Vroom v. FEC
On June 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Peter J. Vroom’s amended complaint, concluding that he lacked standing to challenge the Commission’s dismissal of his administrative complaint. In that complaint, Mr. Vroom had alleged that Penske PAC and General Electric PAC (GEPAC) had filed false and misleading information about their corporate relationship with the Commission, leading the Commission wrongly to allow the two PACs to disaffiliate in AO 2009-18.
The Act itself, however, does not confer standing under Article III of the Constitution. To have standing, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is traceable to the defendant’s action or inaction and is “likely” to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 560, 660-61 (1992). Allegations of “informational injury” can provide the requisite injury-in-fact for standing; that is, when the action or inaction of the Commission deprives voters of information that would help them evaluate candidates for office, those voters may have standing to complain. Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 21 (1998).
Date Issued: 6/28/2013; 7 pp.
(Posted 8/1/2013; By: Christopher Berg)
Latest Articles by Category: