Guidebook for Complainants

and Respondents on the

FEC Enforcement Process

Federal Election Commission

May 2012
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 4

II. GENERAL ENFORCEMENT PROCESS 5

A. Sources of Allegations 6

1. Complaint Generated Matters 6

2. Non-Complaint Generated Matters 7

a. Internal Referrals 7

b. External Referrals 8

c. Sua Sponte Submissions 9

B. Notice to Respondents 9

1. Complaint Generated Matters 9

2. Non-Complaint Generated Matters 10

C. The Response 10

D. Representation by Counsel 11

E. Processing Enforcement Matters 11

F. Initial Vote to Proceed (Reason to Believe) 12

G. Notification of Reason to Believe Findings 13

H. Investigation 14

I. Disclosure of Documents Gathered by OGC

 During an Investigation 15 

J. Early Resolution of MUR (Pre-PCTB Conciliation) 16

K. General Counsel’s Brief 18

L. Probable Cause Hearing 18

M. Notice following Probable Cause Briefs 19

N. Vote on Alleged Violations (Probable Cause to Believe) 20

O. Resolution of MUR (Conciliation Agreement) 21

P. Litigation 21

Q. Complainant’s Recourse 21

R. Confidentiality 22

S. Public Disclosure Upon Termination 22

T. Overview of Stages and Applicable Timeframes 23

III. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 23

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE FINE PROCESS 24
3

ABBREVIATIONS

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

ADRO Alternative Dispute Resolution Office

CELA (Office of) Complaints Examination and Legal Administration

DOJ Department of Justice

FEC Federal Election Commission 

FECA Federal Election Campaign Act 

MUR Matter Under Review

OAR Office of Administrative Review

OGC Office of General Counsel 

PCTB Probable Cause to Believe 

RAD Reports Analysis Division 

RTB Reason to Believe
4

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this guidebook is to assist complainants and respondents and educate the 

public concerning Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) enforcement 

matters. The guidebook summarizes the Commission’s general enforcement policies and 

procedures and provides a step-by-step guide through the Commission’s enforcement 

process.

This publication also provides guidance on certain aspects of federal campaign finance 

law. It does not replace the law or change its meaning, nor does this publication create or 

confer any rights for, or on, any person, or bind the Commission or the public. The 

reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 

amended (“the Act” or “FECA”), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions, and applicable court decisions. All 

of these materials can be accessed via the Commission’s website, www.fec.gov. This 

Guidebook is a general reference guide. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of 

procedures, and does not attempt to address all circumstances that may arise in any given 

enforcement matter.

The FEC is the independent federal regulatory agency that holds the exclusive authority 

and responsibility for the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws that are 

found in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.; 

the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq.; the Presidential 

Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. § 9031 et seq.; and Title 11 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns 

for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice 

Presidency.

The Commission has six members, no more than three of whom may be of the same 

political party. Commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate. The Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission, who are not from the

same political party, serve terms of one calendar year. The Commissioners serve in these 

capacities on a rotating basis, with the Chairmanship alternating between the two parties.

The Commission’s core functions include (1) administering the public disclosure system 

for campaign finance activity, (2) providing information and policy guidance on 

campaign finance laws, (3) encouraging voluntary compliance with campaign finance 

laws, and (4) enforcing the campaign finance laws through audits, investigations, and 

civil litigation. This guidebook concerns three aspects of the Commission’s enforcement 

function: the general enforcement process set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 437g, the 

Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution program and Administrative Fine 

program.

As an initial matter, it is important for complainants and respondents to be aware that:
5

• The fact that an entity or person has been designated a “respondent” at the outset 

of an enforcement matter does not mean that the Commission has made a finding 

or otherwise believes that a violation has occurred or is about to occur; 

respondents may admit or deny, in whole or in part, any allegation made against 

them.

• The FEC’s general enforcement process, as carried out through the Commission’s 

Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) and as described below, moves in stages 

during which there are opportunities for respondents to respond to the allegations 

and present their views to General Counsel staff and to the Commission.

• A vote by at least four of the six Commissioners is needed at every stage, 

including whether to (1) find reason to believe and initiate an investigation, (2) 

find probable cause that a violation has occurred or is about to occur, (3) settle a 

matter, or (4) authorize filing a lawsuit. If there are not four votes at any stage, the 

Commission will not proceed to the next step of the enforcement process.

• With the limited exception of the Administrative Fine program discussed in 

Section IV below, the Commission does not impose fines for violations of the 

campaign finance laws. Rather, the Commission seeks the payment of civil 

penalties through voluntary settlements (called conciliation agreements) with 

respondents. If there is no such settlement, the Commission may file suit in 

federal district court.

II. GENERAL ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

The enforcement process most often begins in one of the four following ways:

• The filing of a complaint by a person or entity (the “complainant”);

• A referral from another government agency;

• A referral from the Commission’s Audit Division or Reports Analysis Division

(“RAD”); or

• A voluntary submission made by persons or entities who believe they may have 

violated campaign finance laws (often referred to as a sua sponte submission).

The process ends when the Commission determines either to take no action or reaches a 

conciliation agreement with the respondent. If the Commission fails to successfully 

conciliate with a respondent, it may file a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court. In certain 

circumstances, the Commission may also refer a matter to the U.S. Department of Justice 

for criminal prosecution under the Act.

For additional information regarding the rules pertaining to the Commission’s 

enforcement process, see 11 CFR Part 111, Subpart A, which sets forth the rules 

governing enforcement procedures. These regulations are available on the Commission’s 

website at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_citation_part111.shtml. The Commission’s 

website also contains documents from closed enforcement matters, all the policy 

statements cited herein, and other information about Commission practices and 

procedures. The links for this material are included throughout this guidebook.
6

A. Sources of Allegations

1. Complaint Generated Matters

Any person may file a complaint if he or she believes a violation of the federal election

campaign laws or Commission regulations has occurred or is about to occur. The 

complaint must be made in writing and submitted to the Office of General Counsel, 

Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. The 

original must be submitted, along with three copies, if possible. Upon receipt of the 

complaint, OGC circulates a copy to each Commissioner. Facsimile or e-mail 

transmissions are not acceptable. A complaint must comply with certain requirements.

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1); 11 CFR 111.4(a)-(d). 

A complaint must:

• Provide the full name and address of the complainant; and

• Be signed, sworn to and notarized. This means that the notary public’s 

certificate must say “...signed and sworn to before me,” or words that 

connote the complaint was affirmed by the complainant (such as “under 

penalty of perjury”).

