## Facts

- Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) made independent expenditures (IEs) through political advertisements not coordinated with any candidate.
- Crossroads GPS financed its IE activity through donations, including general (non-earmarked) contributions.
- An FEC regulation governing IE reporting required disclosure only of donors who made contributions “for the purpose of furthering” a reported IE, as interpreted by the FEC to mean donations tied to a specific IE rather than general support.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Nicholas Mezlak filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Crossroads GPS violated FECA’s disclosure requirements by failing to disclose certain donors.
- The donors CREW identified had made general contributions to Crossroads GPS, not contributions earmarked for a particular advertisement or expenditure.
- The FEC dismissed the complaint, reasoning that under its regulation Crossroads GPS had to disclose only donors who gave toward a particular IE.
- CREW and Mezlak sued the FEC in federal district court, arguing that the FEC’s disclosure regulation conflicted with FECA’s broader statutory disclosure requirements in 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c).
- The district court allowed Crossroads GPS to intervene as a defendant, granted summary judgment for CREW, held the regulation invalid, and set aside the FEC’s dismissal.
- Crossroads GPS appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether CREW and Mezlak had Article III standing based on denial of donor information that FECA requires to be disclosed.
2. Whether the validity of the FEC’s disclosure regulation could be challenged in an action reviewing the FEC’s dismissal of an administrative complaint, including whether such a challenge was barred by a limitations defense.
3. Whether the FEC’s regulation impermissibly narrowed FECA’s independent-expenditure disclosure requirements in 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c), including by limiting disclosure to donors funding a specific IE.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for CREW.
- The court held CREW and Mezlak had standing because FECA creates a right to certain disclosure information, and the challenged rule and dismissal denied access to that information.
- The court held the regulation’s validity could be assessed in reviewing whether the FEC’s dismissal was “contrary to law,” and the challenge was not procedurally barred in that posture.
- On the merits, the court held the FEC’s rule conflicted with FECA’s plain text by restricting disclosure to donors tied to a specific IE, rather than requiring the broader contributor reporting Congress required.
- Because the dismissal rested on the unlawful rule, the court agreed that the FEC’s dismissal could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff has informational standing when a statute requires public disclosure of information and an agency action or rule deprives the plaintiff of that information.
- In a FECA suit challenging an FEC dismissal as “contrary to law,” a court may evaluate the legality of a regulation that the dismissal depends on.
- Under 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(1), a person (other than a political committee) that makes independent expenditures above the statutory threshold must report the names and addresses of contributors giving more than $200 during the calendar year; the text does not limit disclosure to earmarked gifts.
- Under 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c)(2)(C), reporting must identify persons whose contributions were made “for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure”; an agency may not rewrite that phrase to require support for a specific advertisement or a specific expenditure.
- When Congress’s disclosure command is unambiguous, an agency rule that adds limiting conditions not found in the statute is invalid.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that FECA requires broader disclosure of donors supporting independent-expenditure spending than the FEC’s rule allowed, invalidated the regulation as inconsistent with 52 U.S.C. § 30104(c), and set aside the FEC’s dismissal of CREW’s administrative complaint that relied on that unlawful rule.


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission, 971 F.3d 340 (2020)