Public Affairs Committee ("AIPAC") was a political committee as per the terms of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).35 Political committees are required under the FECA to disclose financial contributions and expenditures over a certain threshold. Congress specifically provided in FECA that “any person who believes a violation of this act has occurred, may file a complaint with the commission”36 and “any party aggrieved by an order of the Commission dismissing a complaint filed by such party may file a petition in the district court.”37 The Court ultimately held that while the grievance was a "generalized grievance," the harm (failure of the voters to obtain information on donations to and expenditure by AIPAC) was considered to be an “injury in fact” and fell within the zone of interests protected by the statute.38 Here, defining those complainants that have a genuine injury which is traceable to the alleged harm makes the provision of an effective remedy more comprehensive, and leads to the conclusion that the integrity of the election process is the concern of all citizens. For this reason, some countries have maintained a broad definition of standing to ensure that a wider range of potential plaintiffs have access to justice, and in cases where there is a clear need to represent a wider sector of society, broader legal standing may be critical.39 In Iraq, any voter or organization (other than referendum and election observers) “who has a complaint or dispute related to the electoral and referendum process” has the right to file a complaint.40 In Afghanistan, any person or organization that “has a legitimate interest in the electoral process” has the right to file a complaint.41 As these examples illustrate, in an effective EDR system there is a range of standing options available. The U.S. has a fairly restrictive interpretation of standing but adjudicators have tried to expand this interpretation when it comes to election cases; whereas, other countries, such as Afghanistan, have a very broad application of standing, which has led to an overwhelming number of complaints, and therefore could be further refined. In short, the legal framework must find the right balance in terms of who can file a complaint to ensure that the legal system has the capacity to properly investigate and adjudicate legitimate claims in a timely and effective manner. In its Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, the Venice Commission states that [i]f the electoral law provisions are to be more than just words on a page, failure to comply with the electoral law must be open to challenge before an appeal body. This applies in particular to the election results: individual citizens may challenge them on the grounds of irregularities in the voting procedures. It also applies to decisions taken before the elections, especially in connection with the right to vote, electoral registers and standing for election, the validity of candidatures, compliance with the rules governing the electoral campaign and access to the media or to party funding.42 35 Id. Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C §437g(1)(a) 37 Id. §437g(8)(a) 38 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 52 U.S.C. §30109; Akins, 524 U.S. 11, at 22-24. 39 GUIDELINES FOR UNDERSTANDING, supra note 7, at 21. 40 Electoral Complaints and Disputes Reg. No. 2 § 3(1) of 2008 (Iraq); See also, Independent High Electoral Comm’m Law No. 11 art. 4 § 8 of 2007 (Iraq). 41 Electoral Law art. 5 of 2014 (Afg.). 42 Eur. Comm’n for Democracy though Law (Venice Comm’n), Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, 52d Sess., Opinion No. 190/2002 (2003), http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDLAD(2002)023rev-e. 36