Furthermore, in order for a complaint to be considered complete and proper, it should:

• Clearly recite the facts that describe a violation of a statute or regulation 

under the Commission’s jurisdiction (citations to the law and regulations 

are not necessary but helpful);

• Clearly identify each person, committee or group that is alleged to have 

committed a violation;

• Include any documentation supporting the alleged violations, if available;

and

• Differentiate between statements based on the complainant’s personal 

knowledge and those based on information and belief. Statements not 

based on personal knowledge should identify the source of the 

information.

Complaints should be as factually specific as possible (e.g., by providing the date or 

approximate dates that the activities at issue occurred). Providing sworn affidavits from

persons with first-hand knowledge of the facts alleged is encouraged. If the allegations in 

the complaint are based in whole or in part upon information contained in an 

advertisement, news article, or website, the complaint should provide a copy of the 

relevant advertisement, news article, or link to the website, if possible. Complaints 

should be filed as soon as possible after the alleged violation becomes known to the 

complainant in order to preserve evidence and the Commission’s ability to seek civil 

penalties in federal district court within the five-year statutes of limitations period 

(measured from the time of the violation) provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (civil) and 2 

U.S.C. § 455 (criminal).
7

The Office of Complaints Examination and Legal Administration (“CELA”) within OGC 

is the entry point for processing a complaint. CELA reviews the complaint for 

compliance with the required criteria, as described above. If a complaint does not meet 

the criteria, CELA notifies the complainant of the deficiencies and that no action can be 

taken on the basis of the complaint. 11 CFR 111.5(b). If the complaint is deemed 

sufficient, CELA assigns the complaint a Matter Under Review (“MUR”) number, 

informs the complainant that the complaint has been received and that the Commission 

will notify him or her once the entire matter has been resolved. See 11 CFR 111.5(a)-(b).

Until the matter is closed, the Commission is required by law to keep its actions 

regarding the MUR confidential. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12). Confidentiality requirements, 

however, do not prevent a complainant or respondent from disclosing the basis of the 

complaint. Information about a Commission notification of findings or about a 

Commission investigation may not be disclosed before the matter is made public, unless 

the respondent waives the right to confidentiality in writing. Before the Commission 

votes on OGC’s recommendation as to any complaint, respondents will have an

opportunity to review and respond to the complaint. See Sections II.B.1 and II.C below.

2. Non-Complaint Generated Matters

The primary types of non-complaint generated matters are: (1) those based on referrals 

from within the Commission (internally generated from RAD or the Audit Division), (2) 

those based on referrals from other government agencies, and (3) those based on sua 

sponte submissions (i.e., voluntary submissions made by persons or entities who believe 

they may have violated the law). Before the Commission votes on OGC’s 

recommendations as to any referral, respondents will have an opportunity to review and 

respond to the referral. See Sections II.B.2 and II.C below.

a. Internal Referrals

• Referrals from the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division

OGC receives referrals regarding apparent violations of the Act and FEC regulations 

from RAD and the Audit Division. RAD monitors the filing of disclosure reports filed 

with the Commission by federal political committees and other reporting entities,

reviews their contents for compliance with the federal campaign finance laws, and, 

when necessary, sends written requests for further information, clarification, and 

sometimes correction of potential inaccuracies that appear on disclosure reports. Prior 

to any potential referral, RAD will contact the committee or reporting entity and give it 

an opportunity to take corrective action, if possible, or to provide clarification. Pursuant 

to internal Commission thresholds, depending upon the nature and extent of the apparent 

violations, and any corrective actions taken, RAD may refer apparent violations to OGC 

or to the Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (“ADRO”) (discussed in 

Section III below) for possible enforcement action. Also, during the report review 

process and prior to any potential referral, if a committee or reporting entity disagrees 

with a RAD request to take a corrective action and the disagreement is based upon a 

material dispute on a question of law, the committee or reporting entity may seek to 
8

have the legal question considered by the Commission. For more information, please 

refer to the Commission’s Policy Statement Regarding a Program for Requesting 

Consideration of Legal Questions by the Commission, 76 Fed. Reg. 45798 (Aug. 1, 

2011), also available at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2011/notice_2011-

11.pdf.

• Referrals from the Commission’s Audit Division

The Audit Division conducts audits pursuant to (1) 26 U.S.C. §§ 9007, 9008, and 9038 of 

all presidential candidates and nominating conventions that qualify for public financing,

and (2) 2 U.S.C. § 438(b) of committees required to file reports under 2 U.S.C. § 434. 

During an audit, the committee will have the opportunity to review and respond to any 

proposed or suggested findings made by the Audit Division. Depending upon the nature 

and severity of apparent violations identified during an audit, and any corrective actions 

taken, such findings may be referred to OGC for possible additional action. During the 

audit process, if a committee disagrees with an Audit Division request to take a corrective 

action and the disagreement is based upon a material dispute on a question of law, the 

committee or reporting entity may seek to have the legal question considered by the 

Commission. For more information, please refer to the Commission’s Policy Statement 

Regarding a Program for Requesting Consideration of Legal Questions by the 

Commission, 76 Fed. Reg. 45798 (Aug. 1, 2011), also available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2011/notice_2011-11.pdf.

The committee will receive a copy of the Audit Division’s Draft Final Audit Report, after 

which it may request an oral hearing before the full Commission. Two Commissioners 

must agree to hold the hearing before the request is granted. The Commission will 

inform the committee whether the Commission is granting the committee’s request

within 30 days of receipt of the request. For more information on the audit hearing 

process, please refer to the Commission’s Procedural Rules for Audit Hearings, 74 Fed. 

Reg. 33140 (July 10, 2009), also available at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-12.pdf. The Final Audit 

Report, upon which the potential referral is based, will be reviewed by the full 

Commission and must be approved by at least four Commissioners. For more information 

on the Commission’s audit program, please refer to FEC Directive 70, FEC Directive on 

Processing Audit Reports (Apr. 26, 2011), available at 

http://www.fec.gov/directives/directive_70.pdf.

b. External Referrals

Enforcement proceedings may also originate from other entities referring potential 

violations to the Commission. These entities include local and state law enforcement 

authorities, federal enforcement authorities, and other federal agencies. The majority of 

external referrals received by the Commission originate with the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ). The fact that a person is or was the subject of a DOJ investigation or 

prosecution does not necessarily preclude the Commission from civilly pursuing that 

person for violations the Act, even when the conduct at issue is the same and similar facts 

are involved. Also, the FEC may elect to proceed on the civil track at the same time the 
9

DOJ is pursuing the criminal case, but will, under appropriate circumstances, hold cases

in abeyance during the criminal proceedings.

c. Sua Sponte Submissions

Self-reported voluntary submissions (called “sua sponte” submissions) should include the 

following:

• An admission of each violation, with names and contact information as 

appropriate;

• A complete recitation of the facts along with all relevant documentation 

that explains how each violation was discovered;

• A description of any actions that were taken in response to the 

violation, if any (e.g., a report of an internal investigation); and

• A list of any other agencies that are investigating the violation (or 

facts surrounding the violation).

To encourage self-reporting, the Commission will often negotiate penalties that are 

between 25 and 75 percent lower than those for comparable matters arising by other 

means.

In certain circumstances, the Commission may allow persons or entities who voluntarily 

report their violations and make a complete report of their internal investigation to 

proceed directly into conciliation before the Commission makes a finding as to whether 

there is reason to believe the committee violated the Act or Commission regulations. 

Generally speaking, the more complete the submission and the greater the cooperation 

from a person or entity that is self-reporting, the more likely it is that a mutually 

acceptable “fast track” settlement can be presented to the Commission for its approval.

For more guidance on how to prepare and file a sua sponte submission, please refer to the 

Commission’s Policy Regarding Self-Reporting of Campaign Finance Violations (Sua 

Sponte Submissions), 72 Fed. Reg. 16695 (Apr. 5, 2007), also available at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2007/notice_2007-8.pdf.

B. Notice to Respondents

A “respondent” is a person or entity who is the subject of a complaint or a referral (or 

who files a sua sponte submission) that alleges that the person or entity may have 

violated one or more of the federal campaign finance laws within the FEC’s jurisdiction.

1. Complaint Generated Matters

Within 5 days after receiving a properly filed complaint, OGC sends each respondent a 

copy of the complaint, a letter describing the Commission's compliance procedures and a 

designation of counsel form. 11 CFR 111.5(a). That form is available at 

http://www.fec.gov/em/FEC_Designation_of_Counsel_Form.pdf.
10

The Commission will grant limited extensions for good cause shown. The letter from 

OGC notes that respondents have a legal obligation to preserve all documents, records and 

materials relating to the matter until such time as they are notified that the Commission has 

closed its file in this matter. See 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (establishing penalties for knowing 

destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations). As discussed 

below, the Commission must provide the respondent at least 15 days from the date of 

receipt (extensions may be available) to respond in writing and explain why no action 

should be taken. 11 CFR 111.6(a). 

2. Non-Complaint Generated Matters

In RAD referrals and Audit referrals, within five days of OGC’s receipt of such referrals, 

OGC sends notification letters to respondents, attaching the documents from RAD that 

set forth the basis for the referral or, in the case of Audit referrals, the relevant audit 

findings. The respondents have at least 15 days to respond to OGC’s notification. For

more information, please refer to the Commission’s Procedure for Notice to Respondents 

in Non-Complaint Generated Matters, 74 Fed. Reg. 38617 (Aug. 4, 2009), also available 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-18.pdf.

When OGC receives referrals from other government agencies or sua sponte 

submissions, it notifies the respondents (other than the sua sponte submitters) of the 

allegations by letter containing the same types of information as discussed above. The 

respondents have at least 15 days to respond in writing.

The notification letters reflect no judgment about the accuracy of the allegations, but are 

merely a vehicle for (1) informing the respondent that the Commission has received 

allegations as to possible violations of the federal campaign laws by the respondent, (2) 

providing a copy of the complaint or referral document, or in limited circumstances, a 

summary thereof, and (3) giving the respondent an opportunity to respond in writing in a 

timely manner.

C. The Response

The response is the respondent’s opportunity to demonstrate to the Commission why the 

Commission should not pursue an enforcement action, or to clarify, correct, or 

supplement the information in the complaint or referral, including possible mitigating 

circumstances, and if desired, to ask for early settlement consideration. The Commission 

may not take any action on a complaint or referral other than a vote to dismiss, until 15 

days after the date of notification. See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a). Respondents are not 

required to respond to the allegations.

There is no prescribed format for responses. While not required, providing

documentation, including sworn affidavits from persons with first-hand knowledge of the 

facts, tends to be helpful. It is also helpful for a respondent to specifically address each

allegation in the complaint. Upon receipt of the response, OGC circulates a copy to each

Commissioner. All responses are reviewed and considered by OGC and the 

Commissioners.
11

The Act requires that, before taking any action on a complaint (except to dismiss it), the 

Commission must provide a respondent at least 15 days to file a response demonstrating 

that no action should be taken, but extensions to this 15-day period may be available. To 

request an extension of time to respond to a complaint before the Commission considers 

the complaint, the respondent should submit a letter to the Commission as soon as 

possible after receiving notice of the complaint explaining why the respondent needs

more time. If an extension is granted, the Commission will take no action on the 

complaint until after the new deadline.

Respondents may contact OGC at any time to ask questions they may have about a 

matter, such as the current status of the case. A contact person within OGC (typically a 

paralegal or attorney) and a phone number are identified in the first notification to the 

respondent.

D. Representation by Counsel

Respondents, if they so choose, have a right to be represented by counsel during all or 

any portion of the enforcement process, and may designate or change counsel at any 

point. A respondent who decides to be represented by counsel must inform the 

Commission by sending a “statement of designation of counsel,” a copy of which is

included with the notification letter and is also available at 

http://www.fec.gov/em/FEC_Designation_of_Counsel_Form.pdf.

Where the respondent is a political committee, the designation of counsel also covers 

the treasurer in his or her official capacity unless the respondent specifies otherwise. 

Once the Commission receives the “statement of designation of counsel,” the Agency 

will communicate only with the counsel unless otherwise authorized by the respondent.

