The following request was sent to the Court on May 31, 2012
The Plaintiff in accordance with U.S. States. FRE 201(b)) requests that this Court take Judicial Notice of a document published on May 24, 2012 by the United States Federal Election Commission.
The Court may view the document at:
http://www.fec.gov/...
The subject of the document is "RULEMAKING PRIORITIES FOR 2012"
The paragraph of interest for the Court to take note reads:
"Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending
Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FEC affect portions of the Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements."
The Plaintiff contends that this document is an acknowledgement on the part of the FEC that the 3 statutes it changed in the wake of EMILY's List were improperly deleted. See Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 in the Complaint that lists the 3 statutes, page 41 of 105 of the Complaint, other mentions throughout the Complaint, as well as discussion in the Preliminary Injunction on page 95 of 105.
The Plaintiff contends that the FEC document the Court takes Judicial Notice of is sufficient proof to the Court that legality of campaign contributions that exceed individual contribution limits are in doubt. Further, that sufficient notice has been provided to Defendants.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court issue the preliminary injunction as proposed by the Plaintiff, or as modified by the Court, to reflect:
1. That funds received by organizations that exceed individual contribution limits intended to influence a Federal election are to be treated as being in legal question and cannot be expended.
2. Funds in legal question are to be handled in accordance with FEC procedures.
The Plaintiff cannot stress the urgency of this request more since Class I Defendants are receiving funds on a daily basis from individuals that may potentially become Class II Defendants and be found eventually guilty of violating elections laws.