ADLF's previous related complaint is available here, and the new complaint is available in full below and here. The American Democracy Legal Fund holds candidates for office accountable for possible ethics and/or legal violations. It was established by David Brock and is run by Brad Woodhouse.
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
American Democracy Legal Fund
455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
v.
Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE
Washington, DC 20003
American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34414
Washington, DC 20043
Crossroads GPS
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Americans for Prosperity
2111 Wilson Blvd, Suite #350
Arlington, VA 22201
GOP Data Trust LLC
735 8th Street SE, Suite #200
Washington, DC 20003
i360, LLC
2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite #800
Arlington, VA 22201
Arizona Republican Party
Timothy Lee, Treasurer
3501 North 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Montana Republican State Central Committee
Debra Brown, Treasurer
PO Box 935
Helena, MT 59624
West Virginia Republican Party, Inc.
Michelle Wilshere, Treasurer
700 Washington Street - East Suite 201
Charleston, WV 25301
Andrew Walter
Andrew Walter for Congress
Chris Marston, Treasurer
PO Box 13321
Tempe, AZ 85284
Ben Sasse
Ben Sasse for US Senate Inc.
Mark Fahleson, Treasurer
105 East 6th Street
Fremont, NE 68025
Bob Goodlatte
Bob Goodlatte for Congress Committee
Kenneth Lorenz Prickitt, Treasurer
PO Box 292
Roanoke, VA 24002
Bobby Schilling
Bobby Schilling for Congress
Mitch Heckenkam, Treasurer
367 Avenue of the Cities - Suite D
East Moline, IL 61244
Carl DeMaio
Carl DeMaio for Congress
PO Box 27227
San Diego, CA 92198
Elizabeth Cheney
Cheney for Wyoming
Mark Vincent, Treasurer
961 Recluse Ct
Casper, WY 82609
Tom Cotton
Cotton for Senate
Bradley Crate, Treasurer
PO Box 379
Dardanelle, AR 72834
Doug Ose
Doug Ose for Congress
Vona Copp, Treasurer
9321 Silverbend Lake
Elk Grove, CA 95624
Elise Stefanik
Elise for Congress
James Morris, Treasurer
PO Box 338
Willsboro, NY 12996
Paul Dietzel
Friends of Dietzel
Brandon Lagarde, Treasurer
PO Box 286
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Karen Handel
Handel for Senate Inc.
Roger Santi, Treasurer
3970 Old Milton Parkway
Alpharetta, GA 30005
William Hurd
Hurd for Congress
Bradley Crate
PO Box 656
Helotes, TX 78023
Steve Lonegan
Lonegan for Senate Inc.
Scott B. Mackenzie, Treasurer
38 East Ridgewood Ave - Suite 181
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Lynn Jenkins
Lynn Jenkins for Congress, Inc.
Paul Kilgore, Treasurer
PO Box 727
Huntington, WV 25711
Matt Rosendale
Matt Rosendale for Montana
Bill Vancanagan, Treasurer
1954 Hwy. 16
Glendive, MT 59330
Mike McFadden
McFadden for Senate
Paul Kilgore, Treasurer
PO Box 4039
Saint Paul, MN 55104
Martha McSally
McSally for Congress
James Thomas III, Treasurer
PO Box 19128
Tucson, AZ 85731
Mike Turner
Mike Turner for Congress
Kyle Walton Denham, Treasurer
615 N. Hudson - Suite 320
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rob Wittman
Rob Wittman for Congress
Steve Ralls, Treasurer
PO Box 999
Montross, VA 22520
Matt Schultz
Schultz for Iowa
David Overholtzer, Treasurer
PO Box 3522
Urbandale, IA 50323
Scott Rigell
Scott Rigell for Congress
Joseph B. Wood, Jr., Treasurer
915 First Colonial Road - Suite 100
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
Steve Daines
Steve Daines for Montana
Lorna Kuney, Treasurer
PO Box 1598
Helena, MT 59624
Dan Sullivan
Sullivan for US Senate
Eric Campbell, Treasurer
3705 Arctic Blvd. #447
Anchorage, AK 99503
Tom Reed
Tom Reed for Congress
Marc Valerio, Treasurer
PO Box 10847
Rochester, NY 14610
Respondents.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
The American Democracy Legal Fund files this complaint with the Federal Election Commission (the "FEC" or "Commission") under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) against the above named respondents (collectively "Respondents") for numerous violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act"). This complaint supplements a previous complaint submitted to the Commission on October 14, 2014, regarding millions of dollars in illegal "coordinated communications" facilitated through the ongoing, real-time exchange of non-public strategic campaign and party data with groups making purportedly "independent" expenditures (the "Complaint").
As detailed in the Complaint, the RNC has created a for-profit entity, the Data Trust, charged with maintaining and sharing a vast database of information about hundreds of millions of Americans for Republican parties and campaigns. The Data Trust not only operates the RNC's voter file, however, but also provides the same data to American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, and numerous other outside organizations that are legally required to operate independently of the Republican Party and its candidates. Moreover, the RNC and the Data Trust have recently partnered with i360, a data management firm that supplies voter information to other conservative organizations, including the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity ("AFP"), one of the largest outside organizations supporting the Republican Party.