E. Processing Enforcement Matters

After the 15-day response period (and any extension of time, if granted) has elapsed, 

OGC evaluates the complaint and response, if any, using objective criteria approved by 

the Commission under its Enforcement Priority System. Matters are prioritized and in 

some instances are referred to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office or the

Administrative Fine Program (discussed below). In general, matters that are deemed high 

priority (generally those reflecting such factors as a substantial amount of activity 

involved, high legal complexity, the presence of possible knowing and willful intent, and 

potential violations in areas that the Commission has set as priorities) are preliminarily 

assigned to the Enforcement Division. Matters not warranting the further use of 

Commission resources are recommended for dismissal. OGC will provide a status report 

to respondents and the Commission if the Commission has not voted to find reason to 

believe, no reason to believe, or to dismiss the matter within twelve months from receipt 

of the complaint or referral and at every twelve month interval thereafter. For further 

information, please refer to FEC Directive 68, Enforcement Procedures (Dec. 31, 2009), 

available at http://www.fec.gov/em/directive_68.pdf.
12

F. Initial Vote to Proceed (Reason to Believe)

With regard to each matter assigned to an attorney in the Enforcement Division, the 

General Counsel recommends to the Commission whether or not there is “reason to 

believe” the respondent has committed or is about to commit a violation of the law. This 

report, called the First General Counsel’s Report, is circulated to the Commissioners for a 

vote on whether to approve the General Counsel’s recommendation or to seek an

alternate disposition of the matter. In casting their votes, the Commissioners consider the 

complaint, the respondent’s reply, relevant committee reports on the public record, and 

the General Counsel’s analyses and recommendations. The Report is circulated to the 

Commission for a tally vote. If one or more of the Commissioners objects to

recommendations in the Report, or the Report receives fewer than four approvals, it is 

scheduled for a closed Executive Session, during which the full Commission discusses the 

recommendations and votes on the disposition of the matter. In the initial stages of the 

process, the Commission will take one of the three following courses of action:

• Find Reason to Believe

The Act requires that the Commission find “reason to believe that a person has 

committed, or is about to commit, a violation” of the Act as a precondition to opening an 

investigation into the alleged violation. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(2). A “reason to believe” 

finding is not a finding that the respondent violated the Act, but instead simply means 

that the Commission believes a violation may have occurred.

A reason to believe finding is generally followed by either an investigation or preprobable cause conciliation. For example, a reason to believe finding followed by an 

investigation would be appropriate when there is reason to believe a violation may have 

occurred, but an investigation is required to determine whether a violation in fact 

occurred and, if so, the exact scope of the violation. However, if it appears the 

Commission has all of the necessary information regarding the alleged violations, the 

Commission may immediately authorize OGC to enter into conciliation with a 

respondent prior to a finding of probable cause (called “pre-probable cause 

conciliation”) and approve a proposed conciliation agreement attached to the First 

General Counsel’s Report. See 11 CFR 111.18.

• Dismiss the Matter

Pursuant to an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the Commission may dismiss a 

matter when, in the opinion of at least four Commissioners, the matter does not merit 

further use of Commission resources. The Commission may take into account factors 

such as the small dollar amount at issue, the insignificance of the alleged violation, the 

vagueness or weakness of the evidence, or the merits of the response. For example, a 

dismissal would be appropriate when the seriousness of the alleged conduct is not 

sufficient to justify the likely cost and difficulty of an investigation to determine whether 

there is probable cause to believe a violation in fact occurred, or the evidence is sufficient 

to support a reason to believe finding but the violation is minor and has already been 
13

remedied or is not likely to be repeated. In this latter circumstance, the Commission may 

send a letter cautioning or reminding the respondent regarding their legal obligations 

under the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions.

• Find No Reason to Believe

The Commission will make a determination of “no reason to believe” a violation has 

occurred when the complaint, any response filed by the respondent, and any publicly 

available information, when taken together, fail to give rise to a reasonable inference that 

a violation has occurred, or even if the allegations were true, would not constitute a 

violation of the law. For example, a no reason to believe finding would be appropriate 

when (1) a violation has been alleged, but the respondent’s response or other evidence 

demonstrates that no violation has occurred, (2) a complaint alleges a violation but is 

either not credible or is so vague that an investigation would be unwarranted, or (3) a 

complaint fails to describe a violation of the Act.

G. Notification of Reason to Believe Findings

When the Commission approves a recommendation by OGC that it find reason to believe, 

the respondent will receive written notification (generally through a letter signed by the 

Chair) of the Commission’s determination shortly thereafter. In matters involving 

registered committees, the current treasurer is usually included as a respondent in his or 

her official capacity. In rare instances, however, the Commission has made findings 

against a treasurer in his or her personal capacity. For example, the Commission may 

make a determination that the treasurer acted in a personal capacity when information 

indicates that the treasurer knowingly and willfully violated the Act, recklessly failed to 

fulfill duties specifically imposed by the Act or intentionally deprived himself or herself

of facts giving rise to the violation. For further information regarding the Commission’s 

practice with respect to committee treasurers, please refer to the Commission’s Statement 

of Policy Regarding Treasurers Subject to Enforcement Proceedings, 70 Fed. Reg. 3 

(January 3, 2005), also available at http://www.fec.gov/law/policy/2004/notice2004-

20.pdf.

If the respondent has not already filed a designation of counsel with the Commission, the 

notification letter will again advise the respondent of the right to be represented by 

counsel. Enclosed with the notification letter is a copy of the Factual & Legal Analysis 

approved by the Commission that provides the basis for the Commission’s decision.

A letter notifying a respondent of a reason to believe finding will apprise the respondent 

of the ability to submit any factual or legal materials that the respondent believes are 

relevant for the Commission’s consideration or resolution of the matter. Respondents 

should not hesitate to provide the Commission with relevant new information or present 

the Commission with any errors in the Commission’s recitation of the facts or law. The 

Commission receives all responses and considers them when determining whether and 

how to proceed with an investigation or conciliation. Any documents or letters that are 

sent directly to the Commissioners should also be sent to the Office of General Counsel 

to ensure that the materials are properly documented and included in the files related to 
14

the matter.

Respondents or their counsel may also contact the Enforcement Division attorney 

handling the matter by telephone, or request a meeting to discuss any issues relating to 

the reason to believe findings or other developments in the matter.

Depending on whether further information is required, the Commission may follow a 

reason to believe finding with an investigation or proceed to attempt to settle the matter 

prior to a finding of probable cause to believe. After the Commission finds reason to 

believe, OGC will provide respondents and the Commission with a status report if the 

Commission has not voted on the matter within twelve months of the reason to believe 

finding and at every twelve month interval thereafter. See FEC Directive 68, 

Enforcement Procedures (Dec. 31, 2009), available at 

http://www.fec.gov/em/directive_68.pdf.

 In complaint-generated matters where the Commission does not adopt a 

recommendation by OGC to find reason to believe, the Commissioners who voted against 

the recommendation are required to issue a Statement of Reasons providing the basis for 

their rejection of the recommendation, which will appear on the public record and be 

provided to the complainant and the respondent. 

 

H. Investigation

Upon finding reason to believe that a violation has occurred or is about to occur, the

Commission may authorize an investigation.

