOLIDGE REAGAN FOUNDATION )
1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 )
Washington, DC 20006 )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
HILLARY FOR AMERICA, )
FEC ID Number C00575795 )
P.O. Box 5256 )
New York, NY 10185-5256 )
Elizabeth Jones, Treasurer, and )
)
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION / )
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE )
FEC ID Number C00010603 )
430 South Capitol Street SE )
Washington, D.C., 20003 )
Virginia McGregor, Treasurer, )
)
Respondents. )
_______________________________________)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Introduction

Complainant Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an administrative complaint against

Respondents Hillary for America (“HFA”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) in

August 2018, alleging they filed false disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission

(“FEC”). Specifically, HFA and the DNC had tried to mask their payments to Fusion GPS to

prepare the infamous “Steele Dossier”—a collection of lies originating primarily from Russian

sources which HFA and the DNC obtained in a desperate eleventh-hour gambit to smear Donald

Trump in the final stages of the 2016 presidential election.

Rather than forthrightly acknowledging they had paid Fusion GPS to prepare the Steele

Dossier, HFA and the DNC instead attempted to hide their involvement in its preparation and

1
connection to Fusion GPS. They channeled their payments to Fusion GPS through their law firm,

Perkins Coie, and the DNC falsely reported those payments to the FEC as being for legal services

and related purposes. The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal

campaign finance law by falsely reporting the purpose of their payments through Perkins Coie to

Fusion GPS.

Caught in their lie, HFA and the DNC scurried to contain the crisis by entering into

Conciliation Agreements with the FEC. Each agreement states, “Solely for the purpose of settling

this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, Respondent does not concede, but will

not further contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe.” HFA and the DNC

have breached this agreement by now claiming in federal court that Fusion GPS’s opposition

research into Trump fell within the legal services Perkins Coie was providing and is protected by

attorney-client privilege. HFA’s and the DNC’s renewed attempt to contend Fusion GPS’s

preparation of the Steele Dossier somehow constitutes legal services falling within attorney-client

privilege violates their agreement to refrain from contesting the Commission’s probable-cause

finding that Fusion GPS had not been providing legal services.

PARTIES

1. Complainant COOLIDGE REAGAN FOUNDATION (“the Foundation”) is a

501(c)(3) non-profit foundation dedicated to protecting the First Amendment and promoting free

and fair elections.

2. Respondent HILLARY FOR AMERICA (“HFA”) is a presidential candidate

campaign committee registered with the FEC for 2016 Democratic nominee for President Hillary

Rodham Clinton. Its Treasurer is Elizabeth Jones.

2
 3. Respondent DNC SERVICES CORPORATION / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

COMMITTEE (“DNC”) is a national political party committee affiliated with the Democratic

Party and registered with the FEC. Its Treasurer is Virginia McGregor.

HFA’s and the DNC’s Conciliation Agreements with the FEC

4. In August 2018, the Foundation filed an Administrative Complaint with the FEC

pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) regarding HFA, the DNC, Perkins Coie, and Christopher

Steele. See Verified Complaint (Aug. 1, 2018), Coolidge Reagan Foundation v. Steele, FEC

MUR 7449. A true and complete copy of the Administrative Complaint is attached as Exhibit 1.

5. The complaint Alleged HFA and the DNC used HFA’s law firm, Perkins Coie, to

hire and funnel over $1 million to “outside research firms” such as Fusion GPS “to perform

potentially sensitive, controversial, or politically embarrassing” opposition research into Donald

Trump. Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 12. This opposition research was “for political purposes, to find damaging

information concerning [Trump] that could be used against him in the campaign.” Id. ¶ 10.

6. The Administrative Complaint alleged, “Because Fusion GPS’s work was to further

HFA’s and the DNC’s political and campaign-related goals, rather than for the purpose of

providing legal advice or assisting with impending or potential litigation, it was not covered by

attorney-client, work-product, or any other privileges.” Id. ¶ 11.

7. The Administrative Complaint pointed out HFA reported all of its payments to

Perkins Coie throughout 2016 and 2017—including payments made in connection with Fusion

GPS—as being for “LEGAL SERVICES.” Id. ¶ 14. The DNC reported its payments to Perkins

Coie as being for a variety of purposes, including “LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE

CONSULTING” and “LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES,” but none of these claimed

3
purposes had anything to do with opposition research, background investigations, Fusion GPS, or

Donald Trump. Id. ¶ 15.

