The PDF files on this web site may be viewed or printed using the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader available from Adobe Systems Incorporated.
On March 12, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss Thomas P. Tierney’s suit against the Commission for lack of standing. The court found that the FEC’s decision to dismiss Mr. Tierney’s administrative complaint was not contrary to law.
Mr. Tierney was a candidate for Congress in Massachusetts in the 2004 general election. Shortly before the election, Mr. Tierney filed an administrative complaint with the FEC asserting that the Massachusetts Republican State Congressional Committee (the Committee) unlawfully failed to spend its federal funds to support Republican candidates for federal office in Massachusetts. He alleged that the Committee spent most of more than $3 million in federal contributions received during the 2004 election cycle on state and local campaigns, rather than for federal campaign activity.
The FEC considered Mr. Tierney’s complaint and concluded that the Committee had not violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). The Commission concluded that the Act neither requires the Committee to spend its federal funds on Congressional candidates nor bars it from spending federal funds on state and local elections. Mr. Tierney then sought review of that decision in the district court.
The court concluded that Mr. Tierney has not established standing to pursue this action because he conceded that the Committee had no obligation to provide financial support to his particular candidacy. Mr. Tierney thus did not have a “concrete and particularized” injury in fact for standing purposes. Additionally, his alleged injury was not caused by the FEC’s conduct in dismissing his complaint, but the independent decision of the Committee not to spend its federal funds to support his candidacy.
The court also concluded that the FEC’s dismissal of Mr. Tierney’s administrative complaint was not “contrary to law” because the FEC’s decision was based on the plain language of the Act. There is no provision in the Act that requires state political party committees to disburse federal funds only for the specific purpose of supporting federal candidates. The court concluded that it is not for the courts to create restrictions on the use of federal funds for nonfederal purposes. Any such restrictions should instead be considered by the political branches, particularly Congress.
Source: FEC Record -- May 2008 [PDF].
Appeals Court (4th Circuit):
On October 27, 1992, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a suit filed by John H. Trinsey, Jr., a 1992 Presidential candidate. (Civil Action No. 91-8041.) He had brought suit against 49 of the 50 states (all except New Hampshire) as well as the District of Columbia and Guam, seeking a declaration that the ballot access laws in South Dakota (where allegedly he was denied access to the primary ballot) and the other jurisdictions were unconstitutional. He also asked the court to bar the payment of matching funds to 1992 candidates until he was permitted to gain ballot access.
The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the suit, noting that the U.S. District Court in South Dakota dismissed, with prejudice, a virtually identical suit filed by Mr. Trinsey. The court further noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the South Dakota court's dismissal after carefully considering Mr. Trinsey's claim (Trinsey v. Hazeltine, Civil Action No. 92-1394, September 2, 1992). On this basis, the Pennsylvania district court dismissed the suit even though some of the defendants had not yet filed their motions.
Source: FEC Record -- December 1992, p. 7.