Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics Watch Opposition To RMGO Discovery Motion
Ethics Watch Opposition To RMGO Discovery Motion
Ethics Watch Opposition To RMGO Discovery Motion
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington d/b/a Colorado Ethics Watch
(Ethics Watch), through undersigned counsel, hereby submits its opposition to
Plaintiffs January 15, 2015 motion to defer consideration of the Secretary of States
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss to permit discovery regarding subject matter jurisdiction
(Doc. 47).
I. INTRODUCTION
Based on a false and misleading portrayal of Ethics Watchs activities, Plaintiffs
ask the Court to imagine that this case is part of some liberal Democratic conspiracy
and asks for leave to conduct discovery to learn 1) who tipped off Ethics Watch to the
existence of the mailers that were the subject of its successful campaign finance
complaint against Plaintiffs; and 2) how Ethics Watch decided to pursue the case.
It is no secret that Ethics Watch received the mailers in question from Republican
primary voters in the State Senate Districts 19 and 22. It is an undisputed fact that the
mailers went to Republican primary voters; Plaintiffs own Verified Complaint alleges as
much. (Doc. 1 at 30 and 32). RMGO and CCL fail to explain why the identity of
Ethics Watchs Republican tipsters matters to the as-applied challenge already lost
before the administrative law judge that they seek to re-litigate here.
It is also obvious why Ethics Watch pursued the case because it was a blatant
example of failure to file electioneering communication disclosures. Under Colorado
law, Ethics Watch has an absolute privilege to file non-frivolous lawsuits. The fact that
Ethics Watch prevailed in the underlying case should be a complete response to any
suggestion of bad faith.
The Motion is not calculated to lead to evidence that would convince the Court
not to abstain from interfering with a state proceeding. That proceeding has already
terminated in a final order adverse to Plaintiffs. Rather, the Motion appears calculated to
enable a campaign of retaliation and harassment by Plaintiffs against Republicans who
dare oppose their agenda for the party, such as the Republican candidates targeted in
the negative campaign mailers at the heart of this case. The Court should reject
Plaintiffs shenanigans and end this case now.
II. ARGUMENT
A.
Abstain.
After the Court entered its order denying Plaintiffs motions for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order, a state administrative law judge held the
enforcement hearing required by Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 9 regarding RMGO and
CCLs failure to file electioneering communications reports. RMGO and CCL argued
2
Never Relevant.
Plaintiffs seem to believe that only they have First Amendment rights, and that
Ethics Watch and its supporters have none. To the contrary, the complaining party in a
private enforcement action has constitutional rights. Both the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and Colo. Const. art. II, 6 protect the right of Ethics Watch and its
the speaker of the very sort RMGO and CCL ask for here to be a severe burden
on First Amendment rights. 551 U.S. at 468 n.5.
The same result occurs under the Colorado Constitution. A plaintiff asserting a
claim based on a defendants exercise of its state constitutional right to petition the
government for redress of grievances must show both that the litigation was baseless
and that the petitioning activity was conducted primarily for harassment or other
improper purpose. Protect Our Mountain Envt, Inc. v. District Court of County of
Jefferson, 677 P.2d 1361, 1367 (Colo. 1984) (citing Bill Johnsons Rests., 461 U.S. at
748-49). We have construed the Colorado constitutional provision requiring courts to
be open to every person and a speedy remedy be afforded for every injury, Colo. Const.
Art. II, Sec. 6, in a similar fashion. Id. at 1367 n.6. The Colorado Constitution
specifically provides Ethics Watch the right to file campaign finance enforcement cases
as a person who believes that a violation has occurred, without any regard to intent or
motivation. Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, 9(2)(a). Colorado law also provides the
appropriate remedy if the campaign finance enforcement complaint process is abused,
by awarding attorney fees and costs to the respondent if a complaint is substantially
frivolous, substantially groundless, or substantially vexatious. See C.R.S. 1-45111.5(2). The administrative law judge ruling in favor of Ethics Watchs campaign
finance complaint removes it from this category, yet even a complaint that warrants
such sanctions does not involve an inquiry into motivation and intent. See, e.g. Cave v.
McGihon, Colorado Office of Administrative Courts Case No. OS 2012-0010 (Dec. 18,
2012) (Appendix A).1
Ethics Watchs right to petition the government for redress of grievances
precludes the requested discovery because Ethics Watchs suit was not frivolous. That
being the case, Ethics Watchs motives are irrelevant and the requested discovery
would itself violate the First Amendment rights of Ethics Watch and its supporters.
Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. at 468 n.5.
C.
RMGO and CCL Fail To Establish Any Basis to Find Bad Faith
Putting aside the constitutional implications of delving into Ethics Watchs intent
behind the campaign finance complaint, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any reliable
evidence that indicates bad faith to justify the Motion. RMGO and CCLs bad faith
argument is based primarily on a chart purporting to show that Ethics Watch only
targets conservative groups. No hearing under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509
U.S. 579 (1993) is necessary for the Court to reject the opinions of Plaintiffs Virginia
attorney attempting to characterize almost nine years of an organizations activities
based on his uninformed reading of one portion of the Ethics Watch website. (Doc. 467). Not only does the chart ignore actions described on other portions of the
organizations website, this chart purporting to assign partisan affiliation to Ethics
Watchs legal actions leaves out or mischaracterizes items from the website that dont fit
RMGO and CCLs story.
The copy of this final administrative judge opinion in Appendix A is the official version
available online from the Secretary of States campaign finance complaint database:
http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ComplaintSearch.aspx.
6
In addition to the Citizens United case, Ethics Watch was cooperatively added as
a co-defendant with the Republican Secretary of State in a suit filed by the Colorado
Republican Party for permission to establish an independent expenditure committee
operating outside campaign finance limits. See Doc. 46-5 at 2 (Ethics Watch Joins
Secretary of State to Defend Lawsuit by Republican Party). While RMGO and CCL
attempt to portray this suit as another partisan attack on Republicans (Doc. 46-7,
Number 47), the reality (in addition to the fact that Ethics Watch is a defendant, not a
plaintiff in the suit) is more complicated. During the administrative hearing that preceded
the court case, the Colorado Democratic Partys representative testified that it also
intends to establish an independent expenditure committee should the Republicans
ultimately prevail. See Doc. 46-5 at 3 (Ethics Watch Calls On Democrats, Republicans
To Drop Super-PAC Plans). The Colorado Democratic Party chose not to join the
Colorado Republican Party when it filed its suit to establish such an unlimited
committee, but is content to sit back and reap any benefits from the outcome. Ethics
Watchs opposition to such committees and defense of the Colorado Constitutions
limits on fundraising by political parties is adverse to both Democratic and Republican
state party committees.
As seen in this brief dissection of RMGO and CCLs offer of proof of bad faith,
Ethics Watchs campaign finance, open records and ethics litigation deals with a mix of
issues and parties that defy simple categorization into partisan camps. If there is a
consistent pattern in Ethics Watchs actions in the last nine years (extending far past the
brief chart summary), it is an ideological position in favor of campaign finance disclosure
& contribution limitations, supportive of an independent judicial branch, and opposed to
9
government officials who act under conflicts of interest, misuse public resources or
accept improper gifts. This is no more bad faith than RMGOs advocacy in favor of its
interpretation of the Second Amendment or CCLs advocacy against legal abortion.
Finally, it must be noted that the news article from a defunct blog cited by
RMGO and CCL (Doc. 46-6 at 3) quotes Republican lawyer Mario Nicolais criticizing
Ethics Watch. This is the same Mario Nicolais who was the target of RMGOs attack
mailer and at least one of CCLs attack mailers, yet Ethics Watch pursued this case
anyway. It is hard to imagine better proof of Ethics Watchs lack of bad faith in filing the
underlying case.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court should deny Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery and enter a
protective order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1), forbidding Plaintiffs from engaging
in discovery regarding Ethics Watchs sources or motives for filing its meritorious
campaign finance complaint.
Respectfully Submitted on February 6, 2015,
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 6, 2015, a copy of this OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECRETARYS RULE 12(B)(1)
MOTION TO PERMIT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY was served through CM/ECF on
the parties listed below:
David A. Warrington
Laurin H. Mills
Andrew J. Narod
Paris R. Sorrell
LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation
2318 Mill Road, Suite 1100
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Telephone: (703) 684-8007
david.warrington@leclairryan.com
laurin.mills@leclairryan.com
andrew.narod@leclairryan.com
paris.sorrell@leclairryan.com
James O. Bardwell
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
501 Main Street, Suite 200
Windsor, CO 80550
Telephone: (877) 405-4570
jb@nagrhq.org
Attorneys for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Colorado Campaign for Life
Kathryn A. Starnella
Assistant Attorney General
Frederick R. Yarger
Assistant Solicitor General
Public Officials Unit |State Services Section
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (720) 508-6176
kathryn.starnella@state.co.us
fred.yarger@state.co.us
Attorneys for Colorado Secretary of State
___s/ Margaret Perl__________________
Margaret Perl
11