8. The Administrative Complaint declared, “By intentionally obscuring their

payments to Perkins Coie and failing to disclose the true purpose of those payments, HFA and the

DNC were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the

fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of

influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” Id. ¶ 13.

9. The Administrative Complaint demonstrated HFA and the DNC violated 52 U.S.C.

§§ 30104(b)(5)(A) and 30104(b)(6)(B)(v) by failing to accurately report the purpose of a

substantial amount of their payments to Perkins Coie was for opposition research, and Fusion GPS

was the actual recipient of those payments. See Administrative Complaint at 10-14 (Counts I-II).

10. The FEC accepted the Administrative Complaint on August 8, 2018, and designed

it Matter Under Review #7449. A true and complete copy of the FEC’s acknowledgement letter is

included as Exhibit 2.

11. Several years later, following a thorough investigation, the FEC found probable

cause to believe HFA “violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)(i) by

failing to report the proper purpose of the funds the DNC paid to Perkins Coie for opposition

research performed by Fusion GPS.” Letter from FEC Ass’t Gen. Counsel Mark Allen to Graham

Wilson (Dec. 17, 2021). A true and complete copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 3.

12. The FEC likewise found probable cause to believe the DNC “violated 52 U.S.C.

§ 30104(b)(5)(A) and (b)(6)(B)(v) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3)(i) by failing to report the proper

purpose of the funds the DNC paid to Perkins Coie for opposition research performed by Fusion

4
GPS.” Letter from FEC Ass’t Gen. Counsel Mark Allen to Graham Wilson (Dec. 17, 2021). A true

and complete copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit 4.

13. The FEC’s General Counsel explained, “The investigation revealed that the total

amount that the DNC spent on Fusion’s opposition research but reported as ‘legal and compliance

consulting’ was $777,907.97. Similarly, the investigation revealed that the total amount that HFA

spent on Fusion’s opposition research but reported as ‘legal services’ was $180,000.” Second

General Counsel’s Report, DNC Servs. Corp/Democratic National Committee, MURs 7291 &

7449, at 2-3 (June 24, 2021). A true and correct copy of the Second General Counsel’s Report is

attached as Exhibit 5.

14. The General Counsel’s report continued, “The invoices demonstrate that Fusion

was providing opposition research services related to Trump and Russia, and there is no evidence

that Fusion provided services other than this opposition research.” Id. at 4. It declared, “[T]he

documentary evidence provided in discovery confirms the violations the Commission found at the

reason to believe stage.” Id.

15. In February 2022, both HFA and the DNC executed Conciliation Agreements with

the FEC concerning their false filings and legal violations.

16. HFA’s Conciliation Agreement expressly declared that, following an investigation,

the FEC “found probable cause to believe” HFA had violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and its

accompanying regulation “by misreporting the purpose of certain disbursements.” Conciliation

Agreement, In re Hillary for America, et al., at 1. MURs 7291 and 7449 (Feb. 22, 2022)

[hereinafter, “HFA Agreement”]. A true and complete copy of the HFA Agreement is attached as

Exhibit 6.

5
 17. The DNC’s Conciliation Agreement contained the same language, but went further,

specifying the FEC also found probable cause to believe the DNC’s “misreporting” had “violated

52 U.S.C. § 30104 (b)(6)(B)(v).” Conciliation Agreement, In re DNC Servs. Corp./DNC, et al., at

1, MURs 7291 and 7449 (Feb. 22, 2022) [hereinafter, “DNC Agreement”]. A true and complete

copy of the DNC Agreement is attached as Exhibit 7.

18. Both agreements declare, “Solely for the purpose of settling this matter

expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs, Respondent does not concede, but will not further

contest the Commission’s finding of probable cause to believe.” HFA Agreement ¶ VI

(emphasis added); DNC Agreement ¶ VI (emphasis added).

19. HFA agreed to pay a fine of $8,000 and refrain from future violations of 52 U.S.C.

§ 30104(b)(5)(A). HFA Agreement ¶ VII(1)-(2). The DNC agreed to pay a fine of $105,000 and

refrain from future violations of 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and (b)(6)(B)(v). DNC Agreement

¶ VII(1)-(2).

