Federal Election Commission 

Office of the Inspector General 

1050 First Street NE Washington, DC 20463 www.fec.gov/oig 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Alec Pahner 

Staff Director/Chief Info1m ation Officer 

John Quinlan 

Chief Financial Officer 

Lisa Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

THROUGH: Dennis Phillips 

Deputy Inspector General 

FROM: Michael Mitchell 

Senior Auditor 

SUBJECT: Special Review 22-03: Special Review of the Federal Election Commission 

(FEC) Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) related to non-Federal Election 

Campaign Act (FECA) law enforcement inquiries 

DATE: Febrnaiy 08, 2023 

Summary 

This memorandum transmits the results of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Office 

of the Inspector General (OIG) Special Review of standard operating procedures related 

to coordination with non-FECA law enforcement inquiries. This special review1 was 

selected based on coordination challenges identified by external agency law 

enforcement personnel and in accordance with Section ( 4) of the Inspector General Act 

of 197 8 , as amended. 2 

1 The OIG Special Review process can be found at The Special Review Process 9.24.20.pdf(fec.gov) 

2 See Inspector General Act of 1978 §4. Duties and responsibilities; report of criminal violations to Attorney 

General, which provides, in pertinent pait, that each Inspector General shall recollllllend policies for, and to 

conduct, supervise, or coordinate relationships betv.•een their respective establishment (i.e., agency) and other 

federal agencies, state and local governmental agencies, and nongovernmental entities. 
The primary purpose of this review was to assess whether the FEC has adequate policies 

and procedures in place to timely and effectively respond to non-FECA inquiries made 

by law enforcement agencies. The review determined that such inquiries are 

infrequent, that FEC personnel appear aware of how to address them, and, as such, the 

FEC's current practices are sufficient. 

The review further identified an open U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

recommendation from the February 2020 report Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, 

Agency Roles and Responsibilities, and Perspectives.

3 Specifically, GAO recommended 

that the FEC and Department of Justice (DOJ) update a 1977 Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding coordination between the agencies. Accordingly, the OIG 

has no formal recommendations but encourages the agency to implement the GAO 

recommendation. 

Scope 

Our review included evaluating FEC SOPs related to coordination with law enforcement 

inquiries for non-FECA matters. The OIG completed the following tasks during the review: 

• Reviewed related agency directives, policies, and procedures 

• Solicited feedback from agency personnel via survey/questionnaire 

• Interviewed FEC personnel 

• Reviewed FEC OIG records for non-FECA-related law enforcement inquiries 

• Limited literature review 

Review of Related Agency Directives, Policies, and Procedures 

The OIG reviewed agency directives, policies, and procedures to determine if the agency had 

guidance in place to assist staff if contacted by law enforcement officers with non-FECArelated inquiries. The OIG determined that the agency, including the FEC OIG, does not 

have directives or policies exclusively addressing contact with law enforcement officers for 

non-FECA related inquiries. 

Although the agency does not have specific SOPs to handle non-FECA related inquiries, the 

Office of General Counsel (OGC) maintains guidance for handling requests for information 

related to FECA. Additionally, OGC management communicates performance expectations 

to OGC staff that receive FECA information requests. Further, OGC staff members were 

provided with guidance via email to assist in routing FECA-related inquiries to the correct 

contact within the agency. 

3 Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, Agency Roles and Responsibilities, and Perspectives 

2 
 

OIG policies and procedures contain guidance for coordinating with the FEC or another 

agency for matters not within the jurisdiction of the OIG or that warrant the involvement of 

other law enforcement agencies. However, no specific OIG policy guides OIG staff in regard 

to non-FECA related matters. 

Solicitation from Agency Personnel via Survey 

The OIG surveyed FEC personnel seeking information in the following areas: 

• Length of Service: The employee's length of service with the agency (Figure 1). 

• Awareness: Employee awareness of FEC directive, policy, or procedure that 

guides employees if they receive a request for information from federal, state, or 

local law enforcement concerning non-FECA matters (Figure 2). 

• Reported Number of Law Enforcement Contacts and Employee Response: If 

a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency ever contacted the staff member 

in their official capacity and requested FEC information, assistance with an 

investigation, or a point of contact concerning non-FECA matters and their 

reported response (Figure 3). 

• Likely Actions if Contacted: Actions employees would likely take if they 

received an inquiry from a law enforcement officer (Figure 4). 

Length of Service Reported by Survey Respondents 

12 11 

9 

35 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

<5 years 5-10 years 10-15 years >15 years 

Employee Responses by Length of Service 

Figure 1: Length of service reported by randomly selected survey respondents 

• Sixty-seven employees responded to the survey. 

3 
• A majority ofrespondents (35) worked with the agency for greater than 15 years. 

• The remaining respondents (32) worked with the agency for less than 15 years. 

Awareness of FEC Directive, Policy, or Procedure Concerning Law Enforcement 

Contact 

Employee Awareness of Guidance 

Employee skipped the question l 2 

No I 

Yes 

- 9 

0 10 20 30 40 so 

56 

60 

Figure 2: Survey respondents reported awareness of FEC directives, policies, or procedures related to law enforcement 

inquiries 

• Fifty-six of the 67 respondents were not aware of an FEC directive, policy, or 

procedure that guides employees who receive a request for info1mation from federal, 

state, or local law enforcement concerning non-FECA matters. 

• Nine employees reported awareness of guidance in these matters. Seven of these 

employees worked with the agency for more than 15 years. One employee has been 

with the agency between 5-1 0 years, and the other for less than five years. 

• Two individuals did not respond to the question. 

4 
 

Reported Law Enforcement Contacts 

9 

58 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Yes 

No 

Employees Contacted in Official Capacity 

Figure 3: Law enforcement contacts reported by survey respondents 

• Fifty-eight employees reported they had never received requests for information from 

federal, state, or local law enforcement contacts in their official capacity. 

• Nine respondents indicated they had been contacted by law enforcement while 

working with the FEC. Seven of the nine employees reported working with the 

agency for more than 15 years. 

• One respondent contacted by law enforcement during their duties was aware of an 

existing policy or procedure. 

Reported Actions 

• Eight respondents reported that they referred the inquirer to management when 

contacted by law enforcement. One respondent did not report their actions. 

5 
 

Likely Actions if Contacted by Law Enforcement 

 

35 

Likely Employee Actions 

31 

Responses 

Refer to Ethics Officer Refer to manager 

Refer to OGC Refer to Commissioner's Office 

Refer to Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs Refer to another agency that handles the matter 

4 

9 

2 2 1 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

Figure 4: Survey respondents' likely actions in response to hypothetical LE inquiry. 

• Forty-eight of 67 employees provided potential steps they would take if they received 

an inquiry from law enforcement in their official capacity. 

• Referring the requestor to management (31) was the most frequent staff response. 

Directing the requestor to OGC (9) was the next frequently reported action. 

• Other responses included referrals to the Congressional and Governmental Affairs 

office and the ethics officer. 

Interviews with FEC Managers 

The OIG interviewed several FEC managers regarding non-FECA-related contact with law 

enforcement. Managers were selected based on the likelihood of an inquiry in their division. 

The Office of the Staff Director (OSD) managers indicated that contact from law 

enforcement does occur, citing the coordination with Federal Protective Services (FPS) 

initiated due to threats received by Commissioners as a typical event. Additionally, the OSD 

managers have received phone calls and emails from law enforcement officers seeking 

6 
 

information concerning campaign finance disclosures. Managers reported directing those 

inquiries to OGC or the Congressional, Legislative, and Intergovernmental Affairs Office. 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) indicated no known occurrences of nonFECA-related law enforcement contacts within the division. The most likely courses of 

action disclosed during interviews included notifying OGC management of law enforcement 

inquiries and potentially contacting FEC OIG, depending on the nature of the inquiry. 

The OGC reported that the most common non-FECA-related law enforcement interactions 

stem from employee criminal involvement or misconduct. The OGC reported that they 

immediately contact FEC OIG once potential illegal action is discovered. 

Review of FEC OIG Internal Records for Non-FECA Contact with law enforcement 

FEC OIG's electronic hotline complaints from 2010 to the present were reviewed to 

determine the frequency of contact between law enforcement agencies and the FEC OIG in 

FECA and non-FECA-related inquiries. From 2010 to 2022, a total of 16 OIG records 

revealed contact with law enforcement agencies. The OIG received eight non-FECA-related 

inquiries, including: 

• Four employee-related inquiries (e.g., background checks) 

• One procurement-related inquiry 

• One alleged IT breach 

• One informational request. 

• One general inquiry about FEC office locations 

The OIG records contained four FECA-related complaints and four FECA-related records 

inquiries initiated by law enforcement. 

Limited Literature Review 

A limited literature review of government publications was performed to determine if 

coordination challenges with the FEC were previously documented. In February 2020, the 

GAO published Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, Agency Roles and Responsibilities, 

and Perspectives detailing coordination challenges of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 

FEC, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

4 

 

4 Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, Agency Roles and Responsibilities, and Perspectives 

7 
Recommendations for Executive Action 

Agency Affected 

Federal Election Commission 

llecommendatoo~ 

The FEC. in consultation with OOJ. should review 

guidance addressing coordination with OOJ, to include 

the MOU, and once a quorum of commissioners is in ~ace.

update that guidance as appropriate based on the review. 

(Recommendation 1) 

Status 

The Federal EJection Commission (FEC) ;,chieved a 

quorum with the confirmation of three new 

commissioners in Oece11ber 2020. As of April 2022. the 

FEC reported that in March 2022 two FEC 

Commissioners and relevant FEC staff met with 

Department of Justice(oon senior leadership and staff 

for the purpose of discussing the Memorandum of 

Uoderstanding {MOU). and staff are now in the process of 

preparing draft MOU language. Wewill consider closing 

this recommendation when the agency has completed its 

review and updated guidance based on these efforts. 

Office of the Attorney General The Attorney General. in consultation with the FEC. 

should review guidance addressing coordination with the 

FEC, to include the MOU. and once a quorum of 

commissioners is in place. update that guidance as 

appropriate based on the review. (Recommendation 2) 

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as of June 

2022. the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal 

Division of DOJ in March 2022 met with two 

Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) 

to discuss a~ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

addressing coordination between the FEC and DOJ. OOJ 

reported that staff at the Election Crimes Branch of the 

Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division and the 

FEC Office of General Counsel intend to continue working 

toward a draft of the new MOU, We will consider closing 

this recommendation when the agency has completed its 

review and updated guidance based on these efforts. 

Figure 5:GAO Recommendations for Executive Action5 

Currently, the Commission's only recommendation (Figure 5) is to update the 1977 

memorandum of understanding MOU between the DOJ and the FEC.6 

The GAO report also identified IRS coordination challenges related to organizations formed 

in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 501c.7 Certain tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from 

engaging in political activity. Other organizations, such as social welfare organizations, labor 

unions, and trade associations, may engage in limited political activity.8 

The 2020 GAO report indicated that IRS challenges include obtaining complete and accurate 

information from filers and navigating statutes and regulations to monitor compliance. 

The DOJ's enforcement manual, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses9

, sets forth the 

consultation requirement for election fraud and campaign finance crimes. In regard to 

campaign finance crimes, the manual states: 

Justice Department supervision over the enforcement of all criminal statutes 

and prosecutive theories involving corruption of the election process, 

5 https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-66r#summary recommend 

6 43 Fed. Reg. 5441 (Feb. 8, 1978) 

7

 26 U.S.C. § 501(c), et seq. 

8 Id. 

9 Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition, December 2017 pg. 15 

8 
criminal patronage violations, and campaign financing crimes is delegated 

to the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section. This Headquarters' 

consultation policy is set forth in the U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, U.S. 

ATTORNEYS' MANUAL (USAM), Section 9-85.210. 

Section 9-85.210 of USAM details the consultation requirements for violations of campaign 

financing law, federal patronage laws, and corruption of elections. 

9-85. 210 • Violations of Campaign Financing Laws, Federal Patronage Laws, and Corruption 

of Elections-Consultation Requirement 

Consultation with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division is required in each federal criminal matter 

that involves alleged or suspected violations offederal or state campaign financing laws, federal patronage crimes, 

or corruption of the election process. 