The Data Trust and i360 have implemented technical upgrades that allow the RNC, Republican campaigns, and any outside groups subscribing to either the Data Trust's or i360's voter database to not only "access voter information anytime . . . but update it instantly, so others viewing the voter lists can see the information immediately."[1] According to the terms of Data Trust/i360 partnership,
Clients of either The Data Trust or i360 can improve the data shared with all clients. For example, if a client of either company conducting voter outreach identifies a voter attribute or preference, clients of the other organization will benefit from that information. As a result, conservative groups and campaigns will have more information about voters at their disposal for their own activities than ever before.[2]
|
This move to a real time exchange of non-public, strategically material data through a common vendor constitutes "coordination" under the Act, and means that the purported "independent expenditures" of American Crossroads, Crossroads GPS, AFP and other outside organizations are in fact, excessive, illegal, in-kind contributions to the RNC and other Republican parties and campaigns uploading their information to the Data Trust and i360.. Reports filed with the Commission have revealed the identities of some of the Republican state party committees and federal candidate committees that are using i360's voter database services, and, therefore, passing on crucial, nonpublic voter information to i360's other "independent" clients, entities that are legally prohibited from coordinating with the party and candidate committees. The attached schedule of disbursements disclosed on reports filed with the Commission proves that at least 25 Republican candidate committees are using i360 as a vendor. These candidates are paying i360 for such services as "voter contact database subscriptions," "list acquisition," "canvassing subscriptions" and "data management monthly canvassing apps." Moreover, news reports indicate that at least three Republican state central party committees are using i360 for similar voter database and canvassing services.[3] These Republican state party committees and federal candidate committees are identified above as Respondents to this Supplemental Complaint. The Commission's regulations explain that an expenditure for a communication will be considered an in-kind contribution to a campaign or party if it is (1) paid for by an entity other than the party, candidate or candidate's campaign; (2) meets certain content standards, including by being a public communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; and (3) meets certain conduct standards, including the payor and the candidate, the candidate's opponent, or a political party using a common vendor.[4] The "common vendor" standard is satisfied if the payor uses a particular vendor to create, produce or distribute a communication;[5] when that vendor has provided certain specific services to the candidate identified in the communication, that candidate's opponent, or a political party during the previous 120 days, including "identifying voters or developing lists";[6] and the vendor then uses or conveys to the payor material information about the candidate's or the political party's plans, projects, activities, or needs, or information used previously in providing services to the candidate or the political party.[7] Here, the disbursements to i360 by the state party committees and candidate committees prove that i360 is serving as a "common vendor" for the committees and for outside groups that are required to remain independent of those committees. Moreover, public statements made by AFP, the RNC and others show that i360's technology automatically passes material information about the committees' plans and activities to any and all outside groups that also subscribe to i360, down to the very issues the committees are discussing with a given voter at a given time.[8] Accordingly, each and every time another group pays for a public communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of any of these candidates, or mentions these candidates, their opponents, or the Democratic or Republican parties in a communication airing within the relevant candidate's or party's jurisdiction within 120 days of an election, all three components of the Commission's "common vendor" test for coordinated communications are satisfied. The payments for the communications are therefore excessive, prohibited contributions to the candidates and state parties. For example, AFP has made nearly $350,000 in supposedly "independent" expenditures opposing U.S. Senator Mark Pryor.[9] Senator Pryor is the opponent of Respondents Tom Cotton and Cotton for Senate, which is a client of i360. Similarly, AFP has made over $100,000 in expenditures opposing U.S. Senator Mark Begich.[10] Senator Begich is the opponent of Respondents Dan Sullivan and Sullivan for US Senate, another i360 client. It appears these expenditures constitute coordinated communications and excessive contributions under the Commission's "common vendor" rule. We respectfully request that the Commission immediately investigate these newly named Respondents to determine their involvement in what now appears to be a massive scheme to flaunt the Commission's ban on coordinated communications. The Commission should determine the extent to which these new Respondents have accepted excessive contributions in the form such coordinated communications, enjoin Respondents from further violations of the Act; and assign the maximum fines permitted by law. [1] Alex Roarty, "Did the GOP Just Take a Big Leap Forward in Data?" National Journal (July 14, 2014), available at http://www.nationaljournal. [2] GOP Data Trust, "Data Trust and i360 Announce Historic Data Sharing Partnership" (Aug. 28, 2014), available at http://www.gopdatatrust.com/ [3] Jon Ward, "The Behind the Scenes Story of the RNC's Quest for Data Supremacy," HuffingtonPost.com (Apr. 18, 2014), available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ [4] See 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.21(a), (c)(3), (d)(4). [5] See id. § 109.21(d)(4)(i). [6] See id. § 109.21(d)(4)(ii)(G) (emphasis added). [7] See id. §§ 109.21(d)(4)(iii)(A), (B). [8] See Complaint at 3-7. [9] See Americans for Prosperity 24-Hour Independent Expenditure Report (Oct. 25, 2014), available at http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/ [10] See Americans for Prosperity 24-Hour Independent Expenditure Report (Oct. 25, 2014), available at http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/ |