Enforcement Division staff may conduct an investigation through informal and formal 

methods. Informal methods may include such activities as in-person or telephone 

interviews with persons, including respondents or third-party witnesses, and informal 

requests for information and documents. Staff may also examine relevant information 

from publicly available sources.

Formal methods (also called “compulsory process”) may include subpoenas and orders 

for information, documents, or depositions. See 2 U.S.C. § 437d. All subpoenas are 

reviewed and approved by the Commission before they are served.

Responses to subpoenas are generally due within 30 days of receipt of such subpoenas, 

but extensions may be granted as appropriate. Persons subpoenaed may file motions to 

quash with the Commission within five days of receipt of the subpoenas. See 11 CFR 

111.15(a). If a person fails to respond to a subpoena or order for documents and 

information, or provides insufficient grounds for declining to respond or provides an 

incomplete submission, the Commission may file a subpoena enforcement action in 

federal district court. See 11 CFR 111.13(b), 111.15.

A deposition in the enforcement process is subject to special rules. See 11 CFR 111.12,

111.14. A respondent or other witness deponent may have counsel present during the 

deposition and shall be paid the same fees and mileage as witnesses in federal courts. If 
15

the deponent lives and works a long distance from Washington, D.C., and the deposition is 

scheduled at the FEC’s headquarters, the Commission may also pay for the deponent’s air, 

bus, or train fare and, if necessary, overnight lodging, within certain governmentapproved parameters. A deponent is responsible for paying all costs for his or her 

attorney. Telephonic or video teleconference depositions may be conducted under certain 

circumstances.

At the deposition itself, the deponent will be placed under oath by the court reporter (who 

is a notary public), and is required to respond to questions by the Commission’s staff 

unless the information requested is protected from disclosure by law. Respondent’s 

counsel may be present, take notes, consult with the deponent, object to or seek to clarify 

certain questions, and, generally at the end, ask questions of the deponent. The court 

reporter, paid for by the Commission, will make a verbatim transcript of the deposition.

A deponent has the right to review the deposition transcript, consistent with Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 30(e). 11 CFR 111.12(c). If there are any changes in form or 

substance to the testimony, the deponent may sign a statement listing the changes and the 

reasons for making them. Furthermore, the deponent may purchase a copy of the 

transcript of his or her own deposition from the court reporter. For further information, 

please refer to the Commission’s Statement of Policy Regarding Deposition

Transcriptions in Nonpublic Investigations, 68 Fed. Reg. 50688-689 (Aug. 22, 2003), also 

available at http://www.fec.gov/agenda/agendas2003/notice2003-15/fr68n163p50688.pdf.

I. Disclosure of Documents Gathered by OGC During an Investigation

The following is a summary of the Commission’s policy regarding disclosure of 

documents gathered by OGC in the enforcement process. For further information, 

please refer to Agency Procedure for Disclosure of Documents in the Enforcement 

Process, 76 Fed. Reg. 34986 (June 15, 2011), also available at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2011/notice_2011-06.pdf.

When OGC obtains documents during an investigation (e.g., documents obtained in 

response to a subpoena), it generally will make relevant documents available to a 

respondent before a Commission vote on OGC’s recommendation to find probable 

cause or when the Commission agrees to conciliate, upon written request, unless the 

documents are publicly available or already in possession of the respondent, subject to 

certain exceptions as described below. These documents include those containing 

exculpatory information. Exculpatory information is information gathered by OGC in 

its investigation, not reasonably knowable by the respondent, that is relevant to a 

possible violation of the Act or Commission regulations under investigation by the 

Commission, and that may tend to favor the respondent in defense of violations alleged 

or which would be relevant to the mitigation of the amount of any civil penalty resulting 

from a finding of such a violation by a court. 
16

Written requests for documents must be filed within fifteen days of either (1) the date 

that the General Counsel notifies a respondent of its recommendation to the 

Commission to proceed to a vote on probable cause or (2) the date the Commission 

agrees to conciliate with a respondent. If the Commission receives additional 

disclosable documents during the course of conciliation negotiations, OGC will timely 

produce them to the respondent. Documents may be reviewed and copied at the 

Commission or another location agreed to by the Commission. The respondent is 

responsible for costs related to photocopying any of the documents.

Unless the Commission determines otherwise, OGC may withhold documents under the 

following circumstances:

(1) the documents contain privileged information;

(2) the documents are not relevant;

(3) the Commission is prevented by law or regulation from disclosing the

documents;

(4) the documents contain a portion which prevents disclosure and that portion 

cannot be redacted without affecting the significance of the document; and 

(5) the documents were obtained from DOJ or another government entity which 

has requested that they not be disclosed.

Additionally, before disclosing any documents provided by or related to a corespondent in the same matter, OGC must attempt to obtain a confidentiality waiver

from that co-respondent. If the co-respondent will not provide a confidentiality waiver, 

OGC will attempt to summarize or redact those portions of the document subject to 

confidentiality. A respondent receiving such documents may be required to sign a 

nondisclosure agreement to keep documents and information confidential. 

Within ten business days of receipt of documents, a respondent may submit a written 

request that the Commission direct OGC to produce a list of documents or categories of 

documents withheld. If a respondent submits such a written request, the respondent 

must sign a tolling agreement for the time necessary, not to exceed 60 days, for OGC to 

provide the list of withheld documents, unless the Commission, by an affirmative vote 

of four or more Commissioners, determines that a tolling agreement is not required.

Respondents should be aware that failure to adhere to the procedures in this policy does 

not create a bar to enforcement. Moreover, disclosure of documents pursuant to the 

procedure is not an admission by the Commission that the information is exculpatory. 

J. Early Resolution of MUR (Pre-Probable Cause Conciliation)

Although the Act only requires the Commission to attempt to conciliate matters after a 

finding of probable cause, 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4), the Commission has promulgated 

regulations for pre-probable cause conciliation to allow for early disposition of 
17

appropriate matters. See 11 CFR 111.18(d). Pre-probable cause conciliation is strictly 

voluntary; both the Commission and the respondent must be willing to participate.

If OGC believes that an investigation is not necessary before attempting conciliation, it 

may recommend pre-probable cause conciliation before the Commission approves an 

investigation. Additionally, respondents can request pre-probable cause conciliation at 

any time, even in matters in which the Commission has authorized an investigation. If 

the respondent is interested in pursuing a settlement, the respondent should so request in 

writing to OGC. Upon receipt of a request for settlement, OGC will make 

recommendations to the Commission about whether pre-probable cause conciliation is 

appropriate at that juncture.

At the time the Commission decides to enter into pre-probable cause conciliation, it 

approves a proposed conciliation agreement that serves as the opening settlement offer. 