Federal prosecutors and agents must oonsult with the Public Integrity Section prior to opening any such matter or 

taking any potentially overt investigative step, including but not limited to interviewing witnesses, issuing grand 

jury subpoenas, executing search warrants, or oonducting surveillance. This provision does not, however, apply to 

intaking a oomplaint, provided that the intaking oomponent advises the complainant that receiving a complaint in 

no way implies that there is or will be any federal criminal investigation of the allegation. 

Federal prosecutors shall also consult with the Public Integrity Section before instituting grand jury proceedings 

relating to, or filing an information or seeking an indictment charging, a campaign finance, ballot fraud, or 

patronage offense. 

Matters for which oonsultation with the Public Integrity Section is required include, but are not limited to, 

investigations and prosecutions of the offenses codified in: 18 U.S.C. §§ 592 to 611; 52 U.S.C. §§ 10307, 20511, 

20701, 30101-30145; and prosecutive theories that involve election fraud or campaign fund raising violations 

using 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,242, and 245; 18 U.S.C. § 371; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346; 18 U.S.C. § 1952;and 18 

U.S.C.§§ 1956 and 1957. 

Figure 6: Snapshot of U.S. DOJ, U.A. Attorneys' Manual 

The DOJ manual further states that: 

Not all FECA violations are federal crimes, either because they lack the 

requisite criminal intent or because they do not meet the applicable 

monetary floor for FECA crimes. Early consultation with the Public 

Integrity Section assists the Department, the United States Attorneys' 

Offices, and the FBI by ensuring that investigative and prosecutorial 

resources are focused on FECA violations only when appropriate. 

Accordingly, the Department requires that the Public Integrity Section be 

consulted before beginning any criminal investigation, including a 

preliminary investigation of a matter involving possible violations of 

9 

[cited in JM 9-43.100) [updated August 2022) 
 

 

FECA. USAM § 9-85.210. This consultation is also required before any 

investigation of campaign financing activities under one of the Title 18 

felony theories discussed above. Id. The Public Integrity Section also 

recommends that the Section be consulted before commencing an 

investigation of possible violations of the public funding programs in Title 

26.

10 

Observations 

1. FEC has guidance for staff and a process if law enforcement contacts staff for FECArelated law enforcement inquiries 

The agency maintains written policies and procedures to guide staff responses to questions 

involving FECA. In addition to formalized policy, a scripted response was also created 

within OGC to train staff in the event they were contacted by law enforcement in their 

official capacity. The script was disseminated to OGC staff via email. However, no specific 

guidance exists for non-FECA related law enforcement inquiries. 

2. Agency personnel reported infrequent contact with law enforcement 

The frequency of law enforcement inquiries appears minimal, based on the survey responses 

received by the OIG. Nine staff members reported being contacted by law enforcement 

during their tenure with the FEC, eight of whom reported having referred the inquiry to 

management. 

Staff overwhelmingly reported that if they received inquiries from law enforcement, they 

would forward the inquiry to their managers or OGC. 

3. Interviewed personnel reported limited contact with law enforcement for non-FECArelated inquiries 

FEC OIG interviewed personnel from OGC, OSD, and OCFO regarding contact with law 

enforcement. From the interviews conducted by the OIG, communications with law 

enforcement agencies concerning non-FECA related matters appear minimal. However, 

contact with law enforcement does occur. According to the interviewees, calls received from 

law enforcement contacts are mostly related to information requests concerning FECA 

disclosures. 

4. FEC OIG records reflect few contacts with law enforcement agencies for non-FECArelated matters. 

10 Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition, December 2017 pg. 167-168 

10 
 

 

 

FEC OIG records from 2010 to the present reveal 16 prior contacts from law enforcement 

agencies requesting information. The OIG received eight non-FECA related inquiries, four 

FECA related complaints, and four FECA related records inquiries initiated by law 

enforcement. 

5. A prior recommendation from the 2020 GAO report remains open 

GAO's report, Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, Agency Roles and Responsibilities, 

and Perspectives, has an open recommendation to update the 1977 MOU between the DOJ 

and FEC.

11 

GAO identified coordination challenges between the FEC and the IRS. However, these 

challenges appear related to 26 U.S.C. § 501(c) examination of tax-exempt organizations and 

political intervention.

