FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

Russian Federation, et al. 

)

) 

) 

)

MURs 7207, 7268, 

7274 & 7623 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND 

COMMISSIONERS SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

These four Complaints alleged violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 

as amended (the “Act”), arising from several much-publicized controversies in the 2016 

presidential election. Specifically, they claimed that the Russian Federation engaged in a series of 

covert actions—including a social-media campaign and the hacking and releasing of campaign 

emails—in order to influence that election.1 They further claimed that then-candidate Donald 

Trump’s presidential campaign committee (the “Trump Committee”), along with other individuals 

and organizations, solicited or cooperated in this interference in various ways.2

After significant delay due to ongoing investigations by Congress and the Department of 

Justice, the Commission considered the Office of General Counsel’s (“OGC”) 96-page report on 

these matters in April and June 2021.3 After deliberation, the Commission agreed to pursue 

enforcement against a then-unknown congressional candidate, H. Russell Taub, to dismiss the 

foreign Respondents as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and to dismiss Cambridge Analytica.4

The Commission could not agree by the required four votes, however, on how to proceed with 

regard to Trump, the Trump Committee, and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.5

We therefore write to explain the reasons for our votes.6

1 See, e.g., Complaint at 5–9 (Dec. 19, 2016), MUR 7207 (Russian Federation, et al.). 

2 Id. 

3 First General Counsel’s Report at 1–3 (Feb. 23, 2021), MURs 7207, 7268, 7274 & 7623 (Russian Federation, 

et al.). 

4 Certification (April 22, 2021), MURs 7207, 7268, 7274 & 7623 (Russian Federation, et al.).

5 Id. 

6 Id. See also Dem. Cong. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 831 F.2d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (establishing the 

requirement that “[t]he Commission or the individual Commissioners” must provide a statement of reasons why the 

agency “rejected or failed to follow the General Counsel’s recommendation”).

MUR720700396
2 

We voted to dismiss these Respondents as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion for two 

principal reasons. First, the Commission’s decision to await the completion of other ongoing 

investigations into these same events—including by the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel 

Robert Mueller—undermined the Commission’s ability to resolve these matters within the statute 

of limitations. The relevant statute of limitations on violations of the Act is only five years, but 

OGC’s First General Counsel’s Report was not completed until more than four years after the 

initial Complaint was filed.7 As a result, mere months remained on the statute of limitations for 

the latest conduct once the Commission had considered the matters, while other conduct was 

already outside of the five-year window. With the case so severely imperiled by the waning 

limitations period—and by this point, having fully lapsed—there was no reasonable chance for the 

Commission to bring an investigation and enforcement action to fruition in the time remaining.8

The Commission was likely to face multifarious legal obstacles, including issues of privilege and 

sovereign immunity, that would have further delayed action.9 And attempting to undertake such 

an investigation would have required expending significant resources and likely limiting the 

Commission’s opportunities to deliberate further. Considering the vanishing odds of successful 

enforcement and the enormous costs to the agency, we concluded the better course was dismissal.10

Second, we believe that the Commission’s interests have already been vindicated by the 

investigations conducted by other parts of the federal government. In addition to the Special 

Counsel—who ultimately issued a thorough report on the relevant facts and criminally convicted 

Paul Manafort, among others, as part of his work—thorough investigations were undertaken by 

relevant committees of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the Office 

of the Director of National Intelligence.11 Indeed, the First General Counsel’s Report is largely 

derivative of these other reports. Where appropriate, these and other federal bodies have pursued 

criminal prosecution or other sanctions against relevant parties. The Commission has long taken 

7 28 U.S.C. § 2462; First General Counsel’s Report at 1 (Feb. 23, 2021), MURs 7207, 7268, 7274 & 7623 

(Russian Federation, et al.).

8 After finding reason to believe a violation has occurred, the Commission must undertake additional 

investigatory and deliberative steps before it can bring an enforcement action in federal court in a matter. After any 

attempt to conciliate with Respondents fails, OGC would then need to draft probable-cause briefs recommending that 

the Commission pursue enforcement. Respondents would be given fifteen days to respond to those briefs, as well as 

the right to request a probable-cause hearing. Following any hearing, the Commission would need to deliberate again 

over whether to find probable cause to believe Respondents violated the law. If the Commission found probable cause, 

under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it must then attempt to conciliate with respondents again for no less than 

thirty days. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(4). Only after that effort would the Commission consider whether to file a civil 

enforcement suit. 

9 See First General Counsel’s Report at 21–24 (Feb. 23, 2021), MURs 7207, 7268, 7274 & 7623 (Russian 

Federation, et al.).

10 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Dickerson and Commissioners Cooksey and Trainor at 1–2 (May 10, 

2021), MURs 7265 and 7266 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.) (voting to dismiss in light of the impending 

statute of limitations after abating a matter subject to other government investigations); Statement of Reasons of Chair 

Broussard and Commissioner Weintraub at 2 (May 7, 2021), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate, et al.) (“[I]n light of the 

imminent statute of limitations and other priorities on the Commission’s docket, we voted to dismiss the allegations.”).

11 See First General Counsel’s Report at 1 & n.5 (Feb. 23, 2021), MURs 7207, 7268, 7274 & 7623 (Russian 

Federation, et al.) (discussing the Complaints’ reliance on other federal investigatory reports). 

MUR720700397
3 

the view that it is an imprudent use of resources to duplicate other agencies’ work.

12 Those reports 

and subsequent actions, along with our own First General Counsel’s Report, stand for themselves 

as a record for these matters, and the public would be unlikely to benefit from another investigation 

five years after the fact.

In light of these considerations, the impending statute of limitations, and the press of other 

cases, we voted to dismiss these matters as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.13

________________________________ _________________________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

_________________________________ _________________________ 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ _________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

12 See Statement of Reasons of Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Mason, and Commissioners Sandstrom, 

Smith, Thomas, and Wold at 1 (May 7, 2001), Pre-MUR 385 (Phillip R. Davis) (“Because the violations at issue have 

been addressed by the Justice Department in a criminal prosecution and a further expenditure of resources is not

warranted relative to other matters pending before the Commission, we exercised our prosecutorial discretion by not 

taking further action.”).

13 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

November 22, 2021

November 22, 2021

November 22, 2021

MUR720700398