Federal Election Commission v. Larry R. Williams

Larry R. Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Williams argues, inter alia, that the FEC action is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 , and that he is not liable for civil penalties under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 ^55.

The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Williams timely filed a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 . We hold that 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies, and we reverse.

*239 I

Jack Kemp sought the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination. At the end of 1987, his campaign committee engaged in a fund-raising promotion involving tickets to the Superbowl. The Philadelphia Eagles made a number of tickets available to Kemp’s campaign for $100 each. Donors who contributed $1000 to the Kemp campaign were given the right to purchase one of these $100 tickets.

Williams purchased 40 of these tickets from the Philadelphia Eagles for $4000. He then gave those tickets to people whom he persuaded to contribute $1000 to Kemp’s campaign, including a number of Williams’ Mends and employees.…

dissenting:

The majority correctly determines that the equitable tolling doctrine applies to 28 U.S.C. § 2462 . However, I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the doctrine does not apply to toll the running of the statute in this case.

To support its conclusion that the statute of limitations began to run as soon as the violation occurred, the majority relies on 3M Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C.Cir.1994), a decision that is neither the law of our circuit nor directly on point, nor does it deal with the statute involved in this case. In SM Co., the D.C. Circuit held that a plaintiffs failure to discover a violation of the law in question should not toll the statute of limitations. 17 F.3d at 1463. But in holding that the discovery rule should not apply to § 2462, the SM Co. court had no occasion to consider the “venerable principle” of equitable tolling. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis *242 & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 360-62 , 111 S.Ct. 2773, 2781 , 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991). 3M Co. simply does not address the situation we face here, in which the very nature of the offense at issue — making a political contribution in the name of another person in order to…

104 F.3d 237 65 USLW 2444 , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9422 , 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15 ,496 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry R. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-55320. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 5, 1996. Decided Dec. 26, 1996. David Kolker and Vivien Clair, Federal Election Commission, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee. W. James Knowles, Heber City, Utah, and Stuart M. Gerson, Epstein, Becker and Green, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Edward Rafeedie, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-06321 ER. Before: FLETCHER, BEEZER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 1 Larry R. Williams appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss and grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Williams argues, inter alia, that the FEC action is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 , and that he is not liable for civil penalties under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455 . 2 The district court had jurisdiction…