12 

6. Consultation with DOJ's Public Integrity Section for FECA inquiries 

Consistent with the DOJ's Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses13 and FEC OGC 

guidance, requests for information or records should come through the Public Integrity 

Section of the Department of Justice. 

Conclusion 

The review determined that additional policies and procedures addressing non-FECA law 

enforcement inquiries are unnecessary. First, policies and procedures exist concerning FECA 

related inquiries. Second and relatedly, survey responses indicated that FEC personnel are 

aware of the appropriate course of action in the event of any law enforcement inquiry (FECA 

related or otherwise), i.e., referral to management and/or OGC. Third, and finally, the survey 

responses further indicated that non-FECA inquiries by external law enforcement personnel 

occur infrequently. Accordingly, given the infrequency of non-FECA law enforcement 

contacts and the responses of FEC personnel, the OIG determined further policies or 

procedures are unnecessary. 

Recommendation 

The OIG makes no formal recommendation but encourages the agency to continue working 

towards closing the recommendation from GAO-20-66R. 

11 43 Fed. Reg. 5441 (Feb. 8, 1978) 

12 Campaign Finance: Federal Framework, Agency Roles and Responsibilities, and Perspectives pg.43-44 

13 Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses, Eighth Edition, December 2017 pg. 15 

11 
 

cc: The Commission 

If you have any questions regarding this closing memorandum, please contact Mr. Michael 

Mitchell at MMitchell@fec.gov. 

12 
 

 

Exhibit A - Management's Response to the Special Review Report

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington, DC 20463 

February 23, 2023 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Christopher Skinner 

Inspector General 

CC: D. Alec Palmer 

Staff Director 

John Quinlan 

Chief Financial Officer 

Lawrence L. Calvert 

Special Counsel to the General Counsel 

Charles Kitcher 

Associate General Counsel for Enforcement 

FROM: Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

RE: Draft Report in OIG Special Review 22-03, “Special Review of the 

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOP) related to non-Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) law 

enforcement inquiries” 

LJS for CK

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced draft report. We 

appreciated OIG’s conclusion in the special review that the FEC has adequate policies and 

procedures in place to timely and effectively respond to non-FECA inquiries made by law 

enforcement agencies. 

The draft did note an open Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recommendation 

from an earlier review that the FEC and the Department of Justice update the 1977 Memorandum 

of Understanding between the two agencies regarding enforcement of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. OIG’s draft report “has no formal recommendations, but encourages the agency 

to implement the GAO recommendation.” OIG Draft Report, SR22-03, at 2. 
Memorandum to the Inspector General 

SR22-03 

Page 2 

fu this regard, we refer OIG to the Commission's September 2022 response to a question 

about the MOU and the GAO recommendation propounded by the Committee on House 

Administration of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Commission said then: 

Following the reciprocal recommendations to the Commission and DOJ set fo1th in 

the 2020 GAO repo1t, the Commission and DOJ have made steady, careful progress 

towards agreement on an updated MOU, while balancing the numerous other 

priorities of both agencies. Initially, during the period in which the Commission 

largely lacked a quomm to approve such an agreement, these eff 01ts consisted of 

discussions at the staff level. After the quomm was regained, the Commission has 

continued to paitner with DOJ to take constmctive steps. In addition to increased 

staff-level discussions, this work has included a meeting of two FEC Commissioners 

representing the Commission and senior DOJ leadership that took place on March 15, 

2022. This meeting was specifically for the purpose of high-level discussion of 

relevant principles for the MOU and agreeing on a framework for fmther progress 

towai·ds an updated agreement. Following that meeting, DOJ has prepai·ed and shared 

an updated MOU draft with the Commission, which the Commission is cmTently 

reviewing. 

* * * 

Throughout the ctment effo1t, the Commission has focused on process improvements 

and increased inclusion based on lessons learned from prior experience, which to date 

has yielded steady and constmctive progress. It is the Commission's view that both 

agencies are committed to the effo1t of reaching an updated MOU, as is reflected in 

the significant staff time the Commission has invested in the effo1t at the 

Commissioner and senior staff level ( and which it appeai·s DOJ has similai·ly 

invested), and the Commission intends to continue those investments and the pursuit 

of the goal of executing an updated agreement. 

Since last September the Commission and DOJ have continued to exchan 

edits to the draft MOU.