Among other things, the proposed agreement will generally:

• Recite the Commission’s reason to believe findings,

• Set forth relevant facts and law,

• Contain the respondent’s admission of violating specific provisions of the

Act and the Commission’s regulations,

• Include an agreement that the respondent will cease and desist from 

violating those provisions in the future, and

• Include an agreement to pay a civil penalty and/or possibly take corrective 

actions, such as refunding impermissible contributions, amending reports, 

hiring compliance specialists, or attending FEC educational seminars.

With respect to the civil penalty, the Act provides that a conciliation agreement entered 

into by the Commission may require that the respondent pay a civil penalty “which does 

not exceed the greater of $5,000 or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure 

involved.” 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(A). In 2009, the statutory penalty was adjusted for 

inflation to $7,500. See 11 CFR 111.24(a)(1) (2009). If a respondent knowingly and 

willfully violates the Act, the Act provides for a civil penalty “which does not exceed the 

greater of $10,000 or an amount equal to 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure 

involved.” 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(B). The statutory penalty of $10,000 was adjusted for 

inflation in 2009 to $16,000. See 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(i) (2009). Finally, for knowing 

and willful violations of 2 U.S.C. § 441f— contributions made in the name of another—

the Act provides for a civil penalty “which is not less than 300 percent of the amount 

involved in the violation and is not more than the greater of $50,000 or 1000 percent of

the amount involved in the violation.” 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(B). The statutory penalty 

of $50,000 was adjusted for inflation to $60,000 in 2009. 11 CFR 111.24(a)(2)(ii). When 

determining the amount of a civil penalty to be included in a conciliation agreement, the 

Commission uses the statutory guidelines described above and considers the particular 

facts involved in a specific matter, including all potential mitigating and aggravating

circumstances. The respondent is provided a description of how the opening settlement 

offer is calculated with the proposed conciliation agreement.
18

OGC transmits the proposed conciliation agreement to a respondent and offers the 

respondent the opportunity to engage in negotiation concerning the proposed agreement. 

The respondent should reply to OGC’s offer to enter into such negotiations within seven 

days of the receipt of the offer. At that time, a respondent may make a written request to 

review relevant documents obtained during the investigation. See Section II. I above for 

details on the Commission’s disclosure policy.

After agreeing to enter into conciliation, the respondent may sign the conciliation 

agreement and return it to OGC, or the respondent may make a counter-offer. 

Negotiations may take place in writing, by telephone, in person, or any combination of 

these approaches. A respondent may ask OGC to present a specific counter-offer to the 

Commission. Respondents who claim an inability to pay an appropriate civil penalty 

may be asked to provide documentation as to their financial condition.

Neither the Act nor the Commission’s regulations specify a time frame for pre-probable 

cause conciliation, but OGC attempts to limit it to no more than 60 days. Because the 

Commission’s ability to seek civil penalties in federal district court is subject to a fiveyear statute of limitation, see 28 U.S.C. § 2462, OGC may request at any stage in the 

enforcement process that the respondent agree to toll the statute of limitations, including 

during the pendency of the pre-probable cause conciliation process.

Conciliation agreements from closed enforcement matters are available for review and 

comparison at the Enforcement Query System found on the Commission’s website at 

http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. See also http://www.fec.gov/em/em.shtml.

K. General Counsel’s Probable Cause Brief

After the investigation is completed and/or no pre-probable cause conciliation agreement 

is reached, if the General Counsel intends to recommend that the Commission find 

probable cause to believe a violation has occurred or is about to occur, OGC notifies the 

respondent of its intent to make such a recommendation. OGC includes with the 

notification a Probable Cause Brief stating the General Counsel’s position on the factual 

and legal issues of the matter. The respondent is sent a copy of the brief and has fifteen

days from receipt of the brief to file a reply brief explaining the respondent's position. A 

respondent may make a written request to review relevant documents obtained during 

the investigation. See Section II. I above for details on the Commission’s disclosure 

policy.

L. Probable Cause Hearing

Respondents are also entitled to request a hearing to present oral arguments directly to the 

Commission prior to any decision on whether there is probable cause to believe that a 

violation of the Act or the Commission’s regulations has occurred or is about to occur. 

Such a hearing may be requested by the respondent in his or her reply brief. The request 

for a hearing is optional, and the respondent’s decision on whether to request one will not 

influence the Commission’s decision regarding a probable cause finding.
19

The respondent must include a written request for a hearing as a part of the respondent’s 

brief filed with the Commission Secretary under 11 CFR 111.16(c). Each request for a 

hearing must state with specificity why the hearing is being requested and what issues the 

respondent expects to address.

The Commission will grant a request for an oral hearing if any two Commissioners 

approve the request. If the request is granted, a respondent who appears before the 

Commission may discuss any issues presented in its brief, including potential liability 

and the amount of any civil penalty.

Hearings are not open to the public. Respondents and their counsel are the only people 

from outside the Commission who may attend. Commissioners, the General Counsel and 

the Staff Director may ask questions relevant to the matter of the respondent or 

respondent’s counsel, if respondent is represented, and may request that the respondent 

supplement the record within a set time. The Commissioners may also ask questions 

designed to elicit clarification from the General Counsel and the Staff Director.

A court reporter will transcribe the proceedings, and the respondent may purchase a copy 

of the transcript from the court reporter. The transcript of the hearings, with possible 

appropriate redactions, will be made public as part of the public record when a case is 

closed. The Commission determines the format and time allotted for each hearing at its 

discretion.

For further information, please refer to Procedural Rules for Probable Cause 

Hearings, 72 Fed. Reg. 64919 (Nov. 19, 2007), also available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2007/notice_2007-21.pdf and

Amendment of Agency Procedures for Probable Cause Hearings, 74 Fed. Reg.

55443 (October 28, 2009), also available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-24.pdf.

M. Notice Following Probable Cause Briefs

Following the Probable Cause Briefs (and after a Probable Cause Hearing, if any, has 

taken place), OGC provides a written notice to the Commission advising the Commission 

whether it intends to proceed with its recommendation to the Commission or withdraw

the recommendation to find probable cause. See 11 C.F.R. § 111.16(d). OGC will 

contemporaneously provide the written notice to a respondent. 

If the notice contains new facts or new legal arguments raised by OGC and not contained 

in the Probable Cause Brief, or raised by OGC at a Probable Cause Hearing, the 

respondent may submit a written request to the Commission asking to address the new 

points raised by OGC’s written notice in a Supplemental Reply Brief. The respondent’s

written request must specify the new points that the respondent seeks to address and must 

be submitted within five business days of the respondent’s receipt of the notice. Within 

five business days of receipt of the respondent’s written request, the Commission may 

approve the respondent’s request to submit a Supplemental Reply Brief. If the request is 
20

granted, the respondent must submit the Supplemental Reply Brief by the date specified 

by the Commission, which will not exceed ten calendar days from the date that OGC

notifies respondent that the Commission has approved the request. Where necessary, the

Commission may request an agreement from a respondent tolling any deadline, including

any statutory deadline or other deadline set forth in 11 CFR 111. Any request that the

Commission has not approved within five business days of the Commission’s receipt of

the request will be deemed denied without further action by the Commission.

All requests and Supplemental Reply Briefs should be directed to the Commission 

Secretary via e-mail at secretary@fec.gov. 

For further information, please refer to Agency Procedure Following the Submission of

Probable Cause Briefs by the Office of General Counsel, 76 Fed. Reg. 63570 (October

13, 2011), also available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2011/notice_2011-15.pdf. 

N. Vote on Alleged Violations (Probable Cause to Believe)

After reviewing the briefs of both the General Counsel and the respondent, the

Commission votes on whether there is “probable cause to believe” that a violation has

occurred or is about to occur. Four affirmative votes are required to make a finding of

probable cause to believe. If the Commission does not find “probable cause to believe,”

the case is closed and the parties are notified. In complaint-generated matters where the 

Commission does not approve a recommendation from OGC to find probable cause, the

Commissioners who voted against the recommendation are required to issue a Statement

of Reasons providing the basis for their rejection of the recommendation, which will

appear on the public record and be provided to the complainant and the respondent.

If the Commission determines that there is “probable cause to believe” the law has been

violated, the Commission must attempt to conciliate with the respondent for at least 30

days, but not more than 90 days. If the Commission makes a probable cause finding in 

the 45-day period immediately preceding any election, then the Commission must

attempt to conciliate a matter for a period of at least 15 days. See 2 U.S.C.

§ 437g(a)(4)(A).

In order to facilitate settlement discussions, a Commission-approved proposed

conciliation agreement is sent to the respondent, forming the basis for settlement

negotiations. The provisions included in a pre-probable cause conciliation agreement,

described above, are generally also included in post-probable cause conciliation

agreements.

If the Commission determines that there is probable cause to believe that knowing and

willful violations occurred, it may refer such violations to the DOJ for possible criminal

prosecution. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(5)(C). 
21

O. Resolution of MUR (Conciliation Agreement)

If the General Counsel and the respondent enter into a conciliation agreement, the written 

agreement becomes effective once it is approved by the affirmative vote of four 

Commissioners and signed by the respondent and the General Counsel. When the 

Commission approves a signed conciliation agreement, the Commission closes the

matter, sends a copy of the signed agreement to the complainant and respondent, and puts 

documents on the public record. Civil penalty payment checks, which are made payable 

to the United States Treasury, are transferred from the Commission to the Treasury for 

deposit once the Commission approves a conciliation agreement.

Unless a respondent violates the conciliation agreement, the agreement is a complete bar 

to any further action by the Commission based on the same facts. If the respondent 

violates the conciliation agreement, however, the Commission can sue to enforce the 

terms of the conciliation agreement in federal district court.

P. Litigation

If post-probable cause conciliation does not result in an agreement, OGC may 

recommend to the Commission that it authorize a civil action in federal court. The 

Commission may only authorize the filing of a civil action by an affirmative vote of at 

least four members.

If the Commission provides such authorization, the matter is transferred from OGC’s 

Enforcement Division to its Litigation Division, which represents the Commission in all 

litigation. Contact information for relevant staff in the Litigation Division is provided in 

the letter informing respondents that suit has been authorized.

If the Commission gives such authorization, the Commission will file suit in the District

Court of the United States for the district in which the person against whom such action is

being brought is found, resides, or transacts business. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6)(A). The 

proceedings are then governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules 

of the district court.

The Commission may seek a variety of remedies, including a civil penalty that meets the 

appropriate statutory guidelines as set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(6). The federal district 

court will review the facts of the matter de novo, which means that the court will not rely 

exclusively on the administrative record but also on fresh fact discovery by the parties.

See, e.g., American Fed’n of Labor & Congress of Indus. Orgs. v. F.E.C., 177 F. Supp.2d 

48, 63 (D.D.C. 2001).

Q. Complainant’s Recourse

If a complainant disagrees with the Commission’s dismissal of a complaint, or any 

allegations contained therein, he or she may file a petition in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia. This petition must be filed within 60 days after the date of the 
22

dismissal. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8).

In addition, if 120 days have passed since the filing of a complaint, and the Commission 

has not yet acted on the complaint, the complainant may file suit in district court. 

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(A). As discussed above, however, the Commission may be taking 

action on the allegations (e.g., finding reason to believe and conducting an investigation) 

that it may not disclose to the public (including the complainant) until the conclusion of 

the matter under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12).

In any case brought against the Commission for dismissing or failing to act on a 

complaint, a court may declare that the Commission acted contrary to law and direct the 

Commission to conform to that declaration. If the Commission fails to act on the court’s 

order within 30 days, complainants may bring a civil action under their own name to 

remedy the alleged violation. 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8)(C).

R. Confidentiality

To protect the interests of those involved in a complaint, the law requires that any 

Commission action on a MUR be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved. 

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(12). These provisions do not, however, prevent a complainant or 

respondent from disclosing the substance of the complaint itself or the response to that 

complaint or from engaging in conduct that leads to the publication of information 

contained in the complaint.

S. Public Disclosure Upon Termination of an Enforcement Matter

Because the public has the right to know the outcome of any enforcement proceeding,

within 30 days after the parties involved have been notified that the entire matter has been 

closed, the redacted files for closed enforcement matters are available for review at the 

Enforcement Query System found on the Commission’s web site at 

http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs. The redacted files are also available to the public in 

the Commission’s Press Office and the Office of Public Records. Complaints and 

responses are placed on the public record, though in some cases, sensitive or privileged 

information such as personal phone numbers or financial information is redacted. The 

First General Counsel’s Report is also placed on the public record, subject to appropriate 

redactions. For further information, please refer to Statement of Policy Regarding 

Placing First General Counsel’s Reports on the Public Record, 74 Fed. Reg. 66132 

(December 14, 2009), also available at

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-28.pdf. 
23

T. Overview of Stages and Applicable Timeframes

Stage Number of Days

Complaint Received

Complaint Notification 

Response to Complaint 

Reason to Believe Finding 

Investigation

Pre-Probable Cause Conciliation

General Counsel’s Brief

Response to General Counsel’s Brief

Probable Cause to Believe

Probable Cause to Believe Conciliation

Disposition

Public Release of closed case file

* Not set by statute or regulation.

n/a

5 Days

15 Days 

n/a

n/a

60 Days*

n/a

15 Days 

n/a

30-90 Days 

n/a

30 Days

III. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (“ADR”)

The Commission established the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (“ADRO”) to 

promote compliance with the federal election laws by encouraging settlements outside of 

the general enforcement process. In most enforcement matters where a settlement is 

involved, the Commission has already voted to find reason to believe a violation has 

occurred or is about to occur. In ADR, however, a settlement is generally reached prior 

to any finding by the Commission. ADR tends to place greater emphasis on remedial 

measures, such as hiring compliance specialists or having persons responsible for FEC 

disclosure attending Commission educational conferences.

ADR is an option extended only in appropriate matters based on criteria approved by the 

Commission. Once a matter is deemed suitable for ADR, the respondent will receive a 

letter from ADRO asking for a commitment, in writing, to the terms for participation in 

ADR, which include (1) engaging in the ADR process; (2) setting aside the statute of 

limitations while the complaint or referral is pending in ADRO; and (3) participating in 

bilateral negotiations. The respondent should respond to the letter within 15 business 

days of receipt; otherwise, the matter may be dropped from further consideration for 

ADR and sent to OGC for further processing. After the respondent provides this 

information (which involves completing a form enclosed with ADRO’s notification 

letter) and any additional information relevant to the matter, ADRO will contact the 

respondent or respondent’s counsel to discuss mutually acceptable dates and times for 

engaging in bilateral negotiations. 

ADRO will provide a status report to respondents if the Commission has not voted on an 

ADR matter within twelve months from receipt of a complaint, referral, or sua sponte

submission, and at every twelve month interval thereafter. For further information, 
24

please refer to FEC Directive 68, Enforcement Procedures (Dec. 31, 2009), available at 

http://www.fec.gov/em/directive_68.pdf.

If the respondent and ADRO are able to reach a mutually acceptable settlement 

agreement, ADRO presents a signed agreement to Commission for approval. All ADR 

settlements are placed on the public record. They do not serve as precedents for 

subsequent enforcement actions. If the respondent and ADRO are unable to reach a 

settlement during bilateral negotiations, the case may be sent to OGC for enforcement.

For further information regarding the Commission’s Alternative Dispute Resolution 

program, please see http://www.fec.gov/em/adr.shtml.

IV. ADMINISTRATIVE FINE PROCESS

Administrative fines for violations by registered political committees involving (1) 

failure to file reports on time, (2) failure to file reports at all, and (3) failure to file 48-

hour notices of contributions are assessed through the Administrative Fine process. 

2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(4)(C); 11 CFR 111.30-111.46.

Under the administrative fine regulations, if the Commission finds reason to believe that 

a committee violated the law, the Commission sends a letter to the committee containing 

the factual and legal basis of its finding and the amount of the calculated fine. Fine 

schedules are published in the administrative fine regulations, and all fines are calculated 

using the formulas in these schedules. 11 CFR 111.43, 111.44. The committee has 40 

days from the date of the reason to believe finding to (1) pay the calculated fine or (2) 

challenge the RTB finding and/or fine.

Unlike enforcement matters that are handled through OGC or ADRO, the penalties 

assessed through the Administrative Fine Program are not subject to settlement 

negotiations. So there are no settlement agreements approved by the Commission as 

typically occurs when a respondent is on the OGC or ADR enforcement track.

If the committee pays the proposed fine, it sends the payment and remittance form 

(provided in the Commission’s RTB letter) to the FEC following the instructions in the 

letter. Upon receipt of payment, the Commission makes a final determination, assesses 

the appropriate fine, and sends the committee a final determination letter.

If the committee does not pay the calculated fine and does not submit a challenge, the 

Commission makes a final determination, assesses the appropriate fine, and sends the 

committee a final determination letter.

If the committee challenges the RTB finding and/or the fine, it must submit a written 

response to the Office of Administrative Review (“OAR”). The challenge must include 

the reason why the committee is challenging the RTB finding and/or fine, along with 

supporting documentation. The FEC only considers challenges that are based on the 

following:
25

• A factual or legal error in the RTB finding;

• A miscalculation of the RTB fine by the FEC; or

• A demonstrated use of best efforts to file in a timely manner but being 

prevented from filing by reasonably unforeseen circumstances that were 

beyond the committee’s control.

The RTB letter includes examples of circumstances that are considered reasonably 

unforeseen and beyond the committee’s control, as well as examples of 

circumstances that are not considered reasonably unforeseen and beyond the 

committee’s control.

The committee’s challenge is reviewed by a reviewing officer who was not involved in 

the original RTB finding. After review of the challenge and any information provided by

Commission staff, the reviewing officer makes a recommendation to the Commission and 

sends a copy of the recommendation to the committee. The committee has 10 days to 

respond in writing to the recommendation. The Commission then either (1) makes a final 

determination that a violation occurred and upholds the RTB fine; (2) determines that no 

violation occurred because the RTB finding was based on a factual error or the committee 

used best efforts to file on time; (3) terminates its proceedings; or (4) makes a final 

determination that a violation occurred and modifies the fine.

OAR will notify the committee in writing of the Commission’s decision. If the letter 

notifies the committee that the Commission has made a final determination that a 

violation occurred, the committee has 30 days from its receipt of such “final 

determination letter” to (1) pay the assessed fine or (2) file suit in the U.S. District Court 

where the committee or treasurer resides or transacts business.

If the committee pays the fine, it sends the payment and remittance form (provided in the 

notification letter) to the FEC following the instructions in the letter. If the committee 

chooses to appeal the final determination, it should file suit within the 30-day timeframe 

in the U.S. District Court in which it or the treasurer reside or transact business. The 

failure to raise an argument in a timely fashion during the administrative process shall be 

deemed a waiver of the committee’s right to present that argument in the court petition.

If the committee fails to pay the fine or seek judicial review, the unpaid fine is treated as 

a debt under the Debt Collection Improvement Act. The Commission will transfer the 

unpaid fine to the Department of the Treasury for collection.

For more information about the Administrative Fine Program, including a fine calculator 

and examples of how to calculate a fine, please see http://www.fec.gov/af/af.shtml.