HFA’s and the DNC’s Breaches of Their Conciliation Agreements

20. United States v. Sussmann, No. 1:21-CR-582 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 16, 2021), is a

criminal case against former Perkins Coie attorney Michael Sussmann. The Indictment alleges

Sussmann violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by lying to the FBI. Specifically, Sussmann is accused of

telling the FBI he was not representing any client when he provided information to the FBI

concerning Donald Trump’s purported links to Russia—links which the FBI ultimately rejected as

spurious. The indictment alleges Sussmann had in fact been representing the Clinton campaign at

the time and provided the information to the FBI in connection with that representation, on his

client’s behalf.

6
 21. The Government has subpoenaed certain documents from Perkins Coie concerning

Fusion GPS and its investigation of Trump and preparation of the Steele dossier in connection with

this prosecution.

22. HFA and the DNC filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit—which the district

court granted—to assert attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine over those

documents.

23. A true and complete copy of HFA’s motion is attached as Exhibit 8. See Hillary for

America’s Motion to Intervene, United States v. Sussman, No. 21-582 (CRC), D.E. #86, at 1

(D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2022) [hereinafter, “HFA Motion”].

24. A true and complete copy of the DNC’s motion is attached as Exhibit 9. Democratic

National Committee’s Motion to Intervene, United States v. Sussman, No. 21-582 (CRC), D.E.

#89, at 1 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2022) [hereinafter, “DNC Motion”].

25. HFA’s motion was accompanied by the Declaration of John Podesta, formally

asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine over Fusion GPS documents. A true

and complete copy of the Podesta Declaration is attached as Exhibit 10.

26. HFA’s motion was also accompanied by the Declaration of Campaign Manager

Robert E. Mook. A true and complete copy of the Mook Declaration is Attached as Exhibit 11.

Mook declared under penalty of perjury all of the work Perkins Coie performed, including through

its contractors, “was for the purpose of providing legal services and legal advice to HFA.” Mook

Decl. at ¶ 6.

27. Mook testified under oath in the Sussmann trial that Hillary Clinton personally

approved the plan for the campaign to share opposition research the campaign had compiled

purporting to link Trump to Russia—links the FBI subsequently concluded were unfounded

7
partisan lies—with third parties including the press. See, e.g., Marshall Cohen, Hillary Clinton

Personally Approved Plan to Share Trump-Russia Allegation with the Press in 2016, Campaign

Manager Says, CNN (6:20 ET, May 20, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-

clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html. The campaign’s public weaponization of its purportedly

derogatory information about Trump further confirms it was not obtained for legal research

purposes (and its public disclosure of such information would vitiate any attempt to assert privilege

over it).

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONCILIATION AGREEMENTS

28. The foregoing paragraphs are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.

29. The FEC found probable cause to believe HFA and the DNC violated federal law

by filing false campaign finance disclosure reports with the Commission. Specifically, HFA and

the DNC falsely claimed payments made to Perkins Coie in connection with Fusion GPS’s

opposition research and investigations into Trump to prepare the salacious and fraudulent Steele

Dossier were for the purpose of legal services. In reality, Fusion GPS’s investigation into Trump

and preparation of the Steele Dossier were for political purposes and not for the purpose of

enabling Perkins Coie to provide legal advice or in connection with litigation.

30. HFA and the DNC entered into Conciliation Agreements with the FEC stating,

“Solely for the purpose of settling this matter expeditiously and to avoid further legal costs,

Respondent does not concede, but will not further contest the Commission’s finding of

probable cause to believe.” HFA Agreement ¶ VI (emphasis added); DNC Agreement ¶ VI

(emphasis added).

8
 31. Despite these agreements, both HFA and the DNC have intervened in United States

v. Sussmann to assert attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine over documents Fusion

GPS prepared and provided in connection with its opposition research into Trump and preparation

of the Steele Dossier.

32. HFA’s and the DNC’s intervention, arguments, and supporting declarations in

United States v. Sussmann violate their agreement to “not further contest the Commission’s finding

of probable cause to believe” Fusion GPS’s opposition research into Trump and preparation of the

Steele Dossier did not constitute legal services.

33. The Conciliation Agreements specify the Commission may “review compliance”

with the agreements “on request of anyone filing a complaint under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1).”

HFA Conciliation Agreement, ¶ IX; DNC Conciliation Agreement, ¶ IX.

WHEREFORE the Commission should conclude HFA and the DNC breached their Conciliation

Agreements with the FEC and institute a civil action for relief in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia.