Technology and Performance Audit 

and Management Review of the 

Federal Election Commission 

Volume II – Appendixes 

January 29, 1999 

Prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

1616 North Fort Myer Drive 

Arlington, Virginia 22209 

This report in its entirety is posted on the Internet at 

www.gao.gov/special.pubs/publist.htm 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Volume II: Appendixes 

PAGE 

Table of Contents................................................................................. TOC- 1 

Appendix A: FEC Organizational Chart 

Office of the Commissioners.......................................... A- 1

 Office of the Staff Directors.......................................... .. A- 2

 Office of the General Counsel....................................... .. A- 3 

Appendix B: FEC “Regulated” Customer Satisfaction Survey and Tabulation 

Survey Methodology and Summary................................. . B- 1 

Overall Assessment of the FEC....................................... . B- 3 

Composition of the Sample.......................................... ... B- 3 

Analysis of 51 Questions 

Appendix C: FEC Program Process Maps and Narratives 

1.0 Public Disclosure Division ....................................... .. C1- 1 

1.1 Processing Campaign Finance Reports (FEC and Senate)... C1- 1 

1.1.1 Receiving Campaign Finance Reports.................. . C1- 2 

1.1.2 Preparing Documents....................................... C1- 2 

1.1.3 Scanning and Filming Documents..................... .. C1- 3 

1.1.4 Post-Processing Documents.............................. . C1- 3 

1.2 Processing Agency Documents................................. .. C1- 3 

1.2.1 Placing a MUR on the Public Record.................. . C1- 4 

1.3 Processing Internal Documents................................. C1- 4 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP TOC- 1 
Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

1.4 Responding to Information Requests........................... . C1- 4 

Process Maps 

2.0 Data Systems Division................................................ ... C2- 1 

2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports (Manual and C2- 1 

Electronic)......................................................... ... 

2.1.1. Logging and Sorting....................................... C2- 1 

2.1.2 Conducting Pass 1 Coding.............................. .. C2- 2 

2.1.3 Conducting Pass 1 Data Entry........................... C2- 2 

2.1.4 Conducting Pass 1 Data Entry/Verification......... ... C2- 3 

2.1.5 Conducting Pass 3 Coding.............................. .. C2- 3 

2.1.6 Conducting Pass 3 Data Entry/ Verification......... .. C2- 4 

Process Maps 

3.0 Reports Analysis Division............................................. .. C3− 1 

3.1 Processing Campaign Finance Documents..................... C3- 1 

3.1.1 Reviewing and Analyzing Reports........................ C3- 1 

3.1.2 Updating Status Report and Re-filing Original......... C3- 2 

3.2 Processing Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs)... ... C3- 3 

3.3 Processing Non-Filer Notices.................................... .. C3- 3 

3.4 Processing Debt Settlements....................................... C3- 3 

3.5 Processing Administration Terminations........................ C3- 4 

Process Maps 

4.0 Audit Division............................................................ . C4− 1 

4.1 Audits-For-Cause................................................... .. C4- 1 

4.1.1 Preparing for Commission Vote and Notifying C4- 1 

Candidates/Committees.................................... .. 

4.1.2 Conducting Pre-Audit....................................... . C4- 2 

TOC- 2 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

4.1.3 Conducting Fieldwork....................................... C4- 2 

4.1.4 Conduct Post-Audit and Processing Audit Report... ... C4- 3 

4.2 Audit-For-Cause – Referral (437(g)).............................. . C4- 4 

4.2.1 Receiving Referral.......................................... ... C4- 4 

4.2.2 Conducting Pre-Audit....................................... . C4- 5 

4.2.3 Conducting Fieldwork....................................... C4- 5 

4.2.4 Conducting Post-Audit and Processing Audit Report.. C4- 6 

4.3 Presidential Public Funding Program........................... .. C4- 6 

4.3.1 Certifying Presidential Public Funding.................. . C4- 6 

4.3.2 Conducting Title 26 Audits................................. C4- 8 

Process Maps 

5.0 Office of General Counsel............................................. . C5− 1 

5.1 Public Financing, Ethics and Special Projects.................. C5- 1 

5.1.1 Prosecuting Violations....................................... C5- 1 

5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing......... C5- 1 

5.1.2.1 Reviewing Eligibility for Matching Funds...... C5- 1 

5.1.2.2 Reviewing Entitlement Recommendations... .. C5- 2 

5.1.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of Audit Reports... C5- 3 

5.1.2.4 Reviewing Repayment Recommendation... ... C5- 3 

5.2 Policy Division...................................................... .. C5- 4 

5.2.1 Rendering Advisory Opinions.............................. C5- 4 

5.2.1.1 Reconsideration.................................... . C5-4 

5.2.2 Reviewing Regulations.................................... ... C5- 5 

5.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of Federal Election 

Commission Act............................................. .. C5- 6 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP TOC- 3 
Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

5.3 Enforcement Division............................................. ... C5- 6 

5.3.1 Enforcement................................................... . C5- 6 

5.3.2 Central Enforcement Docket.............................. .. C5- 6 

5.3.3 Statements of Reason....................................... .. C5- 8 

5.3.4 Dismissing Low Rating and Stale 

Cases........................ . C5- 8 

5.3.5 Maintaining the Permanent File........................... C5- 8 

5.3.6 Coordinating Executive Session Agenda............... .. C5- 8 

5.3.7 Tracking Civil Penalties.................................... .. C5- 8 

5.3.8 Archiving...................................................... .. C5- 9 

5.4 Litigation Division................................................... . C5- 9 

Process Maps 

6.0 Office of Planning and Management................................. C6− 1 

6.1 Budget Formulation................................................ .. C6- 1 

6.2 Budget Management................................................ . C6- 2 

6.3 Monthly Budget Reporting....................................... ... C6- 3 

6.4 Developing FY2000 Performance Plan........................ .. C6- 3 

Process Maps 

7.0 Administration Division................................................ . C7− 1 

7.1 Accounts Payable................................................... . C7- 1 

7.2 Procurement......................................................... .. C7- 1 

7.3 Vouchering............................................................ C7- 1 

7.4 Monthly Reconciliation............................................. C7- 2 

7.5 Cash Receipt System................................................ . C7- 2 

Process Maps 

TOC- 4 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
Appendix A 

FEC Organization Chart 
Federal Election Commission 

Office of the Commissioners 

Office of Commissioner 

David M. Mason 

Member EL-IV 

Special Assistant GS-13 

Office of Commissioner 

Scott E. Thomas 

Member EL-IV 

Executive Assistant GS-15 

Special Assistant GS-13 

Office of Commissioner 

Lee Ann Elliott 

Member EL-IV 

Executive Assistant GS-15 

Special Assistant GS-13 

Office of Commissioner 

Karl J. Sandstrom 

Member EL-IV 

Executive Assistant GS-13 

Office of Commissioner 

Darryl R. Wold 

Member EL-IV 

Office of the General 

Counsel 

[See Office of the General 

Counsel Organization] 

Office of the Staff 

Director 

[See Office of the Staff 

Director Organization] 

Office of Commissioner 

Danny L. McDonald 

Member EL-IV 

Executive Assistant GS-15 

Special Assistant GS-13 

Note: Only full-time permanent positions identified. 

Source: FEC Staffing Report, September 25,1998 

Office of the Inspector 

General 

Inspector General GS-15 

(2x) Auditor GS-13 

Special Assistant GS-12 

Appendix A-1 
Commissioners 

EEO Office 

Director, EEO & Special Pgrms. GS-14 

Press Office Office of Personnel Secretary to the Commission

Press Officer GS-15 (2x) Asst. Director of Personnel GS-13 Secretary GS-14

Deputy Press Officer GS-14 Personnel Asst. (Typing) GS-9 Spec. Asst. to the Secretary GS-13

Public Affairs Spec. GS-12 Clerk GS-3 Deputy Secretary GS-12

Public Affairs Spec. GS-11 Admin. Assistant (Typing) GS-9

Admin. Secretary (Typing) GS-7 Admin. Clerk (Typing) GS-7

Office of the Staff Director 

Acting Staff Director EL-IV 

Congressional Affairs Officer GS-14 

Asst. to Congressional Affairs Officer GS-13 

Spec Asst. to the Dep. Staff Director GS-11 

Admin. Assistant GS-9 

Admin. Asst. (Typing) GS-7 

Admin. Clerk (Typing) GS-7 

Planning and Management 

Director, Planning and Mgmt. GS-15 

Program Analyst GS-12 

Administrative Division 

Administrative Officer GS-14 

Printing Officer GS-12 

Admin. Special Assistant GS-11 

Management Assistant GS-8 

General Supply Specialist GS-6 

Election Administration 

Director of Clearinghouse GS-15 

Deputy Director GS-14 

(2x) Research Specialist GS-13 

Public Affairs Specialist GS-11 

Audit Division 

Asst. Staff Director GS-15 

Deputy Asst. Staff Dir. (PECF) GS-14 

Deputy Assistant Deputy Assistant 

Deputy Asst. Staff 

Dir. for Audit GS-14 

Deputy Asst. Staff 

Dir. for Audit GS-14 

Information Division 

Asst. Staff Director GS-15 

Admin. Asst. GS-9 

Director of Data Systems GS-15 

Secretary/Receptionist(Typing) GS-5 

Data Systems Development 

Asst. Staff Director GS-15 

Dep. Asst. Staff Dir. Disclosure GS-12 

Office Services Branch Disclosure Division

Support Services Supervisor GS-8 

Management Assistant GS-7 

Duplicating Equip. Operator GS-7 

Mail Clerk GS-6 

(3x) Administrative Aide GS-6 

Payroll and Accounting 

Accounting Officer GS-14 

Asst. Accounting Officer GS-13 

Systems Accountant GS-12 

(2x) Accounting Technician GS-9 

Disbursement Technician GS-9 

Accounting Technician GS-8 

Audit Team 1 

Audit Manager GS-13 

(2x) Auditor GS-13 

Auditor GS-12 

Audit Team 2 

Audit Manager GS-13 

(3x) Auditor GS-12 

Auditor GS-11 

Audit Team 3 

(2x) Auditor GS-12 

(2x) Auditor GS-11 

Audit Team 4 

Audit Manager GS-13 

Auditor GS-13 

(2x) Auditor GS-12 

Auditor GS-9 

Audit Team 5 

Audit Manager GS-13 

Auditor GS-12 

Auditor GS-11 

Audit Team 6 

Audit Manager GS-13 

Auditor GS-11 

(2x) Auditor GS-9 

Auditor GS-7 

Information Services Staff 

Deputy Asst. Staff Dir. GS-14 

Senior Public Affairs Spec. GS-13 

Senior Public Affairs Spec. GS-12 

(2x) Public Affairs Spec. GS-11 

(2x) Tech. Manual Writer/Editor GS-11 

Public Affairs Spec. GS-9 

Management Asst. (Typing) GS-7 

Reports Analysis Division 

Asst. Staff Director GS-15 

Deputy Asst. Staff Dir., R.A. GS-14 

Management Asst. GS-7 

Secretary (typing) GS-6 

Secretary (typing) GS-5 

Non Party/Party Branch 

Chief, Non Party/ 

Party Branch GS-13 

(3x) Sr. Reports Analyst GS-11 

(4x) Reports Analyst GS-9 

(2x) Reports Analyst GS-7 

(5x) Reports Analyst GS-5 

Authorized Committee Branch 

Chief, Authorized 

Committee Branch GS-13 

Senior Reports Analyst GS-11 

(5x) Reports Analyst GS-9 

(4x) Reports Analyst GS-7 

(2x) Reports Analyst GS-5 

File Room 

(2x) File Clerk GS-5 

(2x) Records Clerk 

(Typing) GS-3 

Compliance Branch 

Chief, Compliance Branch GS-13 

Sr. Compliance Analyst GS-11 

Compliance Analyst GS-7 

Compliance Assist. GS-5 

Compliance Analyst GS-5 

Public Records Branch 

Dep. Asst. Staff Dir. GS-12 

(2x) Public Info. Clerk GS-7 

(2x) Public Info. Clerk GS-6 

Public Info. Clerk GS-5 

File Clerk GS-4 

Processing Branch 

Dep. Asst. Staff Dir. GS-12 

Sr. Data Processing Clerk GS-7 

(2x) Data Processing Clerk GS-5 

Development 

Computer Sys. Analyst (Supv.) GS-14 

(5x) Computer Programmer GS-12 

Computer Spec./Instructor GS-12 

Computer Programmer GS-11 

Systems 

Supv. Computer Sys. Anal. GS-14 

Computer Spec. GS-13 

Computer Programmer GS-12 

Management Analyst GS-11 

Computer Programmer GS-9 

Management Asst. GS-9 

Data Entry Staff 

Chief of Data Entry GS-9 

(4x) Data Entry Clerk GS-5 

Analysis 

Supv. Statistician GS-14 

Computer Programmer GS-12 

Statistician GS-11 

Management Analyst GS-11 

Branch Manager GS-13 

(3x) Sr. Disclosure Data Spec. GS-8 

(7x) Disclosure Data Spec. GS-7 

(2x) Disclosure Data Spec. GS-6 

Data Coding 

Supv. Computer Spec. GS-14 

(4x) Computer Spec./Instructor GS-12 

User Support Spec. GS-11 

Computer Spec./User Support GS-9 

Training/Customer Support 

Federal Election Commission 

Office of the Staff Director

Note: Only full-time permanent positions identified. 

Source: FEC Staffing Report, September 25,1998 Appendix A-2
Federal Election Commission 

Office of General Counsel 

Commissioners 

Office of The General Counsel 

General Counsel EL-V 

Special Asst. to General Counsel GS-13 

Legal Info. System Manager GS-13 

Management Assistant GS-11 

Exec. Sec. to the General Counsel GS-11 

Administrative Asst. (typing) GS-7 

Admin. Clerk (typing) GS-5 

Assoc. General Counsel 

for Public Financing, Ethics, 

and Special Projects 

Assoc. General Counsel SL-0 

Special Assistant GS-12 

Executive Secretary GS-9 

Administrative Asst.(Typing) GS-7 

Team I 

Asst. General Counsel GS-15 

(4x) Attorney GS-14 

Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Team II 

Asst. General Counsel GS-15 

(4x) Attorney GS-14 

Paralegal Specialist GS-9 

PFESP Docket 

Special Asst. GC GS-15 

Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Paralegal Specialist GS-9 

Enforcement Team I 

Asst. General Counsel GS-15 

(2x) Attorney GS-14 

(3x) Attorney GS-13 

Law Clerk GS-11 

(2x) Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Legal Intern GS-7 

Legal Secretary (Typing) GS-7 

Enforcement Team II 

Asst. General Council Enforcement 

GS-15 

(2x) Attorney GS-14 

(2x) Attorney GS-13 

Attorney GS-12 

Law Clerk GS-11 

(2x) Paralegal Specialist GS-9 

Legal Secretary (Typing) GS-7 

Enforcement Team III 

Asst. Gen Counsel GS-15 

(3x) Attorney GS-14 

Attorney GS-13 

(2x) Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Legal Secretary (Typing) GS-7 

Asst. Gen Counsel GS-15 

(5x) Attorney GS-14 

Attorney GS-12 

(2x) Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Legal Secretary (Typing) GS-7 

Enforcement Team IV 

Central Enforcement Docket 

Supervisory Attorney (CED) GS-14 

Docket Manager GS-11 

(2x)Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

CED Assistant GS-9 

Docket Assistant (typing) GS-7 

Advisory Opinions and 

Legal Review FECA 

Senior Attorney GS-14 

Attorney GS-14 

Legal Review -

Administrative Law 

Asst. General Counsel - GS-15 

Attorney GS-14 

(2x) Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Regulations 

Asst. General Counsel - GS-15 

Senior Attorney GS-14 

(3x) Attorney GS-14 

Admin. Asst. GS-7 

Appelate Court Litigation 

(2x) Attorney GS-14 

District Court Litigation 

Asst. General Counsel GS-15 

Senior Attorney GS-14 

(2x) Attorney GS-14 

(3x) Attorney GS-13 

Paralegal Specialist GS-11 

Paralegal Specialist GS-9 

Legal Secretary (Typing) GS-7 

Assoc. General Counsel 

for Enforcement 

Assoc. General Counsel SL-0 

(2x) Investigator GS-13 

Special Assistant GS-12 

Executive Secretary GS-9 

Assoc. General Counsel 

for Policy 

Assoc. General Counsel SL-0 

Admin. Asst. (Typing) GS-7 

Assoc. General Counsel for 

Litigation 

Assoc. General Counsel SL-0 

Management Assistance GS-11 

Admin. Asst. (Typing) GS-7 

Library 

Library Director (Law) GS-13 

Library Technician GS-9 

Note: Only full-time permanent positions identified. 

Source: FEC Staffing Report, September 25,1998 Appendix A-3
Appendix B 

FEC “Regulated” Customer Satisfaction 

Survey and Tabulation 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Survey Methodology and Summary 

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) Customer 

Satisfaction Survey was designed to evaluate FEC 

effectiveness in providing information to the regulated 

community and in facilitating disclosure of campaign 

finance information. The questionnaire focused on specific 

FEC products, services, and processes and was administered 

by telephone to 353 randomly selected Congressional 

candidate committees, political party committees, and PACs 

that filed reports with the FEC during the 1997- 1998 

election cycle. These committees were selected from a list 

of all registered committees provided by the FEC, using a 

stratified random sample technique to assure a sufficient 

sample size for each major filer group. The 

PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center in 

Bethesda, Maryland, conducted the interviews during 

August and September 1998. Each committee was notified 

of the survey through a front-page article in the August issue 

of The Record. 

The results of the survey indicated that, overall, the 

regulated community is quite satisfied with the products and 

services provided by the Federal Election Commission. 

While the level of usage of these products and services 

varies, the degree of satisfaction is consistently positive. 

Moreover, surveyed filers generally perceive the 

Commission to be fair and nonpartisan. Details of the survey 

follow this narrative. Here are the notable findings from the 

survey: 

· Reporting Forms and Instructions. Four out of five (83%) 

believed that the instructions included with reporting 

forms were either “somewhat” or “very” clear. Only 7% 

said that they required a “great deal” of assistance in 

filing their FEC reporting forms, and a quarter (25%) did 

not need any assistance at all. 

· Reports Analysis Division (RAD) Staff. Nearly threequarters (72%) of all surveyed filers have contacted their 

assigned RAD staff person since January 1, 1997. Nine 

out of ten (92%) committees spending over $500,000 

report contacting RAD staff, while only six out of ten 

(60%) committees spending $50,000 or less report 

contacting their RAD staff person. On average, filers 

contacted their RAD staff person once per reporting 

period. 

RAD personnel were seen in positive terms. For 

example, 86% stated that the RAD staff always answer in 

a timely fashion, 80% agreed that RAD staff always 

answered questions accurately, and 67% stated that 

RAD staff always are available to respond to requests. 

Two-thirds (66%) of all filers report having received a 

Request for Additional Information (RFAI) since January 

1, 1997; however, only one-half (49%) of PACs report 

receiving an RFAI. Of those who received RFAIs, four 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix B- 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

out of five (82%) believed that the content of RFAIs is 

either “somewhat” or “very” clear. 

· Phone Calls to the FEC. One-half (51%) of all surveyed 

filers had called the FEC for reasons other than to discuss 

their reports, and, on average, they made two calls to the 

FEC during a reporting period. Reasons for calls to the 

FEC included obtaining information on laws and 

regulations (78%), ordering forms or publications (53%), 

obtaining public records about candidates or committees 

(25%), obtaining information about voting laws and 

election statistics (11%), and obtaining other information 

(17%). Of those surveyed filers who had called the FEC, 

nearly all (96%) agreed that the FEC staff person 

answered their questions accurately. Nine out of ten 

(92%) filers reported that their questions were answered 

within 24 hours of the call. 

· Publications. Nine out of ten (90%) surveyed filers were 

aware of the FEC newsletter, The Record, and almost 

half read it every month. 

Over three-quarters (76%) of sampled filers were aware 

of the FEC Campaign Guides. However, only two-thirds 

of PACs (65%) and small committees (67%) were aware 

of them. Almost nine out of ten (87%) surveyed filers 

believed that the Campaign Guides were either 

“somewhat” or “very” clear, and two out of five (42%) 

said that they are “very” helpful as a resource for 

completing disclosure reports. Political party 

committees, however, were less likely to view Campaign 

Guides as “very” helpful (19%). 

· Web Site. Only four out of ten (42%) surveyed filers had 

accessed the FEC World Wide Web site. Further, only 

three out of ten (29%) small committees had accessed 

the site, while six out of ten (61%) large committees had. 

Those filers who did access the Web site did so an 

average of two times per month. Reasons for accessing 

the Web site included to find campaign finance reports 

and statistics (71%), to get FEC forms and documents 

(55%), to obtain election results (32%), and to obtain 

FEC press releases (16%) and FEC publications (17%). 

Nine out of ten filers (91%) who have accessed the Web 

site said that information there was either “somewhat” or 

“very” accessible. 

· Enforcement Staff. Only 14% of surveyed filers had 

ever had any interaction with FEC enforcement staff. Of 

these, nearly three-quarters (73%) agreed that FEC 

enforcement staff operated in an independent, 

nonpartisan manner. Less than one out of five (18%) 

said that the written communications from the 

enforcement staff were either “somewhat” or “very” 

unclear. 

· Importance of Various Services. Among the various 

services mentioned, the RAD staff person and Campaign 

Guides were deemed either “somewhat” or “very” 

important by nine out of ten filers (93% and 92% 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix B- 2 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

respectively). Over half of the surveyed filers reported 

that they had never used the automated Faxline (54%) or 

the Public Records Office (52%) or that they had never 

attended an FEC conference or workshop (60%). 

Overall Assessment of the FEC 

Surveyed filers were quite positive in their assessments of the 

FEC, perhaps higher that one would have expected, given 

the strength of recent criticisms leveled at the FEC. On a 

scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means poor and 10 means 

excellent, they gave the FEC an average rating of 8. Three 

out of five rated the FEC as an 8 or higher. 

In general, surveyed filers perceived the FEC to be fair and 

impartial. However, large committees and political parties 

were more likely to disagree that the FEC fairly applies 

compliance laws (21% each) than committees as a whole 

(12%). 

Composition of the Sample 

A random, stratified sample was selected, based both on the 

type of committee and the amount of financial activity, to 

allow for comparisons between groups as well as to 

represent the population as a whole. From the 510 selected 

respondents, 353 completed interviews (69%). The 

distribution of the sampled respondents, by committee type, 

was Senate – 14%, House – 26%, PACs – 42%, and Party – 

18%. The distribution for the amount of spending by the 

respondents was 22% for committees spending more than 

$500,000, 33% for those spending between $50,000 and 

$500,000, and 45% for committees spending less than 

$50,000. 

The partisan representation in the sample was fairly evenly 

divided among Republicans and Democrats. Among 

candidate committees, 50% of the candidates were 

Republican, 45% Democrat, and 4% represent another 

party. Among political party committees, 45% were 

Republican, 42% Democrat, and 11% from other parties. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix B- 3 
Q1. Have you filed a report with the FEC since January 1, 1997? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 1 October 15, 1998 
Q2. On a scale from one to ten, where one means poor and ten means excellent, overall, how well do you think the FEC does its job? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

One to Four 5.9% 6.0% 5.5% 5.4% 7.9% 4.4% 7.8% 6.5% 

Five 7.4% 12.0% 4.4% 6.0% 11.1% 8.1% 3.4% 11.7% 

Six 9.3% 12.0% 9.9% 8.7% 7.9% 10.6% 6.0% 11.7% 

Seven 13.6% 12.0% 15.4% 11.4% 17.5% 13.1% 12.9% 15.6% 

Eight 32.0% 24.0% 34.1% 30.9% 38.1% 30.0% 38.8% 26.0% 

Nine 17.3% 22.0% 17.6% 18.8% 9.5% 18.1% 19.0% 13.0% 

Ten 10.8% 10.0% 9.9% 14.1% 4.8% 10.6% 11.2% 10.4% 

Don't know 3.1% 0.0% 3.3% 4.0% 3.2% 4.4% 0.9% 3.9% 

Refused 0.6% 2.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Average Rating 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 2 October 15, 1998 
Q3. How clear would you say the instructions included with reporting forms are? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very clear 34.6% 38.0% 35.2% 37.6% 23.8% 31.9% 37.1% 36.4% 

Somewhat clear 48.2% 42.0% 48.4% 50.3% 47.6% 48.1% 50.0% 45.5% 

Somewhat unclear 13.6% 16.0% 13.2% 7.4% 27.0% 15.0% 10.3% 15.6% 

Very unclear 2.3% 2.0% 2.2% 2.7% 1.6% 3.1% 1.7% 1.3% 

Neutral 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 1.4% 2.0% 1.1% 2.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9% 1.3% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 3 October 15, 1998 
Q4. In filing your FEC reporting forms, do you find that you need... 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

A great deal of assistance 6.5% 4.0% 5.5% 3.4% 17.5% 6.3% 5.2% 9.1% 

Some assistance 28.3% 46.0% 33.0% 18.8% 30.2% 22.5% 31.0% 36.4% 

Only a little assistance 39.7% 34.0% 41.8% 43.0% 33.3% 37.5% 42.2% 40.3% 

No assistance at all 24.6% 16.0% 19.8% 32.9% 19.0% 33.1% 19.8% 14.3% 

Don't know 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 4 October 15, 1998 
Q5. Have you ever contacted the staff person who reviews your reports? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 71.7% 72.0% 81.3% 64.4% 74.6% 60.0% 74.1% 92.2% 

No 27.5% 28.0% 18.7% 34.2% 23.8% 38.8% 25.0% 7.8% 

Don't know 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 5 October 15, 1998 
Q6. On average, how many times during a reporting period do you call the staff person who reviews your reports? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Less than 1 time 14.6% 11.1% 12.2% 20.8% 8.5% 17.7% 15.1% 9.9% 

1 time 58.5% 52.8% 56.8% 57.3% 68.1% 62.5% 52.3% 60.6% 

2 - 3 times 19.8% 27.8% 28.4% 13.5% 12.8% 15.6% 23.3% 21.1% 

More than 3 times 5.9% 8.3% 2.7% 6.3% 8.5% 3.1% 8.1% 7.0% 

Don't know 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.1% 0.0% 1.2% 1.4% 

Refused 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Average Number of Times 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 

Sample Size* 253 36 74 96 47 96 86 71 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 5. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 6 October 15, 1998 
Q7. How often is this staff person available to respond to your requests? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Always 67.2% 69.4% 66.2% 66.7% 68.1% 62.5% 72.1% 67.6% 

Sometimes 28.9% 25.0% 27.0% 30.2% 31.9% 34.4% 23.3% 28.2% 

Rarely 2.0% 5.6% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 4.2% 

Never 0.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 0.0% 

Don't know 1.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 1.2% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 253 36 74 96 47 96 86 71 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 5. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 7 October 15, 1998 
Q8. How often does this staff person answer your questions accurately? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Always 79.8% 83.3% 81.1% 81.3% 72.3% 84.4% 81.4% 71.8% 

Sometimes 15.8% 16.7% 13.5% 13.5% 23.4% 11.5% 12.8% 25.4% 

Rarely 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Never 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 

Don't know 3.6% 0.0% 5.4% 3.1% 4.3% 3.1% 4.7% 2.8% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 253 36 74 96 47 96 86 71 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 5. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 8 October 15, 1998 
Q9. How often does this staff person answer your questions in a timely manner? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Always 86.2% 86.1% 86.5% 84.4% 89.4% 86.5% 84.9% 87.3% 

Sometimes 11.5% 8.3% 10.8% 13.5% 10.6% 11.5% 12.8% 9.9% 

Rarely 1.2% 5.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 

Never 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 1.2% 0.0% 1.4% 2.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 253 36 74 96 47 96 86 71 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 5. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 9 October 15, 1998 
Q10. Have you received a Request for Additional Information or RFAI since January 1, 1997? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 66.3% 80.0% 80.2% 49.0% 76.2% 48.1% 76.7% 88.3% 

No 29.7% 14.0% 16.5% 47.7% 19.0% 44.4% 23.3% 9.1% 

Don't know 4.0% 6.0% 3.3% 3.4% 4.8% 7.5% 0.0% 2.6% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 10 October 15, 1998 
Q11. In your opinion, how clear is the content of RFAIs? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very clear 42.7% 40.0% 42.5% 50.7% 33.3% 41.6% 50.6% 33.8% 

Somewhat clear 39.3% 45.0% 34.2% 37.0% 45.8% 39.0% 36.0% 44.1% 

Somewhat unclear 13.2% 12.5% 16.4% 8.2% 16.7% 14.3% 9.0% 17.6% 

Very unclear 4.7% 2.5% 6.8% 4.1% 4.2% 5.2% 4.5% 4.4% 

Neutral 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 234 40 73 73 48 77 89 68 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 10. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 11 October 15, 1998 
Q12. Other than to discuss your reports, have you ever called the FEC? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 50.7% 56.0% 56.0% 45.6% 50.8% 35.6% 61.2% 66.2% 

No 49.3% 44.0% 44.0% 54.4% 49.2% 64.4% 38.8% 33.8% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 12 October 15, 1998 
Q13. Other than to discuss your reports, on average, how many times during a reporting period do you call the FEC? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Less than 1 time 19.8% 7.1% 15.7% 28.8% 18.8% 28.6% 21.4% 7.8% 

1 time 48.6% 53.6% 49.0% 43.9% 53.1% 42.9% 47.1% 56.9% 

2 - 3 times 21.5% 28.6% 25.5% 15.2% 21.9% 19.6% 21.4% 23.5% 

More than 3 times 9.6% 10.7% 9.8% 10.6% 6.3% 7.1% 10.0% 11.8% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Average Number of Times 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 

Sample Size* 177 28 51 66 32 56 70 51 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 12. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 13 October 15, 1998 
Q14. Please tell me for which of the following reasons you have called the FEC since January 1, 1997. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political 

Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Obtain information on campaign finance 

laws and FEC regulations 77.7% 78.6% 82.4% 79.4% 65.6% 66.7% 87.3% 76.5% 

Order forms or publications 52.5% 50.0% 49.0% 52.9% 59.4% 45.6% 53.5% 58.8% 

Obtain public records about specific 

candidates or committees 24.6% 25.0% 25.5% 22.1% 28.1% 7.0% 28.2% 39.2% 

Obtain information about voting and 

registration laws or election statistics 10.6% 10.7% 7.8% 10.3% 15.6% 8.8% 12.7% 9.8% 

Other 16.8% 21.4% 19.6% 13.2% 15.6% 14.0% 15.5% 21.6% 

Don't know 2.2% 0.0% 2.0% 1.5% 6.3% 5.3% 0.0% 2.0% 

Refused 0.6% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 

Total **   **  **   **  

Sample Size 179* 28 51 68 32 57 71 51 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 12. 

**Totals may not add to 100% because respondents could select multiple answers. 

Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

† 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 14 October 15, 1998 
Q15. Other than to discuss your reports, what was the reason for your most recent phone call? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political 

Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Obtain information on campaign finance 

laws and FEC regulations 52.5% 57.1% 64.7% 48.5% 37.5% 49.1% 62.0% 43.1% 

Order forms or publications 19.6% 17.9% 11.8% 19.1% 34.4% 21.1% 14.1% 25.5% 

Obtain public records about specific 

candidates or committees 8.9% 3.6% 5.9% 13.2% 9.4% 7.0% 9.9% 9.8% 

Obtain information about voting and 

registration laws or election statistics 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 3.1% 0.0% 1.4% 2.0% 

Other 15.1% 21.4% 11.8% 14.7% 15.6% 21.1% 7.0% 19.6% 

Don't know 2.2% 0.0% 3.9% 2.9% 0.0% 1.8% 4.2% 0.0% 

Refused 0.6% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 179 28 51 68 32 57 71 51 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 12. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 15 October 15, 1998 
Q16. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with the following statement: When I called, the FEC staff person 

answered my questions accurately. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 70.4% 64.3% 72.5% 73.5% 65.6% 73.7% 77.5% 56.9% 

Agree somewhat 25.7% 32.1% 17.6% 25.0% 34.4% 21.1% 19.7% 39.2% 

Disagree somewhat 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Disagree strongly 1.7% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.9% 

Not applicable 0.6% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 1.7% 0.0% 3.9% 1.5% 0.0% 3.5% 1.4% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 179 28 51 68 32 57 71 51 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 12. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 16 October 15, 1998 
Q17. When you called, did the FEC staff member respond to your request... 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

During the same call 54.7% 46.4% 56.9% 63.2% 40.6% 54.4% 53.5% 56.9% 

Within 24 hours of your call 37.4% 46.4% 33.3% 30.9% 50.0% 33.3% 38.0% 41.2% 

More than 24 hours after your 

call 4.5% 3.6% 7.8% 2.9% 3.1% 7.0% 4.2% 2.0% 

Don't know 3.4% 3.6% 2.0% 2.9% 6.3% 5.3% 4.2% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 179 28 51 68 32 57 71 51 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 12. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 17 October 15, 1998 
Q18. Are you aware of the FEC's newsletter called The Record? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 90.4% 86.0% 90.1% 89.3% 96.8% 88.1% 92.2% 92.2% 

No 9.3% 14.0% 8.8% 10.7% 3.2% 11.3% 7.8% 7.8% 

Don't know 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 18 October 15, 1998 
Q19. On average, how often do you read The Record? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Every month 48.6% 55.8% 41.5% 52.6% 44.3% 35.5% 57.0% 62.0% 

Every other month 14.1% 16.3% 15.9% 9.8% 19.7% 12.1% 18.7% 11.3% 

Only a few times per year 21.0% 16.3% 20.7% 24.1% 18.0% 28.4% 13.1% 18.3% 

Almost never 14.1% 11.6% 18.3% 11.3% 16.4% 21.3% 8.4% 8.5% 

Don't know 2.2% 0.0% 3.7% 2.3% 1.6% 2.8% 2.8% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 319 43 82 133 61 141 107 71 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 18. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 19 October 15, 1998 
Q20. Have you ever used the FEC Campaign Guide? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 75.9% 92.0% 84.6% 65.1% 76.2% 66.9% 81.9% 85.7% 

No 22.7% 8.0% 13.2% 33.6% 22.2% 31.3% 18.1% 11.7% 

Don't know 1.4% 0.0% 2.2% 1.3% 1.6% 1.9% 0.0% 2.6% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 20 October 15, 1998 
Q21. How clear would you say the Campaign Guide is? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very clear 33.6% 30.4% 32.5% 41.2% 22.9% 29.9% 38.9% 31.8% 

Somewhat clear 53.0% 56.5% 51.9% 49.5% 58.3% 54.2% 51.6% 53.0% 

Somewhat unclear 11.6% 13.0% 14.3% 7.2% 14.6% 13.1% 7.4% 15.2% 

Very unclear 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 4.2% 0.9% 2.1% 0.0% 

Don't know 0.7% 0.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 268 46 77 97 48 107 95 66 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 20. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 21 October 15, 1998 
Q22. How helpful is the Campaign Guide as a resource for completing your disclosure reports? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very helpful 42.2% 47.8% 49.4% 45.4% 18.8% 41.1% 45.3% 39.4% 

Somewhat helpful 48.1% 45.7% 44.2% 43.3% 66.7% 43.9% 50.5% 51.5% 

Not very helpful 5.6% 2.2% 3.9% 7.2% 8.3% 9.3% 3.2% 3.0% 

Not at all helpful 2.2% 0.0% 1.3% 2.1% 6.3% 2.8% 1.1% 3.0% 

Don't use Campaign Guide as 

a resource 1.9% 4.3% 1.3% 2.1% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 3.0% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 268 46 77 97 48 107 95 66 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 20. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 22 October 15, 1998 
Q23. Have you ever accessed the FEC's world wide web site? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 41.9% 32.0% 49.5% 41.6% 39.7% 29.4% 46.6% 61.0% 

No 57.8% 66.0% 50.5% 58.4% 60.3% 70.6% 52.6% 39.0% 

Don't know 0.3% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 23 October 15, 1998 
Q24. On average, how many times per month do you access the FEC web site? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Less than 1 time 18.9% 6.3% 17.8% 22.6% 20.0% 29.8% 18.5% 8.5% 

1 time 48.6% 56.3% 46.7% 53.2% 36.0% 53.2% 51.9% 40.4% 

2 - 3 times 17.6% 18.8% 24.4% 8.1% 28.0% 6.4% 20.4% 25.5% 

More than 3 times 12.8% 18.8% 8.9% 12.9% 16.0% 6.4% 9.3% 23.4% 

Don't know 2.0% 0.0% 2.2% 3.2% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 2.1% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Average Number of Times 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 5 

Sample Size* 148 16† 45 62 25 47 54 47 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 23. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 24 October 15, 1998 
Q25. Which of the following FEC website features have you accessed? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political 

Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

FEC publications such as The Record 16.9% 18.8% 15.6% 16.1% 20.0% 17.0% 20.4% 12.8% 

Agency press releases 16.2% 12.5% 13.3% 19.4% 16.0% 17.0% 18.5% 12.8% 

Election results, voter registration 

information, or turnout statistics 32.4% 25.0% 37.8% 30.6% 32.0% 34.0% 35.2% 27.7% 

Official FEC forms or documents 54.7% 43.8% 57.8% 53.2% 60.0% 63.8% 48.1% 53.2% 

Campaign finance reports or statistics 70.9% 62.5% 75.6% 62.9% 88.0% 57.4% 81.5% 72.3% 

Don't know 5.4% 6.3% 6.7% 4.8% 4.0% 8.5% 3.7% 4.3% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total **   **  **   **  

Sample Size* 148 16† 45 62 25 47 54 47 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 23. 

**Totals may not add to 100% because respondents could select multiple answers. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 25 October 15, 1998 
Q26. How accessible is information on the FEC website? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very accessible 50.7% 56.3% 51.1% 53.2% 40.0% 57.4% 48.1% 46.8% 

Somewhat accessible 40.5% 37.5% 40.0% 35.5% 56.0% 31.9% 42.6% 46.8% 

Not very accessible 4.7% 6.3% 2.2% 6.5% 4.0% 2.1% 7.4% 4.3% 

Not at all accessible 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 4.1% 0.0% 6.7% 4.8% 0.0% 8.5% 1.9% 2.1% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 148 16† 45 62 25 47 54 47 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 23. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 26 October 15, 1998 
Q27. Have you ever had any interaction with the FEC enforcement staff? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 13.9% 14.0% 12.1% 14.8% 14.3% 11.3% 15.5% 16.9% 

No 80.2% 82.0% 78.0% 81.2% 79.4% 83.1% 78.4% 76.6% 

Don't know 5.9% 4.0% 9.9% 4.0% 6.3% 5.6% 6.0% 6.5% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 27 October 15, 1998 
Q28. Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: The FEC enforcement staff operate in an 

independent, nonpartisan manner. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 57.1% 28.6% 72.7% 54.5% 66.7% 50.0% 66.7% 53.8% 

Agree somewhat 16.3% 28.6% 9.1% 18.2% 11.1% 16.7% 11.1% 23.1% 

Disagree somewhat 12.2% 14.3% 9.1% 13.6% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 15.4% 

Disagree strongly 2.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 

Don't know 12.2% 28.6% 0.0% 13.6% 11.1% 22.2% 11.1% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 49 7† 11† 22† 9

† 18† 18† 13† 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 27. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 28 October 15, 1998 
Q29. How clear were the written communications you received from the FEC enforcement staff? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very clear 55.1% 71.4% 45.5% 63.6% 33.3% 61.1% 50.0% 53.8% 

Somewhat clear 24.5% 14.3% 36.4% 18.2% 33.3% 11.1% 38.9% 23.1% 

Somewhat unclear 16.3% 0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 15.4% 

Very unclear 2.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 49 7† 11† 22† 9

† 18† 18† 13† 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 27. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 29 October 15, 1998 
Q30. Has the issue raised by the FEC or another party been resolved? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 79.6% 71.4% 63.6% 95.5% 66.7% 77.8% 77.8% 84.6% 

No 18.4% 28.6% 36.4% 4.5% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 7.7% 

Don't know 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 49 7† 11† 22† 9

† 18† 18† 13† 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 27. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 30 October 15, 1998 
Q31. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The staff person who reviews your reports? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 55.2% 60.0% 65.9% 47.7% 54.0% 47.5% 58.6% 66.2% 

Somewhat important 23.5% 22.0% 19.8% 24.8% 27.0% 22.5% 25.9% 22.1% 

Not very important 4.0% 4.0% 3.3% 4.7% 3.2% 3.8% 2.6% 6.5% 

Not at all important 1.1% 0.0% 3.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 1.7% 1.3% 

Have not used the service 15.6% 14.0% 6.6% 21.5% 15.9% 25.0% 10.3% 3.9% 

Don't know 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 31 October 15, 1998 
Q32. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The public affairs specialist who answers questions regarding 

the law? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 33.4% 38.0% 39.6% 32.9% 22.2% 25.0% 41.4% 39.0% 

Somewhat important 20.7% 26.0% 18.7% 20.8% 19.0% 18.1% 19.8% 27.3% 

Not very important 3.1% 6.0% 4.4% 1.3% 3.2% 3.8% 2.6% 2.6% 

Not at all important 1.7% 2.0% 4.4% 0.7% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3% 

Have not used the service 38.5% 26.0% 29.7% 40.9% 55.6% 51.3% 29.3% 26.0% 

Don't know 2.3% 2.0% 3.3% 2.7% 0.0% 0.6% 4.3% 2.6% 

Refused 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 32 October 15, 1998 
Q33. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The automated Faxline for obtaining FEC information? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 15.9% 24.0% 23.1% 8.1% 17.5% 13.1% 19.8% 15.6% 

Somewhat important 17.8% 14.0% 20.9% 20.1% 11.1% 16.9% 13.8% 26.0% 

Not very important 7.9% 14.0% 6.6% 7.4% 6.3% 5.0% 10.3% 10.4% 

Not at all important 3.4% 0.0% 6.6% 2.0% 4.8% 3.8% 3.4% 2.6% 

Have not used the service 54.4% 44.0% 42.9% 62.4% 60.3% 61.3% 51.7% 44.2% 

Don't know 0.6% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 33 October 15, 1998 
Q34. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The FEC newsletter, The Record? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 17.8% 18.0% 16.5% 18.8% 17.5% 15.6% 22.4% 15.6% 

Somewhat important 52.1% 44.0% 46.2% 56.4% 57.1% 50.0% 53.4% 54.5% 

Not very important 15.6% 22.0% 16.5% 12.1% 17.5% 17.5% 12.1% 16.9% 

Not at all important 5.4% 2.0% 13.2% 2.7% 3.2% 5.6% 4.3% 6.5% 

Have not used the service 8.8% 14.0% 6.6% 10.1% 4.8% 10.6% 7.8% 6.5% 

Don't know 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 34 October 15, 1998 
Q35. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: FEC Campaign Guides? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 45.0% 50.0% 53.8% 38.9% 42.9% 35.6% 52.6% 53.2% 

Somewhat important 33.4% 36.0% 36.3% 30.9% 33.3% 35.0% 32.8% 31.2% 

Not very important 5.1% 8.0% 1.1% 6.0% 6.3% 5.0% 4.3% 6.5% 

Not at all important 1.4% 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 1.6% 1.3% 1.7% 1.3% 

Have not used the service 14.4% 4.0% 7.7% 21.5% 15.9% 22.5% 8.6% 6.5% 

Don't know 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 35 October 15, 1998 
Q36. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The Public Records Office? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 17.8% 18.0% 18.7% 16.1% 20.6% 11.3% 18.1% 31.2% 

Somewhat important 20.4% 28.0% 22.0% 18.1% 17.5% 20.6% 21.6% 18.2% 

Not very important 5.4% 6.0% 6.6% 6.0% 1.6% 3.8% 4.3% 10.4% 

Not at all important 2.8% 2.0% 2.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.1% 2.6% 2.6% 

Have not used the service 51.8% 46.0% 46.2% 55.7% 55.6% 60.0% 52.6% 33.8% 

Don't know 1.7% 0.0% 4.4% 0.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 3.9% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 36 October 15, 1998 
Q37. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: FEC conferences and workshops? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 16.4% 16.0% 17.6% 14.8% 19.0% 8.8% 23.3% 22.1% 

Somewhat important 13.9% 14.0% 16.5% 12.1% 14.3% 8.8% 16.4% 20.8% 

Not very important 6.8% 8.0% 8.8% 4.7% 7.9% 6.3% 5.2% 10.4% 

Not at all important 2.3% 2.0% 3.3% 2.0% 1.6% 3.1% 0.9% 2.6% 

Have not used the service 60.3% 60.0% 53.8% 65.8% 57.1% 72.5% 54.3% 44.2% 

Don't know 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 37 October 15, 1998 
Q38. How important is the following service in helping you comply with federal election law: The FEC world wide web site? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very important 18.1% 10.0% 15.4% 18.8% 27.0% 15.6% 16.4% 26.0% 

Somewhat important 23.2% 18.0% 30.8% 25.5% 11.1% 19.4% 26.7% 26.0% 

Not very important 4.5% 6.0% 5.5% 4.7% 1.6% 2.5% 6.9% 5.2% 

Not at all important 4.2% 4.0% 8.8% 1.3% 4.8% 3.8% 2.6% 7.8% 

Have not used the service 49.0% 62.0% 38.5% 49.0% 54.0% 57.5% 46.6% 35.1% 

Don't know 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 38 October 15, 1998 
Q39. Please tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: The FEC conducts 

business during hours that are convenient to me. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 55.0% 60.0% 46.2% 60.4% 50.8% 50.6% 59.5% 57.1% 

Agree somewhat 30.6% 34.0% 33.0% 27.5% 31.7% 34.4% 29.3% 24.7% 

Disagree somewhat 8.5% 4.0% 12.1% 6.7% 11.1% 8.1% 8.6% 9.1% 

Disagree strongly 3.7% 2.0% 8.8% 0.7% 4.8% 2.5% 2.6% 7.8% 

Neutral 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 

Don't know 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.0% 1.6% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 39 October 15, 1998 
Q40. Agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: Overall, FEC staff demonstrate a sincere interest 

in solving my election law problems. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 61.5% 60.0% 65.9% 59.7% 60.3% 56.9% 71.6% 55.8% 

Agree somewhat 29.5% 28.0% 23.1% 32.9% 31.7% 33.8% 20.7% 33.8% 

Disagree somewhat 4.2% 6.0% 6.6% 2.7% 3.2% 2.5% 3.4% 9.1% 

Disagree strongly 2.0% 6.0% 2.2% 0.7% 1.6% 1.9% 2.6% 1.3% 

Neutral 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 2.8% 0.0% 2.2% 4.0% 3.2% 5.0% 1.7% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 40 October 15, 1998 
Q41. Please tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: Overall, FEC staff are 

courteous. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 71.7% 66.0% 75.8% 71.8% 69.8% 69.4% 73.3% 74.0% 

Agree somewhat 22.7% 28.0% 16.5% 22.8% 27.0% 22.5% 23.3% 22.1% 

Disagree somewhat 2.0% 2.0% 5.5% 0.7% 0.0% 2.5% 0.9% 2.6% 

Disagree strongly 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Neutral 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 3.4% 4.0% 1.1% 4.7% 3.2% 5.0% 2.6% 1.3% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 41 October 15, 1998 
Q42. Please tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: Overall, FEC staff 

operate in an independent, nonpartisan manner. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 56.4% 62.0% 54.9% 57.7% 50.8% 54.4% 59.5% 55.8% 

Agree somewhat 25.8% 20.0% 24.2% 27.5% 28.6% 25.0% 25.9% 27.3% 

Disagree somewhat 4.2% 6.0% 5.5% 1.3% 7.9% 4.4% 1.7% 7.8% 

Disagree strongly 2.3% 2.0% 4.4% 1.3% 1.6% 1.3% 4.3% 1.3% 

Neutral 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 1.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 1.3% 

Don't know 10.5% 10.0% 9.9% 10.7% 11.1% 14.4% 7.8% 6.5% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 42 October 15, 1998 
Q43. Please tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree strongly with the following statement: The FEC as an 

institution fairly applies compliance laws. 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Agree strongly 38.2% 38.0% 38.5% 43.0% 27.0% 36.9% 41.4% 36.4% 

Agree somewhat 31.2% 32.0% 25.3% 31.5% 38.1% 30.6% 31.0% 32.5% 

Disagree somewhat 6.5% 8.0% 8.8% 4.0% 7.9% 5.0% 6.0% 10.4% 

Disagree strongly 5.7% 8.0% 6.6% 1.3% 12.7% 3.1% 6.0% 10.4% 

Neutral 1.1% 4.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9% 0.0% 

Don't know 17.0% 10.0% 18.7% 19.5% 14.3% 22.5% 14.7% 9.1% 

Refused 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 43 October 15, 1998 
Q44. What is your title or role in the committee? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Treasurer / Assistant 

Treasurer 49.6% 58.0% 56.0% 48.3% 36.5% 60.0% 46.6% 32.5% 

Executive Director 6.5% 2.0% 2.2% 4.7% 20.6% 2.5% 8.6% 11.7% 

Manager / Administrator 5.9% 6.0% 5.5% 8.7% 0.0% 3.1% 6.9% 10.4% 

Bookkeeper / Comptroller 5.4% 6.0% 4.4% 5.4% 6.3% 3.8% 4.3% 10.4% 

Administrative Assistant / 

Staff Assistant 2.8% 0.0% 2.2% 5.4% 0.0% 4.4% 2.6% 0.0% 

Attorney / Accountant 4.2% 0.0% 1.1% 7.4% 4.8% 3.8% 5.2% 3.9% 

Finance Director 4.2% 8.0% 2.2% 1.3% 11.1% 1.9% 5.2% 7.8% 

Candidate 3.1% 6.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.9% 1.3% 

Other 17.6% 14.0% 16.5% 18.1% 20.6% 15.0% 19.0% 20.8% 

Don't know 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.3% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 44 October 15, 1998 
Q45. How long have you been working with this committee with the responsibility for filing FEC reports? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

1 year or less 21.8% 26.0% 35.2% 13.4% 19.0% 23.1% 18.1% 24.7% 

1 - 3 years 33.1% 34.0% 30.8% 34.9% 31.7% 35.0% 30.2% 33.8% 

3 - 5 years 16.4% 16.0% 8.8% 20.8% 17.5% 16.9% 18.1% 13.0% 

More than 5 years 28.6% 24.0% 25.3% 30.9% 31.7% 25.0% 33.6% 28.6% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 45 October 15, 1998 
Q46. Have you ever tried to use the FEC's electronic filing system? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Yes 5.9% 2.0% 5.5% 7.4% 6.3% 4.4% 8.6% 5.2% 

No 93.8% 98.0% 94.5% 91.9% 93.7% 95.0% 91.4% 94.8% 

Don't know 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 46 October 15, 1998 
Q47. Would you say the FEC's electronic filing system is very easy-to-use, somewhat easy-to-use, not very easy-to-use, or not at all easy-to-use? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Very easy-to-use 28.6% ** ** 36.4% ** 28.6% 30.0% ** 

Somewhat easy-to-use 19.0%   27.3% **  28.6% 10.0% ** 

Not very easy-to-use 9.5%   9.1% **  14.3% 10.0% ** 

Not at all easy-to-use 33.3%   18.2% **  28.6% 30.0% ** 

Don't know 9.5%   9.1% **  0.0% 20.0% ** 

Refused 0.0%   0.0% **  0.0% 0.0% ** 

Total 100.0%   100.0% **  100.0% 100.0% ** 

Sample Size* 21† 1 5 11† 4 7

† 10† 4 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Yes' to question 46. 

**Results based on sample sizes of five or less are not reported. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 47 October 15, 1998 
Q48. Do you represent a candidate committee, a political party committee, or a Political Action Committee? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Candidate Committee 39.4% 98.0% 98.9% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 40.5% 46.8% 

Political Party Committee 17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.4% 12.5% 18.1% 27.3% 

Political Action Committee 41.9% 0.0% 0.0% 99.3% 0.0% 50.6% 40.5% 26.0% 

Don't know 0.6% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.9% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size 353 50 91 149 63 160 116 77 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 48 October 15, 1998 
Q49. CANDIDATE COMMITTEE: Is the candidate your committee represents a Republican, Democrat, or from some other political party? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Republican 50.0% 49.0% 50.6% -- -- 34.5% 61.7% 58.3% 

Democrat 44.9% 46.9% 43.8% -- -- 52.7% 38.3% 41.7% 

Other 4.3% 4.1% 4.5% -- -- 10.9% 0.0% 0.0% 

Don't know 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Refused 0.7% 0.0% 1.1% -- -- 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% -- -- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 138 49 89 -- -- 55 47 36 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Candidate Committee' to question 48. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 49 October 15, 1998 
Q50. PARTY COMMITTEE: Which party does your committee represent? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

Republican 45.2% -- -- -- 45.2% 45.0% 33.3% 57.1% 

Democrat 41.9% -- -- -- 41.9% 25.0% 66.7% 33.3% 

Other 11.3% -- -- -- 11.3% 30.0% 0.0% 4.8% 

Don't know 1.6% -- -- -- 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 

Refused 0.0% -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% -- -- -- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 62 -- -- -- 62 20† 21† 21† 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Political Party Committee' to question 48. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 50 October 15, 1998 
Q51. PAC: Which best describes the Political Action Committee you represent? 

All 

Type of Committee Amount of Spending 

Candidate Committee Political Action 

Committee 

Political Party 

Committee

Less than or 

Equal to 

$50,000 

$50,000 -

$500,000 

More than 

$500,000 Senate House 

A PAC for a corporation 46.9% -- -- 46.9% -- 51.3% 46.8% 30.0% 

A PAC for a labor union 10.2% -- -- 10.2% -- 6.3% 4.3% 40.0% 

A membership or trade 

association 23.8% -- -- 23.8% -- 26.3% 27.7% 5.0% 

An issue organization or nonconnected PAC 15.0% -- -- 15.0% -- 12.5% 14.9% 25.0% 

Other 2.0% -- -- 2.0% -- 1.3% 4.3% 0.0% 

Don't know 2.0% -- -- 2.0% -- 2.5% 2.1% 0.0% 

Refused 0.0% -- -- 0.0% -- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Total 100.0% -- -- 100.0% -- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sample Size* 147 -- -- 147 -- 80 47 20† 

*Sample sizes based on those who responded 'Political Action Committee' to question 48. 

† Results based on sample sizes of less than 25 may be too small for drawing statistical conclusions. Therefore, caution should be used when basing 

conclusions on these data. 

FEC Customer Survey PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey Research Center 

Final Tabulations 51 October 15, 1998 
Appendix C 

FEC Program Process Maps and 

Narratives 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

1.0 Public Disclosure Division 

Process Customers 

Internal: Other FEC Offices 

External: Filers, Public, Clerk of the House, Secretary of the 

Senate 

Process Descriptions 

The Public Disclosure Division is divided into two offices: 

Processing and Public Records. Together they are 

responsible for the following mapped processes: Processing 

Campaign Finance Reports (1.1), Processing Agency 

Documents (1.2), Processing Internal Agency Documents 

(1.3), and Responding to Information Requests (1.4). Other 

division responsibilities include placing documents on the 

public record, developing intra-agency publications, 

conducting various administrative processes, answering 

requests from other agencies, and participating in the State 

relations program. These processes were not mapped 

because they represent a small portion of the total workload 

or because they typically are not process driven. 

1.1 Processing Campaign Finance Reports was separated 

into two subprocesses, one for FEC filers and one for Senate 

filers. Senate filers send their campaign finance reports to the 

Secretary of the Senate, while all other filers, including the 

House of Representatives candidates, send their finance 

reports directly to the FEC. 

Processing Campaign Finance Reports for FEC filers begins 

when a filer sends an original campaign finance document 

to the FEC. The FEC Mailroom usually receives the 

document, and the document is forwarded to the Processing 

Office (1.1.1). The Processing Office prepares the document 

for scanning and microfilming (1.1.2). The document is 

scanned/filmed (1.1.3). Processing then reassembles the 

original documents and forwards it to Data Systems for entry 

and coding (1.1.4). 

Processing Campaign Finance Reports for Senate filers 

begins when the Secretary of the Senate forwards paper or 

microfilmed Senate documents to the FEC. The Processing 

Office receives the documents and logs in their receipt. If 

the documents are paper, the Processing Office forwards the 

documents to Public Records, which makes the documents 

available for public viewing. In addition, one paper copy of 

the documents is sent to Data Systems for entry and coding. 

If the documents are microfilm, the Processing Office splices 

the microfilm so that each office has a complete copy of the 

documents. The Processing Office then makes paper copies 

of the spliced microfilm. Processing then sends one paper 

copy to Public Records and one paper copy to Data Systems 

for coding. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C1- 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

1.1.1 Receiving Campaign Finance Reports begins when 

FEC filers send their disclosure reports to the FEC. Reports 

can be in several forms: paper, disk Version 1, disk Version 

2, faxed, or via the Internet. The Processing Office processes 

reports that are faxed or hardcopy. Data Systems processes 

reports filed on diskettes or electronically through the 

Internet. 

The Processing Office receives documents from several 

sources, including the Mailroom, other FEC Offices, the 

Clerk of the House, and Public Records. The Mailroom 

receives any mailed or hand-delivered documents. Upon 

receipt, the Mailroom opens envelopes, time- stamps the 

document, paperclips envelope to document, and delivers 

documents to the Processing Office. If the Mailroom is 

closed (after hours), Public Records receives hand deliveries 

and forwards them to the Processing Office. If another FEC 

Office (usually RAD) receives a campaign finance report or 

an amendment to a campaign finance report (sometimes 

reports are addressed to a RAD analyst), the office forwards 

the document to the Processing Office. If filers send House 

reports to the Clerk of the House, the prior point-of-entry for 

House Reports, FEC couriers bring the reports to the FEC, 

and the 48-hour deadline begins when the reports are 

received at the FEC. The Processing Office receives faxed 

reports directly. 

The Data Systems Division (Data Systems) receives all 

electronic filings, which include disks. Data Systems uploads 

the disks, prints the documents, and forwards paper copies 

to the Processing Office, unless the electronic filing is a 

Version 2 disk or filed via the Internet. (See Data Systems 

Division map, 2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports 

(electronic) for a complete description of the process). 

Processing staff log in receipt of all documents and place 

documents in Processing’s in-box for document preparation 

(1.1.2). 

1.1.2 Preparing Documents begins when a processing clerk 

removes the documents from the Processing in-box and 

screens them. If the documents are Senate filings, the clerk 

forwards them to the Secretary of the Senate, the appropriate 

point-of-entry for Senate documents. If the documents are 

not for the public record, then the Processing Office delivers 

documents to appropriate offices. If reports are FEC filings 

and are for the public record, the clerk separates reports by 

type of filer. The clerk separates documents by House filers 

and FEC Party/Non-Party filers so that the House documents 

can be printed and made available to the public as soon as 

possible. The clerk then prepares the documents for 

scanning by removing staples and separating multiple 

documents. Since the envelope is difficult to pass through 

the scanner, the clerk takes the relevant information on the 

envelope and completes the envelope replacement page, 

which is placed in back of each document. At this point, a 

processing clerk conducts a quality check by ensuring that 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C1- 2 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

all documents are separated. The documents are ready to 

scan and film (1.1.3). 

1.1.3 Scanning and Filming Documents begins when the 

scanner operator sets the 990 Scanner. This includes logging 

onto the computer system, setting up scan/film functions, 

calibrating the system, and setting frame numbers. Before 

and after scanning, the operator enters data into logbook: 

date, operator name, filer name, and batch and image 

numbers. The operator operates the scanner and conducts 

random spot checks to ensure quality scanning. The 

operator scans batches and places the documents on a table 

for Post-Processing (1.1.4). 

1.1.4 Post-Processing Documents begins after the 

documents are scanned, and the operator conducts a quality 

check of imprint numbers to ensure that each page has been 

scanned. 

The clerk reassembles and staples each original, counts the 

number of documents, and records this number in a log. The 

clerk prints the House reports and forwards them to Public 

Records for public viewing. The Processing Office delivers 

originals to Data Systems for entry and coding. 

Post-Processing also includes processing of the microfilm. 

The clerk cuts the film and boxes it for messenger pickup. 

The messenger picks up the film and delivers it to the 

developer. Overnight, the developer develops the film and 

makes copies. The next day, the Processing Office checks 

the quality of the film and splices nine copies of each roll so 

that each Office can have a complete copy of the 

documents. The Processing Office delivers the film to 

various FEC Offices, including Data Systems, RAD, OGC, 

Press Office, and Public Records. Meanwhile, the clerk 

checks the scan log. If there are errors, the clerk works with 

other FEC offices to resolve any entries on the Error Report. If 

there are no errors, the clerk takes no further action. 

1.2 Processing Agency Documents begins when Public 

Records receives paper documents from various FEC offices. 

The source of the documents can be OGC, Audit, Staff 

Director, Press Office, or the Information Division. 

Documents include Matters Under Review (MURs), audits, 

advisory opinions, meeting documents, litigation 

documents, matching fund submissions, commission 

directives, commission bulletins, publications, Sunshine Act 

Notices, and press releases. Once received, Public Records 

places the paper documents in notebooks in the Public 

Records room for public viewing. Then, every year, during 

downtime, the Processing Office indexes documents and 

commits the paper to film, which is placed on the public 

record. Agency Document Processing for the Public Record 

has one subprocess. 

1.2.1 Placing a Matter Under Review (MUR) on the Public 

Record begins when OGC sends to the Processing Office the 

original MUR. Processing prepares the MUR for filming and 

then films the MUR using the microfilm camera. The 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C1- 3 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Processing Office then reassembles the original document 

and returns it to OGC. Meanwhile, the Processing Office 

sends the film to a contractor to develop it overnight. The 

next day, the Processing Office splices the film to make 

complete copies and places the MUR in Public Records in 

accordance with Directive 48. Lastly, the Processing Office 

distributes film to other FEC offices and enters the location of 

the film into the MUR Search System. 

1.3 Processing Internal Documents begins when an FEC 

office sends the Processing Office a document to be filmed. 

The source of the document is usually OGC, RAD, or 

Administration. The Processing Office prepares, films, 

reassembles, and returns the document to the appropriate 

Division. The Processing Office sends the film to a 

contractor for overnight developing. The contractor returns 

the film to the Processing Office, where Processing splices 

the film into complete copies. Copies of the film are 

delivered to the appropriate FEC office. 

The Public Records Office is involved in several processes, 

including Responding to Information Requests (1.4). They 

are also responsible for processes that were not mapped, 

such as placing documents on the public record, developing 

intra-agency publications, conducting administrative 

activities, answering requests from other agencies, and 

coordinating the State relations program. 

1.4 Responding to Information Requests begins when 

someone requests information. This process will normally 

follow a phone-based information request; however, 

information requests can also come in via postal mail, e-mail, 

fax, or in person. The clerk logs in the information request on 

an order sheet and places the order sheet in the in- box of the 

Chief of Public Records. During the day, the Chief of Public 

Records assigns each request to a researcher and places the 

order sheet in the box of the assigned researcher. The 

researcher fills the information request and then completes 

and signs a cover letter explaining what information is 

included in the packet. Public Records retains the order 

sheet in case follow-up is needed. The researcher places 

requested documents in an open, addressed envelope and 

leaves the entire packet in the in-box of the Chief of Public 

Records. The chief reviews the quality of the information, as 

well as copy quality. Upon approval, the Chief seals the 

envelope and places it in the out-box to be picked up by the 

mailroom clerks. The Mailroom clerk picks up the envelope, 

mails it, and completes the order form with the date mailed 

(on mail correspondence control slip). Note: Public requests 

for information usually require in-depth research, 

conversation, and follow-up. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C1- 4 
1.0 Public Disclosure Division 

Processing Office Process: Processing Reports 

1.1 Processing 

Campaign 

Finance Reports 

1.2 

Processing 

Agency 

Documents 

1.3 

Processing 

Internal Agency 

Documents 

For Public Record 

Public Records Office Process: Disclosure of Campaign Finance Information 

1.4 Responding 

to Information 

Requests 

Placing 

Documents on 

Public Record1 

Developing Intra 

Agency 

Publications 

Conducting 

Administrative 

Activities

Answering Requests from 

Other Agencies 

Coordinating 

State Relations 

Program2 

1 Campaign Finance Records, Commission Documents, Publications, Computer Printouts 

2 State Relations Program includes acting as liaison with state election offices, coordinating DSD, Press Office and the state Non-Filer Program functions 

 1/15/99 
Public Disclosure Division 

1.1 Processing Campaign Finance Reports FEC Filers (Including House of Representatives) 

Filer 1.1.3 Scan/Film Original document Documents 

1.1.4 

Post-Processing 

(reassemble 

documents) 

Original 

documents1 

1.1.1 

Receive 

documents 

(Processing 

Office) 

1.1.2 

Prepare 

Documents 

Senate Filers 

Secretary of 

the Senate 

Paper or Microfilm Reports2 Paper 

Paper 

Are 

documents 

paper or 

microfilm? 

Microfilm 

Make paper copy 

of film and splice film into 9 copies 

1 

copy 

of film 

Other FEC 

Offices 

8 

copies 

of film 

Log in receipt 

1 12 different types of documents 2 Senate filers send the Secretary of the Senate paper reports. The Secretary films the reports and forwards the paper copy to the F

have been filmed, the Secretary forwards the microfilm to the FEC. 

 1/15/99 
Public Disclosure Division 

1.1.1 Receiving Campaign Finance Reports 

Faxes of Disclosure Reports Hand deliveries If Mailroom closed 

yes 

Filers Paper no reports,disks 1 

Public 

Records2 

Mailroom3 

Are 

documents 

addressed 

to 

Processing 

Office? 

Disks4 

Data 

Systems6 

Log-in receipt of 

documents7 

Processing 

Office 

Other FEC 

Offices 

(typically 

RAD) 

Clerk of the 

House5

Paper 

Version 1 

paper copy 

1 48-hour clock begins from date of receipt in FEC building (by statute). Although the Mailroom receives both Version 1 and 2 of disks, Data Systems on

Processing Office. This process only tracks what is processed by the Processing Office. Internet, modem and version 2-based filings are processed by econtractor, SDR. See Data Systems’ 2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports (electronic) process for a complete process description. 

2 Receive hand deliveries if Mailroom is closed 3 Mailroom opens envelopes, time stamps, paper clips envelope to documents, and delivers documents to Public Disclosure Division; Receives hand de

(contractor) by phone and SDR comes to get disks 

4 A paper copy is only made of Version 1 of software and forwarded to the Processing Office. 5 Two deliveries a day 6 Receives and processes electronic filings 7 Incoming log data can be used to track source of documents, elapsed time, touch time 

 1/15/99 
1.1.2 

Prepare 

Documents 

Operate 

scanner and 

conduct 

random spot 

checks 

Scan 

documents

Log final 

frame 

scanned2 

1.1.4 Postprocessing Set 990 Scanner1 

Log 

beginning 

frame to be 

scanned2 

Screen 

documents

Are 

documents 

Senate 

filings? 

Inbox 

documents 

1.1.1 

Receiving 

Documents 

no yes

Are 

documents 

for Public 

Record ? 

Separate reports by 

form type2 

yes no 

Prepare for scanning3 

Comple

envelope 

placeme

page4 

Deliver to 

Secretary of 

Senate1 

Deliver 

documents 

to 

appropriate 

offices 

Public Disclosure Division 1.1.2 Preparing Documents 

1 FEC is not the first point-of-entry for Senate documents 2 Separate documents into House filers and FEC party/non-party filers to track image frame numbers so paper copies can be made of House documents and 

immediately among other reasons 

3 Remove staples and separate multiple documents 4 Discard envelope 

1.1.3 Scanning and Filming Documents 

1 Log onto computer program, set up scan/film functions, calibrate system, set frame numbers

 2 Log by batch: date, operator name, filer name, and batch numbers 

 1/15/99 
Public Disclosure Office 

1.1.4 Post-Processing Documents 

1.1.3 Scan 

and Film 

Batches of 

originals1 

Reassemble 

documents2 

Print paper 

copies of House 

Reports 

Count number of 

documents and 

record in log 

Deliver reports to 

Data Systems 

Public 

Records 

Data Systems 

1Quality Control: Data Clerk goes through each PDD to ensure each PDD has been filmed/scanned by checking each PDD for 990 imprint numbers 2 Staple documents by Envelope Replacement PDD 

Next Day 

Messenger 

picks up, 

develops and 

copies3 

1.1.3 

Scanning 

and Filming 

Cut and box film 

Film 

paper documents 

Splice nine Deliver copies 

Receive film4 copies from film to variou

received rolls FEC offices

Check scan log 

and trouble 

Does the image 

scanned by 

Processing match 

the data entered by 

Data Systems? 

shoot5 

yes 

3 Overnight delivery of film copies 4 Quality control check of film to ensure good quality, verify content, and take density reading 5 Error Report with beginning and ending frame numbers 6 Data Systems, RAD, OGC, Press Office, and Public Record 7 

Usually RAD or Data Systems 

1/15/99 
Public Disclosure Division 

1.2 Processing Agency Documents 

Office of 

General 

Counsel 

Audit 

Staff 

Director Press Office 

Information 

Division 

Public 

Records 

Paper 

Documents1 

Place paper 

documents in 

notebooks in 

Public Records 

Room 

Every 2 years, in 

downtime, 

commit paper to 

film 

1Documents include closed Matters Under Review (MURs) (placed on Public Record as received because of Directive 48 and 11 CFR 111.20 specify a de

Advisory Opinions, Meeting Documents, Litigation, Matching Fund Submissions (Placed on Public Record as received - once every four years), CommissiPublications, Sunshine Act Notices, Press Releases 

1.2.1 Placing a MUR on the Public Record  1/15/99 

Original 

MUR OGC 

Receive 

documents 

(Processing 

Office) 

Prepare 

documents 

Post-processing 

Film documents Original document (reassemble Original d

documents) 

Film

Contractor 

(overnight 

processing) 

Processing 

Office Splice 
Public Disclosure Division 

1.3 Processing Internal Documents 

Original 

document FEC Office 1

Receive 

documents 

(Processing 

Office) 

Film documents Post-processing Original using microfilm (reassemble Original docume

document 

camera documents) 

Film 

Contractor 

(overnight 

processing) 

Processing 

Office 

Prepare 

documents 

1 Payroll, internal RAD files, etc... 1.4 Responding to Information Requests 

Receive 

document/ 

information 

request via 

phone1 

Log in request on 

order sheet 

Place order sheet 

in box of Chief of 

Public Records 

During the day, 

Chief assigns 

requests 

Chief places 

order sheets in 

box of assigned 

researcher 

Researcher fills 

request 

Researcher puts 

requested 

documents in 

open addressed 

envelope 

Researcher puts 

open addressed 

envelope in the 

box of the Chief 

Chief reviews 

information and 

print quality 

Mailroom picks 

up sealed 

envelope and 

mails 

Mailroom 

completes order 

form with mail 

date2 

1 Requests also come in via mail, e-mail, fax, and in person 

2 Only applies to mail correspondence control slips 

 1/15/99 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

2.0 Data Systems Division 

Process Customers 

Internal: RAD, Public Disclosure, OGC, Audit 

External: Filers, Public 

Process Descriptions 

The Data Systems Division (Data Systems) is responsible for 

preparing and collecting data, disseminating data, and 

assisting with information technology. Preparing and 

collecting data includes making public within 48 hours 

required campaign finance information, which is captured in 

the Processing Campaign Finance Reports Process (2.1). 

Information technology assistance is not mapped because of 

the varying nature of the requests and responses. 

2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports (manual) 

begins when the filer sends campaign finance documents to 

the FEC. The Mailroom receives disks (Versions 1 and 2) as 

well as paper documents, while Data Systems receives 

electronically filed forms. The Mailroom forwards disks to 

Data Systems. Data Systems uploads the data on both types 

of disks. Version 2 disks filter into the electronic processing 

of campaign finance documents, and Version 1 disk 

information is processed manually. Data Systems prints the 

information on the Version 1 disk and forwards the paper 

copy to Processing for imaging. Processing also receives all 

paper copies of filings directly from the Mailroom, which are 

also imaged. When Data Systems receives the original 

documents from Processing, they log and sort the documents 

(2.1.1). Next, coders code the documents (2.1.2). Then the 

data entry staff enter the coded information into the system 

(2.1.3). Overnight, the system compares the image to what 

was entered and marries the data. The next day, a different 

data entry staff member enters the same data as a quality 

check (2.1.4). 

If the document has itemized transactions, it needs further 

coding and entry (Pass III) (2.1.5). If the document does not 

need further coding, then the original document is 

forwarded to the RAD file room for analysis. Once Pass III 

coding is complete, Data Systems decides whether to do the 

data entry in-house or contract it out to ILM in 

Fredericksburg, Virginia. Either way, once Pass III data entry 

is complete (2.1.6), the system updates the data in the 

disclosure database. 

Processing of Campaign Finance Reports (electronic) begins 

when either the Mailroom forwards Version 2 disks to Data 

Systems or the Filer electronically submits forms via the 

Internet. Once disks are received, Data Systems uploads the 

data. Then the system verifies the data, populates the 

database, creates TIF files, creates two sets of data files (Pass 

I and Pass III), and updates the disclosure database. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C2- 1 
 

 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Before the disclosure database is updated, Data Systems 

conducts exception processing, a quality-control check. 

Also, when Data Systems receives electronically filed forms, 

they print out the forms and forward them to RAD. 

Processing Campaign Finance Documents manually 

incorporates six subprocesses. 

2.1.1 Logging and Sorting for non-Senate documents begins 

when Processing sends Data Systems the paper non-Senate 

filings. Data Systems updates the log with the date, time, 

beginning and ending image frames, year, office, and 

logger’s initials. If there is a problem, Data Systems checks 

their log against Processing’s log. Data Systems verifies that 

the documents are sorted by House and Non-Party filers. A 

senior coding specialist distributes documents to assigned 

individuals for Pass I coding. 

Logging and Sorting for Senate documents begins when 

Processing sends Data Systems the paper Senate filings. Data 

Systems updates the Senate log and assembles the 

documents for Pass I coding. 

2.1.2 Conducting Pass I Coding begins when coders identify 

report type and check for line consistency. Then they 

identify committee type, coverage dates, amendment 

indicator, primary/general indicator (3, 3p), and database 

receipt date. Next, they color- code documents by 

committee type with stickers.1

 Coders then check the 

identification number in the appropriate database and assign 

identification numbers for new 1, 2, 5i, 7, and i (if required). 

If the report covers more than one report type, the coder 

must generate a cross-referencing page (substitute sheet) to 

be scanned, coded, and entered as an additional report. 

Coders then sort documents by database.2

 Lastly, the coders 

count documents and time spent coding for timesheet. The 

documents are now ready for Pass I data entry. 

2.1.3 Conducting Pass I Data Entry begins when a Data 

Systems staff member manually logs in the documents by 

batches. The data entry clerks pick up batches of paper 

documents and sort batches by form type. Each type of 

document has a unique screen for data entry. Separating 

documents eliminates toggling between screens. The data 

entry clerks enter the data that has been coded. When 

finished, they place the original document in a specified file 

cabinet for the evening. Overnight, the system automatically 

updates the disclosure database(s) and ties the imaged 

document to the information that has been updated. In 

addition, the system begins the automatic tracking system, 

enters and verifies the data, updates processes, and identifies 

errors. The system conducts logical checks for duplicates, 

1 Committee types are Presidential, House, Senate, Party, and NonParty. 

2

 There are separate databases for each two-year election cycle. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C2- 2 
 

 

 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

etc. The next day, a different technician takes a batch of 

documents and prints out a copy of an RP1.3

 Once the 

update process begins,4

 the system cannot be used until the 

following morning. 

2.1.4 Conducting Pass I Data Entry/Verification (double 

entry) begins when the second technician rekeys the coded 

data and corrects any data entry errors using the RP1 report 

information. The technician flags documents with error 

codes for special handling by a senior coder. The system 

then applies RAD’s priority threshold indicators to the 

document, and if the document meets or exceeds the 

threshold level, the system prints “Priority” on the 

verification printout for those documents. Priority 

documents are those that RAD needs to work on as soon as 

possible, and the priority label tells Data Systems to code 

and enter these documents before nonpriority documents. 

The technician then sorts the documents, based on priority 

and filer type. Next the technician brings the batches to 

assigned areas, based on filer type. 

2.1.5 Conducting Pass III Coding begins when coders sort 

the documents to determine whether Pass III coding is 

needed. Itemized and codable transactions of new/amended 

documents must go through Pass III coding. If Pass III coding 

3

 The RP1 printout consists of the Pass I Data Entry Journal with error 

codes. 

4

 Around 7:30 p.m. 

is not necessary, coders manually update the Reports Status 

System (RSS) with the date that the file was sent to RAD and 

forward the documents to the RAD file room. If Pass III is 

needed, coders analyze and code the documents and count 

the transactions. Data Systems then determines if the 

contractor should enter the data for Pass III or if data entry 

should be performed in-house.5

 If the contractor performs 

Pass III entry, Data Systems limits batches to 4,000 

transactions6

 and sends them to the contractor for entry. At 

the end of each day, coders update RSS with the number of 

transactions and batch documents coded that day. 

2.1.6 Conducting Pass III Data Entry/Verification begins 

when Data Systems either sends documents to the contractor 

for entry or performs data entry themselves. If the contractor 

is responsible for performing Pass III entry, the contractor 

enters the data and returns the documents to Data Systems. 

A senior coder checks all contractor-entered documents for 

omissions/errors, corrects errors, and performs additional 

data entry, if necessary. Once data entry is complete, the 

documents are sent to the RAD file room. 

5

 Most documents for prior election cycles and low- volume 

amendments for the current election cycle stay in-house. 

6

 FEC pays the contractor on a per transaction basis. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C2- 3 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

If Data Systems conducts Pass III data entry, then data entry 

clerks enter the data and forward the original files to the 

RAD file room. The data, which is now in the system, is 

automatically updated overnight. The system prints out a 

journal if any reconciliation errors are found. The disclosure 

databases are populated. No matter who performs data 

entry, Data Systems updates the RSS system with the date 

that entry was completed. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C2- 4 
Data 

Preparation/ 

Collection 

Data Dissemination1 

(Manufacture of disclosure database) 

Information 

Technology 

Assistance2 

2.0 Data Systems Division 

1Data Dissemination includes programming and indexing journals. 

2 Information Technology includes: network administration, programming, operations, technical support and training, research and development (strategic technical plan1/15/99 
2.0 Data Systems Division 

Paper 

documents1 

Processing 

Office images 

documents 

Disks 

(Versions 1&2) 

Data Systems 

2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports 

Version 1 

2.1.1 

Logging and 

Sorting 

Manual Processing Electronic Processing 

Automatic by the System 

External

Filer 

Data Systems

Filed Forms2 

Create two

 Populate Create sets of data 

Electronically 

Verify data database TIF files files (Pass 1 

and 3) 

RAD 

Print reports Excepti

Upload process

and forward 

data (qualit

to RAD 

check

Version 2 Disks & 1 House, Senate, FEC Party/Non-Party, Presidential 

Direct E-Filing 2 Modem (version 2), Internet (version 2) 

3 Upload file and print document for RAD at RAD’s req

1/15/99 

Mail Room Data Systems Upload & print 

data 3 

paper 
Data Systems Division 

2.1 Processing of Campaign Finance Reports, continued Manual Processing 

A 

2.1.2 2.1.3 

Conduct Conduct 

Pass 1 

Coding Entry 

Does the 

form need 

further 

processing? 

4 

Contractor 

conducts 

Pass 3 data 

entry 

Contractor 

performs 

data entry?5 

yes 

Pass 1 Data 

2.1.5 

Conduct 

Pass 3 

Coding 

no 

yes 

2.1.6 FEC 

Conducts 

Pass 3 Data 

Entry 

no 

Update 

system 

data6 

2.1.4 

Conduct 

Verification of 

Pass 1 Data 

Entry (Double 

Entry) 

Pass 1 

Overnight 

Summary Data 

Pass 3 

Electronic Processing 

B 

4 Forms 1, 2, 6, MS, 1M go to RAD File Room; Forms 3, 3P, 3x, 5i, 7, i and 4 get coded. 5 Volume, specific situation, etc. warrant use of contractor. Currently, the contractor is ILM. 6 System automatically updates database overnight. 

1/15/99 
Data Systems Division 

2.1.1 Logging and Sorting 

Non- Senate 

Documents 

Data 

Processing 

Verify documents Count and 

Paper Update log1 Check log against are sorted: House distribute to documents Processing’s log v. Party/Non- assigned 

Party Filers individuals 

2.1.2 

Conduct 

Pass 1 

Coding 

Senate Documents 

Data 

Processing 

Paper Update Senate 

documents2 log3 

Assemble 

documents 

2.1.2 

Conduct 

Pass 1 

Coding 

1 Date, time, beginning and ending image number, year and office (03 - FEC, 02- Senate), logger’s initials. This log is used by Irene to compare with Processing’s 

2 Photocopies of originals 3 Log is used to ensure duplicate copies do not exist because Senate sends over microfilm once a week and paper once a day. 

2.1.2 Conducting Pass 1 Coding 

2.1.1 Log 

& Sort 

Paper 

documents Sort by database

Analyze & code 

documents 

Identify and color 

code by 

committee type1 

Check 

identification 

number in 

appropriate 

database2 

Assign IDs for 

new 1,2, 5, 7, 5i, i 

if required 

Initial and date 

report 

1 Identify Presidential, House, Senate, Party, Non-Party with color-coded stickees. Check B-Index if don’t know committee type. 2 So no duplication of documents. 3 FEC maintains separate Databases by 2-year election cycle 

1/15/99 
Data Systems Division 

2.1.3 Conducting Pass 1 Data Entry 

2.1.2 

Conduct 

Pass 1 

Coding 

Batches of 

paper 

documents 

Log in receipt of 

documents 

Data entry clerks 

get batches 

Automated update overnight3 

Sort batches by 

form type1 

Enter data into 

screens2 

Store in file 

cabinet 

Original paper copy4 

1 Each type of document has a unique screen for data entry. Separating documents eliminates toggling between screens 2 First step in creating an electronic document - ties images together 3 The System begins to update around 7:30 p.m. - takes approximately 12 hours. During the update process, no work can be done with the system until 7:30 a.m

System which is the first initial check of reporting error - conducts logical checks for duplicates, etc. 

4 Keep in order as entered. Store in special area. 5 RP1 Printout consists of Pass 1 Data Entry Journal with error codes 

2.1.4 Conducting Pass 1 Data Entry Verification (Double Entry) 

2.1.3 

Conduct 

Pass 1 

Data Entry 

Technician brings Rekey data and Flag documents Technician sorts System batches to over- make any with error codes documents based determines case assigned areas night necessary on priority & filer for special priority1 based on filer corrections handling type type 

1 Priority labeling requested by RAD. RAD determined the threshold level and the system is set to print "Priority" on the verification printout. 

1/15/99 
U

min

Volume or

type of

document

warrant

contractor?2

no tr

2.0 Data Systems Division 2.1.5 Conducting Pass 3 Coding 

2.1.4 

Conduct 

Data Batches 

Entry 

Verificatio 

n 

Is Pass 3 

needed?1

 RAD file 

room 

Coder counts Li

transactions 400

1 Itemized and codeable transactions of new/amended documents must go through Pass 3 Coding 2 Amendments almost always stay in-house. Primarily, current election cycle database documents go to the contractor. Documents for different election cycle

2.1.6 Conducting Pass 3 Data Entry/Verification 

2.1.5 

Conduct 

Pass 3 

Coding 

Contractor 

performs 

data entry 

Data 

Systems 

Documents 

A 

Rekey data and 

make any 

necessary 

corrections 

Folder 

Disclosure 

Database(s) 

populated 

Conduct Pass 3 

data entry in- data 

house 

System 

automatically 

updates database 

overnight 

System prints out 

journal if any 

errors in 

reconciliation 

Different 

technician takes 

batch and prints 

out SP104 

1/15/99 

Sort documents

to determine if 

Pass 3 coding is 

needed 

no, manually update RSS 

yes Analyze and code documents 

yes 

Upd

tra

batc

Send documents 

to contractor 

Check 

documents for 

errors/ 

ommissions and 

correct 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

3.0 Reports Analysis Division 

Process Customers 

Internal: OGC, Audit, Data Systems, Public Records, and 

Information Division 

External: Filers, Public, and Candidates 

Process Descriptions 

The Reports Analysis Division responsibilities are divided 

into five mapped processes and one not-mapped process, 

Processing FOIA Requests. 

3.1 Processing Campaign Finance Documents begins when 

Data Systems completes the required data entry (Pass I or 

Pass III) of campaign finance information. Data Systems then 

forwards the original campaign finance documents to the 

RAD file room, which houses current election cycle 

campaign finance documents. Upon receipt, a file room 

clerk sorts the documents by committee type and files the 

documents in file folders chronologically and by form type. 

Reports analysts have access to a workflow program that, 

when queried, allows them to view the committees to which 

they have been assigned. The analyst chooses a committee 

to review and pulls that committee’s file folder. Rather than 

use the original paper document to review the data, the 

analyst can work off the report image. Either way, the reports 

analyst begins to review and analyze the report. 

3.1.1 Reviewing and Analyzing the Report begins when the 

reports analyst compares the original document with the R 

Index. The R Index provides a history of the committee’s 

filings, based on Pass I data entry. For example, the R Index 

shows whether a previous filing was new or amended, the 

type of document (monthly, midyear, etc.), the beginning 

cash on hand, coverage dates, total receipts, and ending 

cash on hand. The analyst then reviews for compliance, 

which consists of mathematical, content, and disclosure 

analyses. The analyst notes any compliance problems on his 

or her logbook. Missing or perceived incorrect information 

triggers the Request for Additional Information Process (3.2). 

At any time in the process, if the analyst finds data entry 

errors, the analyst sends the file containing the original 

document back to Data Systems for correction. Data Systems 

corrects the error(s) and sends the folder to the RAD file 

room. If the analyst uncovers any compliance problems, he 

or she sends a letter to the committee, indicating the 

problems. When the compliance review is complete, the 

analyst notes any problems with the report in his logbook. 

If the analyst does not find any compliance problems or at 

the end of the RFAI process, the analyst updates the Report 

Status System (RSS) and returns the report to the RAD file 

room. The RSS contains information about the committee’s 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C3 - 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

filings, including Pass I and Pass III start and end dates, the 

coder’s name, and the date that Data Systems sent the file to 

RAD. Finally, the file room clerk files the report. Any report 

that is not for the current year’s database is sent to Archives 

because of file room space constraints. 

3.2 Processing Requests for Additional Information (RFAI) 

begins when the analyst conducting the document review 

needs additional information from the filer to complete the 

review. The reports analyst decides whether the letter is 

tracked (RFAI) or nontracked (informational). If the letter is 

nontracked, the reports analyst sends an informational 

notice to the filer. The reports analyst fills out with codes 

one transmittal form per request and forwards all forms 

related to a committee to the secretary for completion. From 

the codes, the secretary composes a letter and returns the 

letter to the reports analyst for review. The reports analyst 

reviews the letter and, if complete, signs the letter and 

forwards it, along with the appropriate folder, to the branch 

chief for approval. The reports analyst retains a copy of the 

letter, puts a copy of the RFAI into the committee’s folder, 

and returns this folder to the RAD file room. Meanwhile, the 

branch chief reviews the letter and, if there are no problems, 

forwards the letter to the Compliance Branch. If there is a 

problem, the branch chief sends the letter back to the 

analyst, who corrects the problem and sends the edits to the 

secretary for retyping. Once typed, secretary gives the letter 

back to the analyst, who forwards it to the branch chief for 

another review. Once the letter is correct, the branch chief 

forwards the letter to the Compliance Branch. 

The Compliance Branch tracks the mail date and makes two 

copies of the letter. A compliance analyst enters the RFAI 

data into the disclosure database. A compliance analyst 

sends the original letter to the filer, forwards one copy to 

Public Records, and retains one for the compliance files. 

The filer is given 15 days in the letter to respond to the RFAI. 

If the filer does not respond in three weeks (21 days), a 

compliance analyst sends the filer a second RFAI letter. 

Once again, the filer has 15 days to respond to the RFAI. If 

the filer still does not respond, the reports analyst identifies 

any outstanding issues. These issues are weighed in terms of 

importance and whether the filer should be referred to Audit 

or OGC. If RAD decides not to refer the matter to Audit or 

OGC, the outstanding issues remain outstanding and are 

noted on the analyst’s log for possible action at a later date. 

If the filer responds in 15 days, the compliance clerk reviews 

the response to see whether the response is adequate. If the 

response is adequate, the reports analyst reviews the 

response for accuracy and for compliance problems. If the 

analyst finds that the response is not accurate or that other 

compliance problems exist, the analyst notes the problems 

as an outstanding issue. If the analyst discovers a 

compliance problem, he or she must determine whether it is 

an audit issue (assign audit points) and/or a legal issue. If the 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C3 - 2 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

filer receives enough audit points, RAD refers the committee 

to the Commissioners for a possible audit. If the analyst 

finds a problem that meets OGC’s threshold, the analyst 

prepares review documents for OGC and forwards a referral 

to them. Otherwise, the issues remain outstanding. 

3.3 Processing Non-Filer Notices begins when a compliance 

analyst reviews a computer printout of filers who have not 

filed by the deadline. The compliance analyst provides the 

reports analyst with the names of the non- or late filers. The 

compliance analyst checks with other departments to see 

whether the report has been filed, and whether Processing, 

SDR (the electronic filing contractor), and/or Data Systems 

are still working with the report. If the report has not been 

filed, the compliance analyst sends the filer a nonfiler 

notice. 

3.4 Processing Debt Settlements. According to law, 

committees must settle debts with creditors, so to help 

facilitate settlement, FEC requires the committees to file a 

Debt Settlement Plan. Debt Settlement Processing (DSP) 

begins when the reports analyst receives the debt settlement 

request from a committee attempting to terminate. The 

reports analyst forwards the request to the compliance 

analyst and PFESP staff. The compliance analyst reviews the 

DSP and sends the committee an RFAI if needed (begin 3.2 

RFAI Process). Once all information is received from the 

requester, the compliance analyst determines whether the 

committee meets the criteria for a debt settlement. If the 

committee meets the criteria, the FEC accepts the settlement 

with a possible PFESP review and closes the case. RAD tells 

PFESP that the matter meets the review threshold. PFESP 

prepares a formal memo to the Commission, analyzing the 

request and making recommendations to the Commission. 

The Commission reviews the recommendation, and if the 

Commissioners approve the termination and/or settlement 

approval letter, the compliance analyst sends the committee 

a settlement approval letter and a termination letter, if 

appropriate. 

If the committee does not meet the criteria, the settlement is 

not accepted, and the compliance analyst sends the 

committee a letter saying that the settlement offer was not 

approved. 

3.5 Processing Administrative Terminations. Committees 

are required to file campaign finance reports even if no 

money has exchanged hands. Since it costs money to have 

nonfilers in the system, RAD has a process that “terminates” 

committees so that they are not required to file. Processing 

Administrative Terminations begins when either RAD 

periodically reviews its files or when a committee requests 

an administrative termination. RAD, with OGC/PFESP 

assistance if necessary, determines whether the filer meets 

the thresholds for administrative termination. Either way, 

RAD sends the filer a letter indicating its decision. If RAD 

receives no response, then the filer is automatically 

administratively terminated. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C3 - 3 
3.0 Reports Analysis Division 

3.1 Processing 

Campaign 

Finance 

Documents 

3.2 Processing 

RFAIs 

3.5 Processing 

Administrative 

Terminations 

3.3 Processing 

Non-Filer Notices 

3.4 Processing 

Debt Settlements 

Processing FOIA 

Requests 

1/15/99 
Reports Analysis Division 3.1 Processing Campaign Finance Documents 

Data Systems RAD File Room

 File room clerk 

sorts documents 

by committee 

type 

File room clerk 

Work off

image?

no, paper copy 

Original Reports analyst1 files documents File pulls file folder of by form type and yes (Senate assigned chronologically in copies) committee file folders 

3.1.1 Re

Analyze 

1 Report Analysts can use a Workflow Program (Program 117) any time to see which committees 

they are assigned which have documents to be reviewed 

3.1.1 Reviewing and Analyzing Reports 

Are there

data entry

problems?2 

no 

R index 

Are there 

compliance 

problems? 

no 3.1. 

2 

Note problems on Compare original document against Review report 

yes 

yes log sheet 

Copy data entry Send corrections problem D

C

to Data Systems information 

Conduct 

materiality review 

for 

mathematical, 

content, and 

disclosure issues 

2Data entry problems can be identified throughout the review of the report. The analyst compares the coder’s marks with what should have been co

the database. Problems are noted and when the Compliance Review is complete, the corrections will be sent to Data Systems for correction. 

3.1.2 Updating Status Report and Refiling Original Documents 

Reports analyst 

Review &

Analyze

Report

3.2 RFAI

Process 

Reports analyst returns file to File room clerk 

updates RSS RAD file room files report/folder 

inbox 

Reports 

Analyst 

Archives3 

3.1.1 

3Reports are archived August of the non-election year because of file room space constraints 

1/15/99 
Reports Analysis Division 

3.2 Processing Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs) 

Reports 

Analyst 

Track or 

non-track 

RFAI 

3.1 Processing 

Campaign 

Finance 

Documents 

Reports analyst 

completes Reports analyst 

transmittal form Branch chief reviews and signs 

Track with codes/ edits reviews Secretary composes letter/ edits letter and

returns to reports

analyst 

Does the

letter need

editing? 

letter and send s 

returned letter document to Branch Chief 

and forwards to 

secretary 

Non-Track 

yes 

Send 

B 

Reports analyst 

informational retains a copy for 

notice to filer4 his records 

B 

Compliance 

Branch tracks 

mail date and 

makes two copies 

of letter 

Enter RFAI data 

using data entry 

screen 

Original 

Copy 1 

microfilm 

& image 

Processing RAD File Room 

Compliance 

analyst places 

copy 2 with Copy 2 transmittal sheet 

in Compliance 

Branch folder 

C 

Send original 

letter to filer D Filer receives RFAI 

4 Informational Notices inform the Filer of future actions to take which would make analyzing the report easier. No reply is required. 

1/15/99 
Reports Analysis Division 

3.2 Processing Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs) (Continued) 

Does the

information

trigger

compliance

problems?

Are there

outstanding

issues? 

yes 

issues 

yes 

Is response adequate? D yes reviews

Does filer 

respond 

within 15 

days? 

yes 

Reports 

RAD 

Compliance 

C 

File Analyst analyst 

response in retrieves & RAD file reviews response for 

room 

response accuracy 

no 

yes Identify 

no outstanding 

Compliance 

analyst 

no sends 

Does Filer 

respond 

within 15 

days?4 

no 

second 

RFAI letter 

1/15/99 
Reports Analysis Division 

3.2 Processing Requests for Additional Information (RFAIs) (Continued) 

E Assign audit points? 

Refer to 

OGC? yes

 Let 

outstanding 

issues stand 

Do total 

audit points 

meet 

threshold? 

yes 

no no 

no 

yes 

Commission 

receives file 

OGC receives 

referral documentation 

1/15/99 
Reports Analysis Division

 3.3 Processing Non-Filer Notices 

Compliance 

Branch 

Send non- Check to Review filer notice to see if report computer filer via has been printout1 Western fIled2 Union 

1 Printout indicates who has not filed 2 Report might have been received, but in processing. Analyst checks with Mail Room, Processing and Data Systems. 3 Mail by the 4th of the month 

3.4 Processing Debt Settlements 

Does the 

response 

meet debt 

settlement 

requirement 

s? 

yes 

Reports Reports 

analyst analyst Track date Receive receives forwards Accept and send response debt request to settlement RFAI to filer from filer settlement compliance 

request analyst 

no 

Send to 

PFESP for 

legal review 

and analysis 

PFESP Comm

analyzes revie

request and settle

prepares recom

formal atimemo 

Do not 

accept 

Do not Send accept to file

settlement settle

offer was 

appr

3.5 Processing Administrative Terminations (AT) 

Meet AT

threshold? yes enforcement 

non-routine 

Periodically 

review riles 

PFESP Ask PFESP PFESP conducts to check emails review using review routine RAD’s and litigation results to Committee relevant files RAD information requests 

admini- Prepare strative formal Commission termination memo reviews analyzing termination request and recommend making ation recommend 

ations 

Send letter 

to filer 

concerning 

termination 

decision 

1/15/99 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

4.0 Audit Division 

Process Customers 

Internal: OGC, RAD 

External: Filers, Public, Department of the Treasury 

Process Descriptions 

The Audit Division is responsible for processes within the 

following categories: Audit-For-Cause (4.1), Audit-For-Cause 

Referral (437(g)) (4.2), and Presidential Public Funding 

Program (4.3). 

4.1 Audits-For-Cause. For purposes of analysis, this process 

has been separated into four subprocesses. 

4.1.1 Preparing for Commission Vote and Notifying 

Candidates/Committees begins when the staff at the Reports 

Analysis Division (RAD) reviews each report filed by Federal 

candidates, committees, and political parties to ensure that 

they have complied with the disclosure requirements and 

the limits and prohibitions on contributions. A confidential 

point system is used to assign points to violations of FECA. 

When RAD recognizes areas of apparent noncompliance or 

deficiencies, it assigns points to the reports. Once a certain 

threshold of points is reached, the referral is forwarded to 

the Audit Division for further investigation. 

Audit receives these referrals in batches from RAD. They 

generally receive the candidate committee referrals in March 

following the year of the general election. The statute 

written by Congress requires FEC to initiate the audit within 

six months after the general election. Once the pool of 

referrals is received from RAD, Audit has six weeks to get 

authorization from the Commissioners and commence the 

audit. 

For referrals of noncandidate committees (e.g., PACs, Party 

committees), Audit also receives these referrals in batches 

from RAD, generally during the period from August to 

December following the year of the general election. The 

statute requires FEC to initiate the audit within 30 days of the 

Commission’s vote to conduct an audit. 

In the case of candidate committee referrals, after Audit 

quickly reviews the referrals, Audit attaches a cover letter 

and takes them to the next Commission meeting for 

approval. The Commissioners and Audit decide on how 

many audits they are capable of completing, given the 

timing and the available resources. They generally will 

select for audit the referrals that generated the most points. 

Four out of six Commissioner votes are needed for approval. 

The referrals that fail to get Commissioner approval or are 

not pursued because of lack of resources are considered 

closed at this time. However, referral to OGC from RAD 

may still be considered. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

For noncandidate committee referrals, Audit also conducts a 

quick review of the referrals and then attaches a cover letter 

requesting that the Commission determine which referrals 

will not be subject to audit. Audit forwards those remaining 

referrals to the Commission for approval to conduct an audit 

as resources permit. 

Once approval is granted, the Audit Division sends an 

overnight engagement letter to the committee stating that it 

has been selected for an audit. This document requests 

certain key information that the auditors will need to look at 

in advance to start the fieldwork. The auditors will then 

contact the candidate or committee to schedule the 

fieldwork. The auditee can either have the auditors start 

right away or request a delay. In the latter case, the audit 

will be scheduled outside the 30-day or six-month window. 

This contact of the candidate/committee and scheduling are 

presumed to be initiation of the audit, meeting statutory 

requirements. 

4.1.2 Conducting Preaudit begins when auditors contact 

RAD and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) to 

discuss any pending items concerning the auditee such as 

Matters Under Review (MURs). They review past and 

present reports to see trends and identify different areas on 

which they may want to focus more attention during the 

audit. They analyze the receipts and disbursements as 

disclosed in the reporting. They reconcile these data and set 

up to compare them to the financial data provided by the 

candidate/committee. 

When a candidate/committee is selected for an audit-forcause, a full-scope audit is always done. After the auditors 

complete their analysis in the preaudit process, a 

modification of the audit program may be necessary to 

further focus analysis . 

4.1.3 Conducting Fieldwork begins when Audit conducts an 

entrance conference with the candidate/committee. This 

conference explains, in general terms, why they were 

selected for an audit, what they can expect, and also what 

initial information the auditee will need to provide. The 

auditee also provides the auditors contact names to use in 

the field. 

The auditors first conduct an inventory of records, including 

limited testing to determine whether the records are 

materially complete and in an auditable state. If a material 

portion of the records have not been provided, the auditee is 

notified in writing and given 30 days to obtain the requested 

records. If at the end of this 30-day period the records are 

available, fieldwork will commence. If not, the auditors 

may recommend to the Commission that subpoenas for 

records be authorized, both to the auditee and any other 

entities in possession of the relevant records. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 2 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Once the records are deemed materially complete, the 

auditors conduct the fieldwork, using the audit program 

developed during the preaudit phase. They perform tests 

and, depending on the amount of activity, use sampling 

methods to test the auditee’s transactions. They gather 

evidence and data to support the findings in the final report 

and to maintain as workpapers. 

At the end of the fieldwork, an exit conference is conducted. 

At this time, the auditors disclose to the 

candidate/committee material findings based on 

predetermined thresholds that are standard for all audits. 

When the auditors leave the field, the auditee has 10 days to 

submit an official response to the findings disclosed at the 

exit conference. The auditee may send the auditors any 

documented evidence, receipts, or reports that may prove a 

finding incorrect. 

4.1.4 Conducting Postaudit and Processing the Audit 

Report begin when the auditors return from the field. The 

auditors prepare an interim audit report that discloses any 

material findings. This report encompasses all responses 

submitted by the auditee after the exit conference. The 

auditors consider the magnitude of the findings and decide 

whether the findings are sufficient enough to include in the 

report. The auditors compare the findings to the parameters 

set by the Commission and also determine whether further 

analysis by the OGC is warranted. 

At this time, the Audit staff completes the audit program and 

indexes the workpapers. The manager of the team reviews 

the workpapers. Once the draft interim report is completed, 

it, along with the workpapers, undergoes a peer review. 

If the findings are significant and do not contain any 

unresolved legal issues, the report is prepared and forwarded 

to the auditee. The report bypasses the Commission at this 

time. The auditee has 30 days to respond to the claims and 

can also receive a 15-day extension. 

After receiving the auditee response or the 45-day response 

period has elapsed, the Auditors prepare the Audit Report. 

This report encompasses the response from the auditee. The 

report is peer-reviewed and forwarded to the Commissioners 

for a tally vote or for consideration at an open Commission 

meeting. Upon approval of the Commissioners, the final 

report is provided to the auditee, and a few days later the 

report is released to the public. 

If a finding in the interim report contains any unresolved 

legal issues, the Audit Division will forward the report to 

OGC. OGC will analyze the finding and determine legal 

implications. After OGC review, OGC will forward its legal 

analysis to the Audit Division. If the auditors agree with the 

OGC analysis, the auditors will incorporate it into the 

interim report and forward it to the Commissioners. If Audit 

disagrees with the OGC report, Audit will write a separate 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 3 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

cover page and attach it to the front of the interim report 

with its analysis of the issues. 

The reports will go to the Commissioners for their 

consideration at an executive session in which they will 

discuss and vote on the interim report. If the Commissioners 

approve the report, it will be sent to the auditee. The 

auditee then has 30 days (plus a possible 15-day extension) 

to respond. If the report is not approved, it is reworked for 

resubmission or it is simply held with no further action and 

is never publicly released. 

After receiving the auditee responses or the 45-day response 

period has elapsed, the Audit Report is prepared and peerreviewed. The responses are reviewed with OGC for 

adequacy and completeness. If unresolved legal issues still 

remain at this point, the final report is then forwarded to 

OGC for analysis (as described above). Once completed, 

the Audit Report is then forwarded to the Commissioners for 

a tally vote or for consideration at an open Commission 

meeting. Upon approval by the Commissioners, the official 

report is provided to the auditee. A few days later, the 

report is released to the public. 

4.2 Audit-For-Cause. 4.2.1 Referral (437(g)) process is 

divided into four subprocesses. 4.2.1 Receiving Referral 

begins when OGC determines that as a result of its MUR 

investigations, some evidence may warrant an audit of a 

committee. Depending on the matter, a full-scope audit 

may not be necessary. 

When OGC determines that a committee should be audited, 

OGC sends a memo to the Commissioners stating the 

reasons and recommendation for an audit. Through 

informal methods, the Commissioners will contact the Audit 

Division to assess their current availability of resources. If 

Audit’s resources are unavailable at this time, the case can 

be put on hold until resources can be allocated to the audit. 

If it is deemed that resources would not be available in a 

timely manner, the referral is closed. 

If the Audit Division has available resources to allocate, the 

Commissioners vote on the memo. Upon approval of the 

Commissioners, Audit works with OGC to determine the 

audit scope and parameters. They also determine whether 

Audit is to perform a full-scope audit or a modified-scope 

audit. It is sometimes possible to perform a modified-scope 

audit in-house without contacting the auditee when there is 

enough information already gathered between election 

reports and what OGC has already obtained. The audit is 

scheduled with or without contacting the auditee, 

depending on the scope of the audit. If the auditee is to be 

contacted, a letter will be sent overnight to the committee 

informing it of the audit and preferable dates that fieldwork 

is to be performed. The Audit Division will contact the 

committee the following day and confirm the arrangements. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 4 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Note: The following steps in the preaudit process may or 

may not be performed, depending on the type of audit and 

various circumstances surrounding the audits. 

4.2.2 Conducting Preaudit Process begins when the auditors 

contact RAD and OGC to discuss any pending items 

concerning the auditee and any other pending MURs. They 

review past and present reports to see trends and identify 

different areas on which they may want to focus more 

attention during the audit. Auditors analyze the receipts and 

disbursements as disclosed in the reporting and organize the 

information, using different sorts so that they analyze the 

data from different perspectives. They reconcile these data 

and compare them to the financial data provided by the 

candidate/committee. 

After completing their analysis in the preaudit process, a 

modification of the audit program may be necessary to add 

or delete additional areas that they may need to investigate 

further. 

4.2.3 Conducting Fieldwork. A typical audit begins with a 

conference to explain the purpose of the audit, what the 

auditee can expect, and also what initial information needs 

to be provided. The auditee also establishes contacts for the 

auditors while they are in the field. 

The fieldwork is then conducted, using the audit program 

developed during the preaudit phase. Auditors perform tests 

and, depending on the amount of activity, use sampling 

methods to test the auditee’s transactions. They gather 

evidence and data to keep in the workpapers that will be 

used to support the findings in the final report. 

At the end of the fieldwork, the auditors conduct an exit 

conference in which they disclose to the candidate any 

material findings found, according to predetermined 

thresholds that are standard for all audits. Generally, the 

auditee has 10 days to submit a response to the disclosed 

findings. The auditee may send the auditors any 

documented evidence, receipts, or reports that may prove a 

finding incorrect. 

If the audit is to be performed in-house with no contact with 

the auditee, the fieldwork is conducted at the FEC offices by 

gathering evidence and data from the information already 

obtained. 

4.2.4 Conducting the Postaudit and Processing Audit 

Report begins when the auditors complete the fieldwork. 

Auditors prepare an audit report that discloses the material 

findings or information requested by OGC. This report 

encompasses any relevant auditee response to the discussed 

findings. 

At this time, the auditors complete the audit program and 

the indexing of the workpapers. The manager of the team 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 5 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

reviews the workpapers. The completed report, along with 

the workpapers, undergoes a peer review. 

The report is then given to OGC and is included in the OGC 

scope of investigation. OGC will use the report in its 

analysis of the MUR. There may be follow-up questions 

from OGC for further understanding. Once OGC is finished 

and the MUR is closed, the MUR and the audit report are 

opened for public record. 

4.3 Presidential Public Funding Program is divided into two 

sections. Under the FECA, the Commission is required to 

determine whether candidates meet certain eligibility criteria 

and to certify candidates eligible to receive public funds. 

The public funding program involves certifying eligibility 

(primary elections), funding primary elections, funding 

conventions, and generating general election grants. 

4.3.1 Certifying Presidential Public Funding is divided into 

three maps. 4.3.1.1 Certifying Eligibility (Primary 

Elections). Primary election candidates seeking matching 

funds submit to the FEC a Letter of Agreements and 

Certifications (9033 Letter), which is a contract with the 

Government in which a candidate promises to comply with 

the law and to submit to an FEC audit in exchange for public 

funding. A candidate’s “threshold submissions” may 

accompany this letter as well. 

Threshold submissions include documentation of individual 

contributions up to $250 each. The FEC requires participants 

in the Presidential public funding program to submit 

contribution information through electronic media in order 

to expedite the certification and disbursement of matching 

funds. Data Systems makes hardcopy printouts of the 

threshold submissions for use in Audit. 

Audit conducts a threshold review on all submissions, with 

zero tolerance for error. The Deputy Assistant Staff Director 

of Audit manages this process with temporary staff to 

• Verify that each check is matchable by State, based on 

statutory criteria; 

• Verify that contributor information is adequate (i.e., 

includes name of contributor, occupation, and correct 

signature); and 

• Analyze threshold submissions for any unusual patterns 

or trends. 

Audit staff follow standard review procedures for threshold 

submissions to verify that the requests meet the necessary 

requirements of matchability. 

The threshold review process is repeated again by a different 

temporary staff person, reviewed by the Deputy Assistant 

Staff Director, and then reviewed again by an available 

auditor. In addition, the Deputy Assistant Staff Director 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 6 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

identifies apparent trends, using Data Systems Division 

printouts that sort the threshold submissions based on a 

variety of single variables. 

If the candidate submits all appropriate documents and 

meets the necessary requirements, Audit prepares an 

eligibility report for the Commissioners. Upon report 

approval, Audit drafts a letter to the Treasury requesting the 

disbursement of funds. If the requirements are not met, Audit 

proactively works with candidates to help them become 

eligible for matching funds. Although this has never 

occurred, if the candidate could not meet the eligibility 

requirements, Audit would issue an ineligibility report, 

which would be reviewed by OGC for legal compliance and 

voted on by the Commission. 

4.3.1.2 Certifying Matching Funds (monthly) begins with 

the candidate submitting monthly lists of contributions up to 

$250 from individuals for matching. Presidential candidates 

and committees are also required to provide electronic 

media for all matching submissions. The media are reviewed 

for completeness and sent to Data Systems to download and 

from which to draw a sample. After eligibility certification, 

the Audit staff rely on sample committee submissions to 

determine the appropriate amount that is matchable. Audit 

uses reject codes to indicate why specific submissions 

within the sample were not matchable. If a sample has too 

many unmatchable submissions, the entire request for 

matching funds could be rejected for that month. Audit 

determines how much to certify for Commission approval. 

Upon Commissioner approval, the FEC issues a letter to the 

Treasury for funds disbursement. 

4.3.1.3 Certifying Matching Funds (conventions) is a grant 

process that takes only a few days and occurs once every 

four years. The Treasurer or President of the convention 

committee sends to Audit a Request-for-Funds letter. Audit 

reviews the letter, works with the committee to make any 

necessary revisions, and makes a recommendation to 

disburse funds. The letter is forwarded to OGC for legal 

analysis. Audit incorporates any feedback from OGC into a 

report to the Commission that recommends funding the 

convention. The Commission generally votes within 24 

hours to approve the funding, and Audit drafts and forwards 

an approval letter to the Treasury. 

4.3.1.4 Certifying Matching Funds (general election) begins 

when the parties nominate the Presidential and Vice 

Presidential candidates. The candidates immediately send a 

signed Nomination Letter to the FEC. Audit and OGC 

simultaneously review the letter to make sure that it satisfies 

all of the necessary requirements. Audit will work with the 

candidates to quickly identify any information that may have 

been neglected and correct the situation. Once the FEC 

accepts the letter, Audit prepares a Grant Eligibility Report. 

The Commission immediately votes to approve the funding, 

and Audit drafts a letter certifying payment, which is 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 7 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

couriered to the Treasury. This entire process only takes a 

few hours. 

4.3.2 Title 26 Audits is divided into three subprocesses. 

4.3.2.1 Conducting Preaudit begins when auditors educate 

themselves on issues surrounding the candidate and prepare 

for the fieldwork and is often started before the candidate has 

dropped out of the election. Once the candidate has 

dropped out, the FEC will contact him or her to schedule the 

audit. Auditors contact RAD and OGC to discuss any 

pending items concerning the auditee, such as Matters Under 

Review (MURs). They review past and present reports to see 

trends and identify different areas that they may want to focus 

more attention on during the audit. They analyze the receipts 

and disbursements as disclosed in the election reporting. The 

data are sorted into different categories for different methods 

of testing. Auditors reconcile these data and compare them to 

the financial data provided by the candidate. Computerized 

data are required for Title 26 audits. 

A full-scope audit is always conducted for the Presidential 

audits. After completing their analysis in the preaudit 

process, auditors may modify the audit program to add 

additional areas that warrant further review. 

4.3.2.2 Conducting Fieldwork begins with an entrance 

conference with the candidate and the FEC auditors. This 

conference explains what the auditee can expect during the 

audit and also what initial information the auditors will need. 

The auditee also provides the necessary committee contacts 

for the FEC auditors while they are in the field. 

Auditors conduct an inventory of records, including limited 

testing to determine whether the records are materially 

complete and in an auditable state. If the auditee has not 

provided a material portion of the records, auditors notify 

the auditee in writing that the auditee has 30 days to provide 

the requested records. If at the end of this 30-day period, 

the records are provided, fieldwork will commence. If the 

requested records are not provided, the auditors may 

recommend to the Commission that subpoenas for records 

be authorized, both to the auditee and any other entities in 

possession of the relevant records. 

The auditors commence fieldwork, using the audit program 

developed during the preaudit phase. They gather data and 

perform various tests (generally using sampling methods) on 

the transactions of the candidate. They gather evidence and 

document the results in the workpapers that will be used to 

support the findings in the final report. 

At the conclusion of fieldwork, auditors conduct an exit 

conference. At this time, the auditors disclose to the 

candidate any material findings found that meet the 

predetermined thresholds that are standard for all audits. 

The auditee has ten days to submit an official response to 

the findings and may send the auditors any documented 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 8 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

evidence, receipts, or reports that may prove a finding 

incorrect. 

4.3.2.3 Conducting Post Audit and Processing Audit Report 

begins when the auditors return from the field, and they 

prepare the Exit Conference Memorandum that discloses the 

material findings. This report encompasses auditee 

comments. 

At this time, the audit staff complete the audit program and 

index the workpapers for review by the audit manager and a 

subsequent peer review. 

The final memorandum is forwarded to OGC for an informal 

legal review of the findings. Once this review is complete, 

the reports are returned to the Audit Division. 

The memorandum is presented to the candidate or his or her 

designee(s) at a formal meeting for a formal response to the 

findings. Committee officials, the auditors, and OGC also 

attend the meeting. The candidate has 60 days to respond 

and can obtain an additional 15-day extension, if necessary. 

Once the Audit Division receives the candidate’s responses, 

they draft the Audit Report. 

Audit forwards the Audit Report to OGC for legal analysis. 

OGC analyzes the report and makes any necessary 

recommendations. If audit agrees with the OGC analysis, 

Audit will incorporate the OGC recommendations and 

analysis into the report. Audit then forwards the report to the 

Commissioners. If Audit disagrees with the OGC 

recommendations, Audit attaches a separate cover letter to 

the final report, explaining the situation and the differences 

of opinion. Audit forwards the reports to the Commissioners 

for an open session vote under the “Sunshine Laws.” An 

informational copy of the report for consideration by the 

Commission is forwarded to the candidate prior to the vote. 

Multiple sessions may occur before the Commission votes 

on the recommendations, and the Audit Division and OGC 

may be called upon to discuss their recommendations. 

During these sessions, the Commission may approve, alter, 

or reject in its entirety the report recommendations for 

repayments. Once the Commission renders a vote, the 

report is final and is made public. However, if the 

Commissioners vote against the recommendations for 

repayment, the public record will include an explanation 

concerning the Commissioners’ votes. No repayments are 

required of the candidate when the Commissioners vote 

against the recommendations. It takes four votes to uphold a 

repayment determination in an audit report. 

When the Commissioners approve a recommendation for 

repayment, the candidate has 30 days to petition the 

Commission for a hearing to argue the repayment assessed 

against him or her. Depending on other significant findings 

found during the audit, a referral may be sent to OGC under 

the MUR track. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C4- 9 
4.0 Audit Division 

4.1 Audit-ForCause 

4.2 Audit-ForCause: Referral 

(437(g)) 

4.3 Presidential 

Public Funding 

Program 

1/15/99 
4.0 Audit Division 

4.1 Audit-For-Cause 

4.1.1 Preparing 

for Commission 

Vote & Notifying 

Candidates/ 

Committees 

4.1.2 Conducting 

Pre-Audit 

4.1.3 Conducting 

Fieldwork 

4.1.4 Conducting 

Post-Audit & 

Processing the 

Audit Report 

4.1.1 Preparing for Commission Vote and Notifying Candidates/ Committees 

As resources are 

Circulate to 

Commission 

-ers for

review &

vote 

Black box results 

from RAD to 

Audit 

cover letter & 

Commissioners 

no 

yes 

An approved pool of Non-Candidate 

Committees 

available, send 

engagement 

letter to 

committees from 

audit pool. Call to 

schedule 

fieldwork date. 

Send 

engagement to all 

approved 

auditees. Call to 

schedule 

fieldwork. 

4.1.2 

Conduct 

Pre-Audit 

1/15/99 

Reports are 

closed 

Approved 

Candidate 

Committees 

Audit creates 

forwards to 

with RAD report 

schedule audit 

window 

If auditee 

requests delay, 

outside 6-month 
Audit Division 

4.1.2 Conducting Pre-Audit 

4.1.1 

Prepare 

for 

Meeting 

Auditors inquire 

within RAD/OGC 

for other issues 

Gather 

information 

(MURs) 

Review reported 

activity 

Analyze by 

categories and 

set up to 

compare to 

financial records 

Reconcile 

financial records 

with electronic 

records (if 

available) 

4.1.3 Conducting Fieldwork 

1/15/99 

5.1.2.3 

Condu

Review 

Audit 

Report

(OGC

4.1.2 

Conduct 

Pre-Audit 

Conduct entrance 

conference 

Withdraw while 

Conduct records are 

inventory of Records incomplete gathered. May Subpoenas 

auditee records include 

subpoenas. 

Records complete 

4.1.4 

Condu

Post-Au

Conduct exit Wait 10 days for Conduct full conference and auditee scope audit provide findings comments as documented 
Audit Division 

4.1.4 Conducting the Post-Audit and Processing the Audit Report 

4.1.3 

Prepare 

for 

Meeting 

Complete 

Routine 

findings? 

Send re

Prepare interim 

indexing; Peer review of audite

audit report which yes 

outlines findings 

Discuss findings 

with OGC 

Commission 

discusses report 

and votes in an 

manager reviews interim report respo

workpapers findi

no 

OGC reviews Attach cover report and no memo to report Does Audit agree with OGC 

analysis? 

provides legal with explanation 

analysis of issues 

Include OGC 

analysis in audit 

report 

Send report to 

Wait up to 45 

auditee for approved days for auditee response to Executive response findings Session 

not approved 

R

Interim report 

never released 

1/15/99 
4.2.1 Receiving 

Referral 

4.2.2 Conducting 

Pre-Audit 

4.2.3 Conducting 

Fieldwork 

4.2.4 Conducting 

Post-Audit and 

Processing the 

Audit Report 

Audit Division 4.2 Audit-For-Cause: Referral (437(g)) 

1/15/99 
Audit Division 

4.

Audit Div. may hold off until 

resources become available 

Commission 

-ers vote to

proceed with

audit? 

Work with OGC 

to determine 

scope/ 

parameters of 

audit 

MUR - In 

process 

from OGC 

OGC decides 

committee should 

be audited 

OGC sends 

Commissioners 

a memo 

recommending 

audit 

Commissioners 

informally notify 

Audit to assess 

current resources 

Close c

no continue 

aud

yes 

2.1 Receiving Referral 

4.2.2 Conducting Pre-Audit 

(Varies depending on scope of audit) 

4.2.1 

Receive 

Referral 

Inquire within 

RAD/OGC for 

other issues 

4.2.3 

Condu

Fieldwo

Analyze by 

categories and 

set up to 

compare to 

financial records 

Reconcile 

financial records 

with electronic 

records (if 

available) 

Gather 

information 

(MURs) 

1/15/99 

Schedul
Audit Division 

4.2.3 Conducting Fieldwork 

4.2.2 

Conduct 

Pre-Audit 

Does Audit 

need to 

contact the 

auditee? 

yes 

no 

Commence full or 

limited scope 

audit 

Conduct entrance 

conference 

4.2.4 Conducting Post-Audit and Processing Audit Report 

4.2.3 

Conduct 

Fieldwork 

Prepare audit 

report and layout 

findings for OGC 

Complete 

indexing; audit 

manager 

performs review 

of workpapers 

Open MUR and 

OGC closes MUR audit report to 

public 

Conduct peer 

review of audit 

report 

Forward audit 

report to OGC 

OGC continues 

with MUR 

1/15/99 

Conduct exit 

provide findings 

as documented 

conference and 

Perform fieldwork 

in-house 

Wait 10 Days for 

auditee to 

attempt to prove 

FEC findings 

incorrect 
Audit Division 4.3 Presidential Public Funding Program 4.3.1 Presidential Public Funding Certification 

4.3.1.1 Certifying 

Eligibility 

4.3.1.2 Certifying 

Matching Funds 

(Monthly) 

4.3.1.3 Certifying 

Matching Funds 

(Conventions) 

4.3.2 Title 26 Audits 

4.3.2.3 

4.3.2.1 4.3.2.2 Conducting PostConducting Pre- Conducting Audit and 

Audit Fieldwork Processing Audit 

Report 

An audit of all presidential candidates receiving public funds is mandated by 

statute. The FEC has an internal policy that all presidential audits must be 

completed within two years of the general election. 

4.3.1.4 Certifying 

Matching Funds 

(General 

Election) 

1/15/99 
Audit Division 

4.3.1 Certifying Presidential Public Funding 4.3.1.1 Certifying Eligibility (Primary Elections) 

Threshold 

Has all the

required

information

been

submitted? 

Verify each check

is matcheable by

state2 

Verify inform

in system 

correct - nam

contributo

occupatio

signature

Run through this process 

More 

information 

is needed 

Press Office puts 

letter on public 

record and 

notifies 

Candidate Commissioners Audit reviews for submits 9033 completeness Letter 

OGC reviews 

letter 

See 

5.1.2.1A 

OGC 

Process 

Audit performs 

initial review for Threshold Information good order and submission is complete inclusion of all 

documents 

with temps, once with an 

Have requirements 

been met? 

Prepare eligibility Trea

Commissioner Draft letter to 

yes report for receive

vote Treasury Commissioners and fund

no 

Informally work Issue Ineligibility Commission with candidate to OGC review Report (This has votes on meet Ineligibility Report never happened) Ineligibility Report requirements4 

1 Regulations set a deadline of 15 days to determine eligibility 

2 Normally check 21-22 states. One pass takes a couple of hours per state 3 Logical checks based on review of the documents and electronic records provided 4This is an opportunity for the candidate to appeal the decision and demonstrate he or she has met the requirements 

1/15/99 
Audit Division 

4.3.1.2 Certifying Matching Funds (Primary Elections) 

Monthly 

Candidate 

submits tape or 

disk of 

alphabetized list 

of checks 

Produce memo 

for 

Commissioners 

with 

recommendation 

on amount to 

certify 

Review for 

completeness 

Commission 

approves full 

amount 

Deter

amo

match

Data Systems 

draws a sample Review sample 

Send to Data 

Systems to 

download 

Report to 

Treasury for 

disbursement 

1/15/99 
Audit Division 4.3.1.3 Certifying Matching Funds (Conventions) 

Send back for revisions 

Prepare report to 

Commission with 

recommendation 

to fund 

committee 

Commission t

votes within 

hours 

Send repo

Treasur

1 Treasury handles the wire transfer and the committee gets the money the summer before the convention. 

Committee 

prepares Request 

for Funds letter 

and sends to 

Audit 

Review letter Analyze request acceptable Legal review by General Counsel 

Candidate sends 

signed Review for Nomination letter 

accepted? 

yes 

no 

nomination letter requirements 

to FEC 

Commission 

votes 

immediately 

Prepare Grant 

Eligibility Report 

Draf

Tr

OGC review 

4.3.1.4 Certifying Matching Funds (General Election)1 

1 Process only takes a couple of hours to complete. 

1/15/99 
Audit Division 4.3.2 Title 26 Audit 4.3.2.1 Conducting Pre-Audit 

FEC staff tracks 

candidates and 

begins scheduling 

former candidate 

audits (primary 

losers and drop 

outs) 

Review reported 

activity 

Reconcile 

financial records 

with electronic 

records 

Gather 

information 

(MURs) 

4.3.2 Conducting Fieldwork 

4.3.2.1 

Conduct 

Pre-Audit 

Conduct entrance 

conference 

4.3.2.3 

Conduct 

Post-Audit 

Conduct exit 

conference and 

provide findings 

as documented 

Wait 10 days for 

auditee 

comments 

Commence full 

scope audit 

1/15/99 

Inquire within 

RAD/OGC for 

other issues 

Analyze by 

categories and 

set up to 

compare to 

financial records 
Audit Division 

4.3.2.3 Conducting Post-Audit and Processing Audit Report 

Commission 

discusses report 

and votes in open 

session 

Attach cover 

memo to report 

with explanation 

Send report to 

candidate with 

Commissioners’ 

explanation 

attached 

4.3.2.2 

Conduct 

Fieldwork 

Include OGC 

analysis in audit 

report 

Commission 

votes on report 

Does Audit 

agree with 

OGC 

analysis? 

no 

yes 

Approval 

Wait 30 days for 

candidate to 

petition for 

hearing from date 

of issued report 

Conduct hearing 

on repayment 

issues 

Refer to OGC 

due to significant 

findings (MUR 

track) 

Uphold or reduce 

repayments 

OGC prepares 

Statement of 

Reason (restates 

issues) 

Candidate pays 

Treasury 

Commissioners 

disapprove and 

assess no 

penalties 

Candidate files in 

court 

1/15/99 

OGC reviews 

memo 

Create exit 

conference 

memo and audit 

manager reviews 

Send memo to 

candidate 

Wait up to 75 

response 

days for 

candidate 

Incorporate 

candidate 

response into 

audit report 

a
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

5.0 Office of the General Counsel 

Process Customers 

Internal: Other FEC Offices 

External: Filers, Public 

Process Descriptions 

The Office of the General Counsel is divided into four 

divisions: Public Financing, Ethics, and Special Projects; 

Policy; Enforcement; and Litigation. High-level process maps 

have been drawn for each. 

5.1 Public Financing, Ethics, and Special Projects (PFESP) is 

responsible for two mapped processes and five areas of 

responsibility not mapped: reviewing debt settlements, 

administrative terminations, ethics, Title 2 audits, and 

managing special projects. These latter processes were not 

mapped either because they represent a small portion of the 

total workload or because they typically are not process 

driven. 

5.1.1 Prosecuting Violations begins when Audit refers a case 

or Enforcement forwards a matter to PFESP. [See the process 

map for a description of the process following this sectin.] 

Within 5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing, 

several subprocesses exist. 

5.1.2.1A Reviewing Eligibility for Matching Funds begins 

when PFESP receives a request from the Audit Division to 

review candidate’s Letter of Agreements and Certifications 

(9033 Letter) for legal accuracy. This letter is a contract with 

the Government in which a candidate promises to comply 

with the law and to submit to an FEC audit in exchange for 

public funding. PFESP conducts a legal review, generates a 

report concerning its review, and forwards the report to the 

Associate General Counsel for review and approval. If the 

Associate General Counsel does not approve the report, the 

attorney who drafted the report rereviews the legal analysis, 

incorporates edits into the report, and resubmits the edited 

report for review and approval. If the Associate General 

Counsel approves the report, PFESP sends comments to 

Audit. Audit sends the Commissioners the recommendation, 

which the Commissioners consider. If approved, PFESP 

sends notification to the candidate. 

5.1.2.1B Reviewing an Ineligibility Determination After 

Candidate Has Been Determined Eligible begins after Audit 

initially determines that a candidate is eligible for matching 

funds, but then finds the candidate to be ineligible by the 10 

percent rule. In addition, candidates are no longer eligible 

for public funds after they withdraw from the race. A PFESP 

attorney reviews Audit’s determination, drafts a memo 

concerning date of ineligibility, and forwards the draft to the 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

Associate General Counsel for review. If the Associate 

General Counsel does not approve the memo, then the staff 

attorney redrafts the memo, incorporating the comments, 

and resubmits the memo for review. If the Associate General 

Counsel approves the memo, the attorney sends the memo 

to the Commissioners for consideration and a tally vote. If 

the Commissioners vote to approve the date of ineligibility, 

PFESP notifies the candidate of the Commissioners’ decision. 

If the Commissioners do not agree with the date of 

ineligibility, the Commissioners return the memo to PFESP 

for revision. If the candidate challenges the ineligibility date 

determination, the process repeats for a Final Determination. 

5.1.2.1C Reviewing Ineligibility Prior to Candidate Being 

Determined Eligible begins when PFESP receives a request 

from Audit to conduct a legal review of a 9033 Letter. PFESP 

conducts an analysis and submits it to the General Counsel 

for review and approval. If the General Counsel does not 

approves the analysis, the attorney reconsiders and redrafts 

his or her analysis and resubmits the document to the 

General Counsel for approval. If the General Counsel 

approves the analysis, PSESP forwards the review to Audit 

for comment. Using Audit’s comments, PSESP drafts a memo 

to the Commissioners concerning the legal review and 

forwards the memo to the General Counsel for review. 

Upon approval, PFESP sends the memo to the 

Commissioners, who review the memo. If approved, PFESP 

sends a Statement of Reason (SOR) notification to the 

candidate. The candidate reviews the SOR notification and 

responds to the findings. PFESP reviews the response and 

forwards it to Audit for comment. PFESP incorporates Audit’s 

comments into the Final Determination/SOR draft. The 

General Counsel reviews the draft, and upon his or her 

approval, PFESP sends the memo to the Commissioners for 

consideration. If the Commissioners approve, PFESP notifies 

the candidate of the Commissioners’ decision. If the 

candidate is determined to be eligible for funds, then the 

process ends. If the candidate is determined to be ineligible 

for funds, then the candidate can appeal the determination 

to the Court of Appeals. 

5.1.2.2 Reviewing Entitlement Recommendations begins 

when PFESP receives a request from Audit to review an 

entitlement determination. PFESP conducts a legal review of 

the entitlement determination and drafts a memo of findings. 

The General Counsel reviews the memo and, if he or she 

does not approve, returns the draft with comments to the 

drafting attorney. The attorney incorporates his or her 

comments into the new draft memo and resubmits it for 

approval. If the General Counsel approves the memo, PFESP 

sends the memo to Audit. Taking into account the legal 

review, Audit makes a recommendation to the 

Commissioners concerning initial determination of 

entitlement, and the Commissioners consider the 

recommendation. No matter the Commissioners’ decision, 

PFESP notifies the candidate of the decision and waits for a 

response. PFESP receives the candidate’s response and 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 2 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

forwards the document to Audit for comment. Audit reviews 

the response and sends its comments to PFESP, who 

incorporates them into the Final Determination 

Recommendation draft. The General Counsel reviews and 

approves the draft, and PFESP sends the memo to the 

Commissioners for consideration. No matter the 

Commissioners’ decision, PFESP notifies the candidate. 

Based on the Commissioners’ determination, the candidate 

can either petition for a rehearing or file an appeal in the 

Court of Appeals. 

5.1.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of Audit Reports can 

begin during the audit fieldwork phase when Audit asks 

PFESP to issue subpoenas for missing documentation. Before 

Audit’s exit conference with the auditee, Audit sends the Exit 

Conference Memorandum (ECM) to PFESP for legal review. 

The committee responds to issues raised at the exit 

interview, which Audit may include in its report. Audit 

issues the audit report, which PFESP reviews and forwards to 

the General Counsel for review. Upon General Counsel 

approval, PFESP issues and forwards to Audit a memo 

concerning the review. In addition, PFESP sends the memo 

and packet of information concerning the audit report to the 

General Counsel for review. If the General Counsel does not 

approve the memo and/or packet, he or she returns them to 

PFESP for revision. PFESP incorporates the General 

Counsel’s feedback and resubmits the packet for General 

Counsel approval. If the General Counsel approves, PFESP 

sends the memo to Audit. Throughout the rest of the audit 

process, PFESP provides continuous support to Audit. The 

Commissioners issue the audit report and send the report 

and Determination of Repayment to the committee. If the 

committee repays the money owed to the Commission, the 

process ends. If the committee does not pay the money 

owed to the Commission, the repayment process begins. 

5.1.2.4 Reviewing Repayment Recommendation begins 

when a committee requests an Administrative Review and 

Hearing concerning the amount of money owed to the 

Commission. PFESP notifies Audit of the request and sends a 

memo to the Commissioners to schedule the hearing. PFESP 

creates an informational Briefing Memo for the 

Commissioners, and FEC holds a public meeting concerning 

the repayment issue. If the committee submits more 

information after the hearing, PFESP reviews it and provides 

the committee with transcripts of the hearing and their 

comments. PFESP drafts a Statement of Reason (SOR) 

incorporating Audit’s comments and has Litigation and the 

General Counsel review it. Upon approval, PFESP sends the 

Commissioners the SOR for review. If the Commissioners do 

not approve the SOR, PFESP rewrites the SOR, including the 

Commissioners’ comments, and resubmits the revised SOR 

to the General Counsel for review. If the Commissioners 

approve the SOR, PFESP generates a Notification Letter 

concerning the Commissioners’ decision on repayment and 

sends it to the committee. Depending on the decision, the 

committee can either petition for a Rehearing or appeal to 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 3 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

the Court of Appeals. Pending the appeal, the debt owed the 

Commission is stayed. 

5.2 Policy is responsible for essentially four mapped 

processes. In addition, this Division is responsible for 

conducting legal review of non-FECA regulations; however, 

this process was not mapped because it represents a small 

portion of the total workload or because it typically is not 

process driven. 

5.2.1 Rendering Advisory Opinions begins when a 

requester, such as a committee or corporation requests the 

FEC to issue an advisory opinion on a particular topic. The 

request is routed to the OGC Policy Division, which 

evaluates the issue for jurisdictional requirements. If the FEC 

does not have jurisdiction, then the FEC declines to issue an 

advisory opinion and informs the requester of the decision. If 

the issue passes legal requirements, Policy assigns the issue 

an Advisory Opinion Request (AOR) number and sends a 

copy of the request for Public Records. An attorney is 

assigned to research and write the advisory opinion. The 

assigned attorney researches the issues and clarifies with the 

requester whether the request is a formal or informal one. If 

the requester does not respond to the attorney’s request for 

information, the attorney attempts to contact the requester 

again. 

If the requester withdraws his or her request for an advisory 

opinion, the process ends. If the requester does not 

withdraw his or her request, the attorney prepares a white 

draft of the advisory opinion and forwards the draft to the 

Associate General Counsel for review. Upon approval, the 

attorney e-mails the approved draft for comment to senior 

General Counsel staff, the General Counsel, and the 

Commissioners. These comments are incorporated into the 

white draft, and the attorney submits an agenda proposal 

and schedules a Sunshine Act notice to appear in the public 

record. The Associate General Counsel and the General 

Counsel review the draft report. Once approved, the 

attorney forwards a hardcopy of the blue draft to the 

Commission Secretary. The Commissioners review the draft 

and submit comments to Policy. Meanwhile, Policy makes 

the agenda proposal public for comment. The attorney 

evaluates and incorporates public comments into the draft 

and determines whether to counter comments or incorporate 

them into the document. 

The Commissioners debate and vote on the draft advisory 

opinion. If the Commissioners do not vote to approve the 

draft, then Policy issues an AOR Closure Letter. If the 

Commissioners vote to approve the draft, then the attorney 

reformats the document and forwards it to the Commission 

Chairman for signature. Once signed, the attorney sends the 

advisory opinion to the requester and releases it to the 

public via the Public Records office. Upon receiving the 

advisory opinion, the requester can either take no action or 

ask the FEC to reconsider the issue. The Commissioners can 

also ask OGC to reconsider the opinion. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 4 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

5.2.1.1 Reconsideration can begin when either the requester 

or a Commissioner submits a Request for Reconsideration 

within 30 days of the Commission’s decision. In response, 

Policy drafts both a Memorandum to Reconsider the 

Advisory Opinion and a Reconsideration Opinion, which 

the Associate General Counsel and General Counsel review. 

Following their review, the attorney forwards the 

Reconsideration Opinion to the Commissioners, who debate 

it in an open session. At this point, the process feeds into the 

Advisory Opinion process at the “ Commissioners debates 

and votes” step. 

5.2.2 Reviewing Regulations can begin one of three ways: 

(1) the Commissioners can direct OGC to draft a regulation; 

(2) an external petitioner can petition to repeal, modify, or 

add a new regulation; or (3) an internal office, such as 

Litigation or Audit, can petition a regulation. 

If the Commissioners direct OGC to repeal, modify or add a 

new regulation, then Policy drafts a Course- of- Action 

document. If the request comes from an external petitioner, 

then Policy issues a Public Notice of Availability, receives 

and evaluates comments from the public, and generates a 

Course-of-Action document. If an internal petitioner begins 

the process, Policy generates a memo to Recommend Rule 

Making Process, informs the Commissioners through a 

memo, and generates a Course-of-Action document. 

In the Course-of-Action document, Policy recommends to 

the Commissioners one of three alternatives: (1) OGC should 

not proceed with rule making; (2) OGC should issue an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making; or (3) OGC 

should issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. 

If Policy recommends not to proceed with rule making, the 

Commissioners debate and discuss this recommendation. If 

the Commissioners vote to accept the recommendation, the 

process ends. If the Commissioners vote not to accept the 

recommendation, then Policy issues a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making. 

If Policy recommends to issue either an Advanced Notice of 

Rule Making or a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the 

Commissioners debate, discuss, and vote whether to 

approve the recommendation. If they vote to approve the 

Notice, OGC publishes the Notice of Rule Making for 

comment and offers a proposed rule for public comment 

(30- 60 days). Policy incorporates public comments into the 

proposed rule and decides whether a public hearing on the 

proposed rule is necessary. If a hearing is not necessary, the 

proposed rule is sent to the Commissioners for a vote to 

approve, modify, or reject the rule. If the Commissioners 

vote to reject the rule, the process ends. If the 

Commissioners vote to modify the rule, the process 

continues with the “Formulate Draft/Final Rule” activity. If 

the Commissioners vote to approve the rule, the rule is made 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 5 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

public and sent to Congress 30 legislative days before its 

effective date. 

If a hearing is necessary, Policy sets a hearing date, holds a 

public hearing, evaluates hearing testimony, and 

incorporates hearing data into the draft rule. The Associate 

General Counsel and the General Counsel review and 

approve the draft rule, and once approved, OGC presents 

the revised draft rule to the Commissioners. The rule is made 

public, and the Commissioners debate and vote whether to 

approve, modify, or reject the rule. If the Commissioners 

reject the draft rule, the process ends. If the Commissioners 

vote to modify the draft rule, the process continues with the 

“Formulate Draft/Final Rule” activity. If the Commissioners 

vote to approve the draft rule, the rule is made public and 

sent to Congress 30 legislative days before it becomes 

effective. 

5.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of FECA documents begins 

with an internal request to Policy to review FEC 

publications. Publications include the Record, the Annual 

Report, and the Guide and Brochure series. Policy assigns to 

the publication a legal review number and a staff attorney. 

Once the attorney reviews the draft of the publication, the 

Associate General Counsel reviews the attorney’s comments. 

Upon approval, Policy returns the publication draft with 

comments to the editor for editing. As the FEC Record and 

other publications often have multiple drafts, this process 

would be repeated as many times as necessary. 

5.3 Enforcement. 5.3.1 Enforcement Process is a series of 

complicated legal processes with so many paths that to try to 

commit the process to a narrative would not add value to 

this analysis. Therefore, please refer to the process maps for 

a high-level description of enforcement activities. 

5.3.2 Cases on the Central Enforcement Docket (CED) are 

either internally or externally generated. If the cases are 

internally generated, their sources are a Directive 6, a RAD 

referral, sua sponte, or an outside agency referral. Once 

received, where appropriate, Enforcement assigns each case 

a pre-Matter Under Review (MUR) number. 

If the complaint is externally generated, Enforcement 

reviews the complaint for statutory criteria and submits 

issues to the special assistant who reviews for jurisdiction. If 

the issues do not meet the criteria, Enforcement notifies the 

complainant and respondents of the rejection of the 

complaint. If the complainant resubmits the complaint, 

Enforcement resubmits the issues to special assistant. If the 

issues meet the criteria, Enforcement assigns the complaint a 

MUR number and sends a copy of the MUR to the 

Commissioners for information. 

No matter how the matter was generated, Enforcement 

creates files, including a permanent file, for the CED leader 

and staff and assigns a paralegal to process the matter. The 

paralegal opens the case on the Enforcement Priority System 

(EPS) and MUR Tracking System (MTS), inputs the basic case 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 6 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

data (i.e., statute area affected), and prepares the fact 

summary of the case. Meanwhile, the assigned paralegal 

conducts a preliminary review of legal issues, generates a list 

of respondents, sends the list to the CED leader, and 

incorporates edits as necessary. If there is an overlap with an 

audit, then Enforcement refers the complaint to PFESP. 

Otherwise, the process continues. 

For complaint-generated matters only, CED generates and 

mails letters to the respondent. The respondent can request 

an extension, and CED can grant extensions up to 30 days. 

Extensions greater than 30 days require Commissioner 

approval. Enforcement receives all requests for extension. 

For all cases, CED rates the case on EPS, creates an EPS 

rating sheet, and circulates the sheet to the Commissioners. 

If the case rates below the threshold, Enforcement holds the 

case in CED, and the paralegal prepares a narrative 

summary for each case. The CED leader drafts a periodic 

General Counsel (GC) Report recommending dismissal, 

which the Associate General Counsel reviews. When the 

Associate General Counsel approves the report, he or she 

forwards the report to the General Counsel, who reviews the 

report. If the General Counsel approves the report, CED 

circulates the GC report to the Commissioners. If the 

Commissioners approve the GC report on a tally vote, CED 

notifies complainants and respondents. CED closes the case 

in EPS and MTS, enters the case in the MUR coding system, 

and transfers the files to the Freedom of Information Act 

section. At this point, Defensive Litigation can occur. 

If the Commissioners do not approve the General Counsel 

report on a tally vote, the Commissioners discuss objections 

with Enforcement. Enforcement generates and circulates an 

Objection Memo and schedules and participates in a 

Commission Executive Session. If the Commissioners 

approve the report, CED notifies complainants and 

respondents. CED closes the case in EPS and MTS, enters the 

case in the MUR coding system, and transfers the files to the 

Freedom of Information Act section. At this point, the 

defendant can sue the FEC, which would trigger the 

Defensive Litigation process. 

If the Commissioners do not approve the General Counsel 

recommendation, Enforcement holds the MUR(s) in CED. 

If the case rates above the threshold, CED compiles, 

prepares, and circulates summary information on CED cases 

for the monthly CED meeting. Included in these data are 

team leader input on staff availability for cases and team 

leader reports on case load and projects. Enforcement holds 

the monthly meeting during which cases and workload are 

reviewed, staff availability is identified, and new cases are 

activated and assigned to staff attorneys. 

Cases that are not activated are left in CED. If the case is 

activated, paralegals update the systems and pull case files 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 7 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

and the master file. They conduct a page-by-page 

comparison of the case file information with the master file 

information; return the master file; and send other copies to 

team leader, staff attorney, and investigator. In addition, 

CED creates an EPS Status Report, which is forwarded to the 

Associate General Counsel for review. When the report is 

approved, it is placed on the agenda for Commissioner 

review. The Commissioners can decide to pursue or not 

pursue the cases. 

5.3.3 Statements of Reason process begins when the 

Commissioners fail to approve the General Counsel’s 

recommendation to go forward with a case. Enforcement 

drafts a Statement of Reasons with a cover memo if the vote 

was a majority one. If the vote was a split one, then 

Enforcement writes only a cover memo. The Assistant 

General Counsel reviews the report and memo. Once the 

Assistant General Counsel approves the documents, the 

Associate General Counsel reviews them. Once the 

Associate General Counsel approves the documents, the 

General Counsel reviews and signs them and sends them to 

the Commission. The Commission issues a Final Statement 

of Reasons, which OGC files and sends to complainant 

when case closes. 

5.3.4 Dismissing Low Rated and Stale Cases begins when a 

case is identified for closing. CED generates a report 

recommending closing, which is reviewed by the CED 

Leader. When the CED Leader approves the report, the 

Associate General Counsel reviews the report. When the 

Associate General Counsel approves the report, the General 

Counsel reviews the report. When the General Counsel 

approves the report, the report is sent to the Commission for 

a tally vote. If the Commission votes to close the case, CED 

closes the case, inputs case data into the system, notifies all 

respondents and complainant of the decision, and sends the 

case file to FOIA. If the Commission decides not to close the 

case, it is returned to CED. 

5.3.5 Maintaining the Permanent File process begins when 

CED receives a document relating to a MUR. CED matches 

the document with the MUR and determines to whom the 

cases is assigned. CED generates four copies, returns the 

original to permanent administrative file, and distributes 

other copies. 

5.3.6 Coordinating Executive Session Agenda process 

begins when a report is sent to CED for circulation and is 

forwarded to the Office of the Secretary to the Commission. 

If no Commissioner objects, then the Secretary’s Office 

prepares and CED distributes a certification of the 

Commission vote. If any Commissioner objects, CED 

distributes vote sheets showing objections, prepares draft of 

agenda for comment, and circulates agenda to participants. 

CED revises the agenda as necessary, and sends the final 

agenda to the Office of the Secretary to the Commission. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 8 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

5.3.7 Tracking Civil Penalties begins when CED receives 

from Administration a copy of a check, which is considered 

part of the case file. Enforcement updates the Civil Penalty 

Tracking database and generates a two-way memo to 

Administration regarding disposition of the check. Then CED 

distributes copies of the two-way memo and check. 

5.3.8 Archiving beings when a case file has been held for a 

certain period of time. CED collects files and stages them for 

retirement in the National Archives. Staff packs, indexes, 

and labels boxes for archiving. CED sends indexes to 

Administration to schedule pickup, and Administration 

provides accession number to the docket. CED adds the 

accession numbers to the labels, seals the boxes, and sends 

them to Administration to ship. 

5.4 Litigation is responsible for offensive and defensive 

litigation processes. However, these processes are very 

complicated with so many paths that to try to commit the 

processes to paper would not add value to this analysis. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C5 - 9 
5.1 Public Financing, Ethics and Special Projects 

5.1.1 Prosecuting 

Violations 

5.2 Policy 

5.2.1 Rendering 

Advisory 

Opinions 

5.3 Enforcement 

5.3.1 

Enforcement 

5.4 Litigation 

Offensive 

Litigation 

5.1.2 Conducting 

Legal Review of 

Public Financing 

5.2.2 Reviewing 

Regulations 

5.3.2 Central 

Enforcement 

Docket 

Defensive 

Litigation 

5.2.3 Conducting 

Legal Review of 

FECA 

5.3.3 Statement 

of Reason 

5.3.4 Dismissing 

Low Rated and 

Stale Cases 

5.3.5 Maintaining 

the Permanent 

File 

5.3.6 

Coordinating 

Executive 

Session Agenda 

5.3.7 

Civil 

5.1 Public 

Financing, Ethics 5.2 Enforcement 5.3 Litigation and Special 

Projects 

5.4 Policy 

5.0 Office of General Counsel 

1/15/99 
5.1 PFESP 

5.1.1 Prosecuting Violations 

Do 

Commissioners 

approve report? 

Audit refers case 

Rate case using EPS 

II Draft Rating Sheet 

Obtain Associate 

General Counsel’s 

signature 

Circulate Rating 

Sheet to 

Commissioners 

Hold inactive Tier 1 

or 2 cases on 

PFESP docket 

Enforcement 

forwards case 

Determine case is 

stale. Draft report to 

Commissioners on 

determination. 

No 

Draft report to 

Commissioners on 

low rated cases 

General Counsel 

approves and signs 

report 

Circulate report to 

Commissioners 

Commissioners 

consider report 

Begin prosecuting 

violations 

Leave case on 

PFESP docket 

1/15/99 
5.1 PFESP 

5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing 

5.1.2.1 Reviewing Eligibility for Matching Funds 5.1.2.1A Reviewing Eligibility for Matching Funds 

Receive request from 

Audit to review 9033 

letter 

Conduct legal review Does AGC approve report? Generate report 

No 

Associate General 

Counsel (AGC) 

reviews report 

Yes Send co

A

Audit sends 

recommendation to 

Commissioners 

Commissioners 

consider 

recommendation 

(tally vote) 

If Commissioners 

approve 

recommendation, 

notify candidate 

5.1.2.1B Reviewing an Ineligibility Determination After Candidate Has Been Determined Eligible 

Associate 

General 

Counsel 

reviews memo 

Audit withdraws 

from race 

Draft memo to 

Commissioners on 

date of ineligibility 

Upon approval, send 

memo to 

Commissioners 

Commissioners 

consider memo (tally 

vote) 

Do 

Commissio

approve

Return to O

revisio

Disapprove No

Approve 

candidate’s eligibility 

for matching funds 

under the 10% rule 

or when the 

candidate withdraws 

1If Candidate challenges ineligibility date determination, the process is followed again for final 

determination after receipt of challenge. 

1/15/99 
5.1.2.1 Determining Eligibility for Matching Funds 

5.1.2.1C Reviewing Ineligibility Prior to Candidate Being Determined Eligible 

Disapprove 

Receive request to 

conduct legal review 

of 9033 Letter from 

Audit 

Conduct legal review Send memo to Audit Draft memo to Commissioners 

Commissioners 

considers memo 

(agenda) 

Commissioners 

approve? 

Send memo to 

Commissioners 

Draft Final 

Determination/SOR Yes 

General Counsel 

reviews Final 

Determination/SOR 

Do 

Commissioners 

approve? 

Send Statement of 

Reason (SOR) 

notification to 

candidate 

Receive candidate 

response Re

Incorporate 

comments from Audit 

Draft memo to 

Commissioners 

Approve 

yes 

General Counsel 

reviews analysis 

Approve 

Sen

Yes 

I

inel

c

Co

1/15/99 
5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing 

5.1.2.2 Reviewing Entitlement Recommendations 

Disapproves 

Commissioners 

render decision on 

recommendation 

Send memo to 

Commissioners 

Commissioners 

consider memo 

Commissioners 

render decision on 

recommendation 

Notify candidate of 

decision 

Candidate petitions 

for rehearing 

Receive request from 

Audit to conduct 

legal review of 

Entitlement memo 

Audit recommends to Commissioners initial 

determination of 

entitlement 

Conduct legal review, 

draft memo of 

findings 

C

re

General Counsel Approves reviews analysis Send memo to Audit 

Candidate responds 

to OGC’s findings 

and Commissioners’ 

decision 

Forward candidate 

response to Audit 

Draft F

Determin

Recomme

Notify candidate of 

decision 

Audit forwards 

comments to OGC 

Candidate appeals 

Commissioners’ 

decision to Court of 

Appeals 

1/15/99 
5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing 

5.1.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of Audit Reports 

Yes 

Conduct legal rev

of report

End 

ECM From Audit 

Conference 

Review Exit 

Legal Review 

Memorandum (ECM) Meetings with Audit Comments by E-mail 

Conduct legal rev

Committee responds of report and forw

Issue subpoenas Audit conducts exit Receive audit report to issues raised in to General Coun

4.1.3 Conduct Fieldwork 

(Audit) 

(during fieldwork) conference from Audit exit conference for review and 

approval 

Send memo and General Counsel Provide continuous Commissioners issue Approves accompanying support reviews memo support to Audit audit report to Audit 

Disapproves 

Send packet to Incorporate/address 

PFESP for General Counsel’s 

modification comments 

Does committee 

repay? 

No 

5.1.2.4 

Review 

Repaymen 

t 

1/15/99 
5.1.2 Conducting Legal Review of Public Financing 5.1.2.4 Reviewing Repayment Recommendation 

Committee requests 

an Administrative 

Review and Hearing 

Send committee’s 

request to Audit 

Send a memo to the 

Commissioners to 

schedule hearing 

Create briefing 

memo (informational) 

for the 

Commissioners 

Hold public hearing 

If necessar

committees su

more informa

Incorporate Audit’s 

comments 

Prepare Statement of 

Reason (SOR) 

Generate Notification 

Letter Committee petitions 

for review by Court of 

Appeals. Debt is 

stayed pending 

appeal. 

Send SOR to 

Commissioners 

General Counsel 

reviews SOR 

Litigation reviews 

SOR 

Committee petitions 

for Rehearing 

1/15/99 
5.2 Policy Division 

5.2.1 Rendering Advisory Opinions 

D 

Do

Commission

-ers vote to

approve

opinion?

no 

Does issue 

meet legal 

requirements? 

Assign AOR yes number 

no 

Requester: 

Committee, 

Corporation, 

etc. 

OGC - Policy 

Division 

Evaluate issue for 

jurisdictional 

requirements 

Send copy of 

request to Public 

Records 

Issue Assign AO to 

attorneys 

no 

A Follow-up if no 

response yes End

Prepare white 

draft with Assoc. 

General Counsel 

review 

Commissioners 

review & submit 

comments 

OGC makes 

agenda proposal 

public for 

comment 

Forward hard 

copy of blue draft 

to Commission 

Secretary 

E-mail white

draft for comment 

to Sr. GC Staff, 

General Counsel, 

Commissioners 

Evaluate/ 

incorporate 

comments from 

Commissioners 

and public 

comments 

Incorporate input/ Schedule Associate internal Submit agenda Sunshine Act 

General Cou

comments into proposal Notice to appear 

reviews dra

draft in public record 

Determine 

whether to Commissioners respond to 

debate and vote yes comments or 

on draft take back draft to 

further edit 

B 

1/15/99 

Generate 

response to 

requester 

Does 

requester 

withdraw 

request? 
5.2 Policy Division 

5.2.1 Rendering Advisory Opinions, continued 

C 

Chairman of Circulate to public Send document Commission via Public to requester signs document Records Requester

 5.2.1.1 

Reconsideration 

Take no action 

5.2.1.1 Reconsideration 

1/15/99 

Requester 

5.4.1 

Advisory 

Opinion 

Commissioner 

Submit Request 

for 

Reconsideration 

within 30 days of 

decision 

Generate memo 

to reconsider AO 

Prepare 

Reconsideration 

Opinion 

Associate 

General Counsel 

reviews 

Reconsideration 

Opinion 

General Counsel 

reviews 

Reconsideration 

Opinion 

F

Reco

O

Com
5.2 Policy Division 5.2.1 Reviewing Regulations 

External 

Petitioner 

Petition to Repeal, Modify 

or Add New Regulation OGC - Policy 

Division 

Internal Petition 

(Litigation, 

Audit, etc.) 

Commission 

directive to 

OGC 

A B 

C 

Commissioners 

debate & discuss 

Commissioners 

debate and make 

decision public 

Commissio

ers vote to 

approve, 

modify, 

reject rule 

Is a public 

hearing 

necessary? 

End 

No 

Commission

-ers vote to

accept

recommend

ation? 

Yes End

Offer proposed Commissioners Publish Notice of Incorporate public Commissioners rule for public debate and Rulemaking for comments into Ye

vote to approve comment (30 - 60 discuss comment rule days) 

D 

No Reject 

Associate 

General Counsel Conduct public Evaluate hearing Formulate draft/ 

and General 

hearing testimony final rule 

Counsel review 

and approve rule 

w

Issue Public 

Notice of 

Availability 

Receive & 

evaluate 

comments from 

public 

Generate Course 

of Action 

document 

A

Generate memo 

to recommend 

rule making 

process 

Inform 

Commissioners 

through memo 

E 

1/15/99 
5.2 Policy Division 

5.2.3 Conducting Legal Review of Federal Election Commission Act 

If multiple drafts 

Internal 

request to 

review FEC 

publications1 

Assign Legal Associate Return with Review number Staff review 

Draft of General Counsel comments to and staff to publication and reviews editor of publication Policy Division review draft of make comments comments publication2 publication 

1Publications include Record, Annual Report and Guide and Brochure series. 2 FEC Recordand other publications often have multiple drafts and if so, would go through the cycle multiple times. 

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process 

Directive 6 

RAD referral 

"Sua Sponte" 

Outside agency 

referral 

B 

Internally 

generated matter 

Send to Central 

Enforcement 

Docket (begin 

CED 5.3.2) 

Assistant General 

Counsel reviews 

report 

Send 

cases 

staff fo

and 

Draft first General 

Counsel Report1 

Does 

complaint 

meet 

criteria? 

Assign MUR 

number 

Receive external complaint Review complaint for statutory criteria 

Notify 

complainant and 

respondents 

1 First GC Report recommends a Reason t

no RTB where appropriate (Tier IV and so

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

A 

Associate 

General Counsel 

reviews final 

package and 

report 

Assistant General 

Counsel reviews 

final package and 

report 

Generate an 

Objection Memo 

based on 

discussion with 

objecting 

Conduct on OGC 

pre-agenda 

briefing meeting 

General Counsel 

reviews final 

package and 

report (when 

required) 

Does Asst. 

GC 

approve? 

Present at 

Commission 

executive session 

Take no further 

action (TNFA) 

B 

no 

Does Assoc. 

GC 

approve? 

B 

no 

Does GC 

approve? 

B 

no 

yes yes 

yes 

Do 

Commission 

ers vote for 

RTB? 

C 

5.3.3 

SOR 

no 

Close case 

Commissioners’ 

offices 

Notify all 

respondents and 

complainant 

Input into system Send file to FOIA

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

C 

D G 

Investigate case Resolve 

E 

Assistant General Assistant G

Send proposed and gather discovery Counsel reviews Counsel re

Conciliation additional data (if disputes (where final package and final packag

Agreement necessary) necessary) report report 

Respondent 

requests or OGC Generate and 

recommends pre- circulate report 

probable cause 

Generate and 

circulate an 

Objection Memo Conduct pre- Commissio

based on agenda briefing hold an exe

discussion with meeting sessio

objecting 

Commissioners’ 

offices 

Notify all 

Send file to FOIA respondents and Input into s

complainant 

F 

Does Asst.

GC

approve?

G

no no 

Tally vote to 

approve? 

yes 

yes 

Defensive 

Litigation 

Does Assoc. 

GC 

approve? 

G 

Associate Assistant General General Counsel yes General Counsel yes 

Counsel reviews reviews reviews 

no 

Does GC 

approve? 

G 

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

no 

Does

respondent

accept

revised

agreement?

L 

Generate an Participate in 

H 

offices cause agreement 

no 

Draft 

Send to recomm

respondent accepta

Commissioner- reject

revised proposal counter 

Does Asst.

GC approve

brief?

L 

D

G

E 

Draft report 

Does GC Assistant General 

approves

brief? 

no 

N 

Does Asst.

GC approve

report?

N 

Counsel reviews y

cause and a report 

conciliation

agreement for 

probable cause 

no 

no 

L 

2 This may involve report generation, approval, circulation to Commissioners processes 

1/15/99 

Objection Memo 

based on 

discussion with 

objecting 

Commissioners’ 

Conduct OGC 

pre-agenda 

briefing meeting 

Commissioners’ 

Executive 

Session on 

counter-proposed 

pre-probable 

Commission

-ers vote to

approve

agreement?

yes Attain signature from respondents agreement t

Circulate

Commissione

for acceptan

yes 

no 

Continue 

investigation 

stage 

Mid or post 

investigation 

prosecuterial 

direction 

dismissal2 

Draft General 

Counsel’s brief 

(probable cause 

to believe or no 

PCB) 

Assistant General 

Counsel reviews 

brief 

yes 

Assoc. General 

Counsel reviews 

brief 

recommending

probable cause

or no probable Receive respondent Reply 

Brief 

Send respondent 

Probable Cause 

Brief and send to 

Commissioners 

for their files 

yes 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

If do not approve 

either the report 

or the agreement 

Generate a

Objection Me

based on 

discussion w

objecting 

Commissione

offices 

I 

Does Assoc. 

GC approve 

report? 

no 

yes 

General Counsel 

reviews report 

Does Assoc. 

GC approve 

report? 

yes 

no 

N N 

Do 

Commission 

ers approve 

recommend 

ation and 

agreement 

by tally 

vote? 

K 

If approve both 

report and 

agreement 

If do not approve 

probable cause 

recommendation 

Close case 

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

K 

Generate and 

offices 

yes3 

3 Only if last respondent in case 

1/15/99 

D 

J 

Commission 

-ers vote for

probable

cause 

Send proposed 

conciliation 

agreement to 

respondents 

yes 

Negotiate 

counterproposed 

agreement (oral 

and written) 

G 

Draft report 

recommending 

acceptance or 

rejection of 

counterproposal 

Attain signature 

from respondents 

Circulate to 

Commissioners 

C

a

C

-

a

Commissioners 

hold an Executive 

Session 

circulate an 

Objection Memo 

based on 

discussion with 

objecting 

Commissioners’ 

Conduct OGC 

pre-agenda 

briefing meeting 

E 

Commissioners 

send back to 

OGC for more 

investigation 

Commissioners 

vote for no 

probable cause 

or PCTB/no 

further action 

5.3.3 

Defensive 

Litigation 

Send file to FOIA 

Notify all 

respondents and 

complainants 

Close case Input into system 

when applicable 

Commissioners 

vote to close file 

or split on its vote 

and OGC closes 

file 

5.3.3 

SOR 

Refer to 

Department to 

Justice 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.1 Enforcement Process,continued 

L Close case as to that respondent 

When entire file 

closes, notify 

respondents and 

complainant 

Close case 

(paper) Input into system 

Notify all 

respondents and 

complainants 

Close case K

Commissioners 

request further 

conciliation 

Transfer case 

and files to 

Litigation and 

offer to settle 

prior to suit 

Do 

Commission 

-ers 

authorize 

suit? 

yes 

no 

If Probable Cause to Believe Agreement Not Reached... 

Schedule on Recommend to Commissioners’ authorize suit agenda 

Draft report 

Recommend to 

close file Assistant 

General Counsel 

reviews 

Associate 

General Counsel 

reviews 

Enforcement staff 

review settlement 

offers 

Accept 

offer? 

yes 

Litigation reviews General Counsel reviews and signs no Litigate case 

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.2 Central Enforcement Docket 

Receive external 

complaint 

Review for 

statutory criteria 

Submit issues to 

special assistant 

to review for 

jurisdiction 

Meet 

criteria? 

no 

Assign MUR 

number 

Send copy to 

Commissioners 

Create 

CED st

leader. C

perman

Input basic case 

Conduct data (i.e., statute 

preliminary areas effected) 

review of legal 

En

Complainant resubmits? 

systems 

issues 

Determine 

whether an no 

overlap with Audit 

exists Generate list of 

yes respondents 

Notify 

complainant and 

respondents 

Prepare synopsis of case and enter 

into EPS 

Send to CED 

leader 

for information 

Review and 

incorporate 

changes as 

needed 

Refer to PFESP 1/15/99 

Internally 

generated 

Directive 6 

RAD referral 

Sue Sponte 

Outside agency 

referral 

Where 

appropriate, 

assign pre-MUR 

number 

yes 

Open case on 

EPS and MTS 

Assign paralegal 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.2 Central Enforcement Docket 

s 

Complaint generated matters only 

Paralegal CED Leader 

prepares drafts periodic Associate 

General Counsel Hold case in CED narrative GC Report General Counsel yes 

review summary for recommending reviews 

each case dismissal 

Close case in 

EPS and MTS. T

Enter case in F

MUR Coding 

yes system 

no 

Generate 

Objection Memo Participate in based on Conduct OGC Notify Commissioners’ discussions with pre-agenda yes complainants and Executive objecting briefing meeting respondents Session Commissioners’ 

offices 

A 

Docket generates 

and mails 

respondent 

letters 

Respondent 

requests for 

extension 

Receive all 

responses 

D

t

Does Assoc. 

GC 

approve? 

Does 

appr

C 

E 

Do they 

approve on 

tally vote? 

Do 

Commission 

-ers 

approve? 

E 

no

 Defensive 

Litigation 

Circulate rating

Rate case on sheet and 

EPS responses to 

Commissioners

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.2 Central Enforcement Docket, continued 

B 

Associate 

GC 

approves 

report? 

Is case 

activated? 

Leave case in 

CED 1 Com

pursu

1/15/99 

Compile 

summary 

information on 

CED cases for 

CED monthly 

meeting 

Prepare and 

circulate 

summary 

information and 

agenda 

Hold CED 

monthly meeting 

CED paralegal

pull case files and 

master file 

CED paralegals 

update systems 

yes 

Review cases 

and workload 

Team leaders 

identify staff 

availability 

Solicit team 

leader input on 

staff availability 

for cases 

Receive team 

leader reports 

(case load and 

projects) 

Activate new 

cases and assign 

them to staff 

attorneys yes 

no 

Create EPS 

Status Report 

(Informational) 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.3 Statements of Reason 

Commissioners 

fail to approve 

General 

Counsel’s 

recommendation 

to go forward 

(vote against or 

split vote) 

Send to 

Commission 

Assistant general yes counsel reviews 

Does 

Assistant 

GC 

approve? 

Send Statement Return Statement of Reason to of Reasons to complainant OGC for files when case closes 

Does AGC 

approve? 

Associate general 

counsel reviews 

Ge

Write draft 

Statement of 

Reasons and 

cover memo if 

majority vote; 

write cover memo 

only if a split vote 

Commission 

issues final 

Statement of 

Reasons 

1/15/99 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.4 Dismissing Low Rated and Stale Cases 

Does AGC 

approve? 

Does CED 

Leader 

approve? 

yes 

Close case? 

no 

Return to CED 

1/15/99 

Identify case for 

closing 

Generate report 

recommending 

closing 

CED Leader 

reviews 

Associate general 

counsel reviews yes 

Gen

S

Notify all 

respondents and 

complainant 

Input into system Close case (paper) yes Close case 

Commission 

conducts a tally 

vote on individual 

cases 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.5 Maintaining the Permanent File 

Determine to 

whom the case is

assigned 

5.3.6 Coordinating Executive Session Agenda 

Objection? yes 

no 

Circulate draft 

agenda for 

comment 

Distribute vote 

sheets showing 

objections 

Prepare draft 

agenda 

Distribute 

certification of 

Commission vote 

1/15/99 

Receive 

document relating 

to a MUR 

Match document

with MUR

Generate four 

copies 

Return original to 

master file and 

distribute other 

copies 

CED receives 

report for 

circulation 

Forward report to 

Commission 

Secretary 
5.3 Enforcement Division 

5.3.7 Tracking Civil Penalties 

Receive copy of 

check from 

Administration 

Update Civil 

Penalty Tracking 

database 

Generate twoway memo to 

Administration 

regarding 

disposition of 

check 

Distribute copies 

of two-way memo 

and check 

5.3.8 Archiving 

1/15/99 

Collect and stage 

files for 

retirement in 

National Archives 

Provide 

accession 

numbers to 

docket 

Add accession 

numbers to labels 

and seal boxes 

Adm

Hold closed case 

file for specified 

period of time 

Send indices to 

Administration to 

schedule pick-up 

Package, index 

and label boxes 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

6.0 Office of Planning and Management

(OPM) 

Process Customers 

Internal: All FEC offices 

External: Congress, OMB 

Process Descriptions 

Within the Office of Planning and Management, four 

processes were mapped. 

6.1 Budget Formulation process begins with a meeting 

between the Staff Director, Data Systems, and the Finance 

Committee to formulate the basic tenor and policy of 

budget. Then in April or May, the Planning and 

Management Director, Staff Director, and Deputy Staff 

Director develop guidance for managers and provide the 

managers with the guidance and accompanying schedule. In 

June, the Division Managers prepare individual budgets and 

memos for the Planning and Management Division. In early 

July, the Planning and Management Director uses these data 

to prepare draft budget. The Finance Committee and 

Division Managers review the draft budget in mid-July, and 

Division Managers prepare memos for Planning and 

Management Division. From the feedback, the Planning and 

Management Director prepares a revised budget. 

In early August, the Staff Director and Deputy Staff Director 

review and approve the budget. The Finance Committee 

again reviews the budget and offers revision suggestions to 

the Planning and Management Director, who revises the 

budget as indicated. During the month of August, the 

Division Managers review, and the Finance Committee 

approves, the revised budget. In September, the FEC submits 

the budget to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

and to Congress for approval. In November, Planning and 

Management negotiates and reaches an agreement with 

OMB on passback. In November/December, the Planning 

and Management Director and the Finance Committee 

amend the FEC request based on the OMB passback, and 

the Planning and Management Director prepares testimony 

throughout January. Between January and February, the 

Planning and Management Director prepares justification for 

Congress. The Division Managers and the Finance 

Committee review and approve the justification. 

In June and July, the Planning and Management Director 

reallocates funds as necessary to account for cost-of-living 

adjustment (COLA) changes, grade and step changes, etc. In 

July, the Planning and Management Director develops the 

management plan and provides schedule and guidance to 

the managers. In August/September, the Finance Committee 

reviews and approves the management plan, and by 

October, the Commission reviews and agrees on the 

management plan. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C6- 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

6.2 Budget Management process begins in June or July 

when the Planning and Management Director reallocates 

funds as necessary, accounting for cost-of-living changes, 

grade and step changes, etc. In July he or she develops the 

management plan and provides the schedule and guidance 

to managers. The division managers then prepare memos for 

OPM. During August and September, the Finance 

Committee reviews and approves the management plan and 

forwards it to the Commission for review. By October, the 

Commission reviews and approves the plan. 

Category A: Quarterly Adjustments begins when the 

Planning and Management Director prepares and distributes 

monthly MIS reports. To prepare this report, he incorporates 

MIS data, the monthly budget execution report, accounting 

system data, and Reports Status System data. Then, every 

quarter, Accounting makes monthly reallocations, and the 

Planning and Management Director prepares a quarterly 

adjustment request. If the request is less than $500,000, then 

the Finance Committee and the Commission review and 

approve the request. If the request is more than $500,000, 

the Finance Committee and the Commission review and 

approve the request, and the Appropriations Committee 

requests reprogramming. 

Category B: Earmarked Funding Reallocation begins when 

the FEC prepares a request to the Appropriations Committee 

to reallocate funds from Category B to Category A. The 

Appropriations Committee reviews and approves the request 

to move funds. This process is very rare; it has only occurred 

once. 

6.3 Monthly Budget Reporting begins when the Planning 

and Management Director prepares a monthly report of 

obligations versus budgeted expenditures and sends the 

report to the Budget Officer and Staff Director for review. 

The Planning and Management Director incorporates the 

Budget Officer and Staff Director’s comments into the report 

and distributes it to FEC offices for review. The Director 

revises the report based on these comments. 

6.4 Developing FY 2000 Performance Plan begins when the 

Director of Planning and Management develops a draft of 

the FY 2000 Performance Plan and sends the draft plan to 

staff for review. The staff reviews the draft plan and returns it 

with comments. OPM revises the plan based on the 

comments and sends the revised plan to the Finance 

Committee for review. OPM revises the plan, incorporating 

the Finance Committee comments, and returns the revised 

plan to the Finance Committee for review and approval. 

Once approved, the final plan is forwarded to the 

Commission for review and approval. Once approved, FEC 

forwards the plan to the Office of Management and Budget 

and Congress. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C6- 2 
6.0 Office of Planning and Management 

6.1 Budget Formulation (timing indicated is for a "normal" year) 

Planning and Management Director, Staff Director, Deputy 

Staff Director 

Develop guidance 

for managers, 

Review budget 

Planning and Management Planning an

Director Division Managers Di

Provide schedule/ Prepare individual Use 

guidance to budgets and prepa

managers memos for P&M 

Developed every May Ea

June 

5 - 6 years 

Planning and Staff Director, 

April/May 

Finance 

Finance Committee Division Managers Management Director Deputy Staff Director 

Review budget Revie

Develop strategic

plan

and amend and Prepare revised Review budget and 

prepare memos budget and approve rev

for P&M 

Mid-July Early August July July Mid

Planning and Planning a

Division Managers FEC Management Director Finance Committee Director/F

Submit budget to Amen

Revise budget as Review revised Approve revised OMB and based 

Prepare testimony 

Planning and Management 

Director, Staff Director, Deputy 

Staff Director 

indicated budget budget Congress 

Mid-August August August September 

pas

Nov

Dec

Reach agreement Prepare Justification for Review and Rev

Planning and 

Management Director FEC Planning and Management Director Division Managers Finance 

approve with OMB Congress Justification 

December/ January/ January/ January/ January February February February 

ap

Just

Ja

Fe

1/15/99 
6.0 Office of Planning and Management 

6.2 Budget Management Process 

(timeframe assumes a "normal" year)

 Planning and Management Planning and Management 

Director Director 

Reallocate funds Develop 

as necessary management plan 

June/July 

(account for COLA changes, 

grade & step changes etc.) 

July 

Planning and Financ

Management Director Division Managers Committ

Provide schedule/ Review a

Prepare memos 

guidance to approv

managers 

July 

for P&M 

July 

manageme

August/ September 

Category A: Quarterly adjustments

 Planning and Management Accounting Director 

Prepare and Make monthly distribute monthly reallocations MIS report 

Every Quarter Monthly 

Use -MIS data -Monthly budget execution report (Accounting) -Accounting system data -Reports Status System data 

Category B: Earmarked funding reallocation* 

Appropriations FEC Committee 

Prepare request to Review and reallocate funds approve request to from Category B to move funds Category A 

Planning and Management 

Director 

Prepare quarterly 

adjustment 

Is the request 

under 

$500,000? 

yes 

no 

Review and 

approve request 

Finance 

Committee 

request 

Quarterly or as needed 

(May require input from 

Department Managers) 

Finance Commit

Review and 

approve reque

Commission 

Review and 

approve reque

* very rare: only happened once 

1/15/99 
6.0 Office of Planning and Management 

6.3 Monthly Budget Reporting 

Prepare monthly 

report of 

obligations versus 

budgeted 

expenditures 

Send report to 

Budget Officer and 

Staff Director for 

review 

Revise report Distribute report to offices Revise report based on comments 

6.4 Developing FY 2000 Performance Plan 

Send comments to Send p

Develop FY 2000 Send plan to staff Staff reviews plan Planning and Revise plan Fina

Performance Plan Management Comm

Forward final plan Finance Finance Commission 

Forward final plan Develop final plan to Finance Committee Committee reviews and 

to Commission Committee reviews final plan approves final plan approves final plan 

1/15/99 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

7.0 Administration 

Process Customers 

Internal: All FEC offices 

External: Department of Treasury 

Process Descriptions 

Within the Administration, five processes were mapped. 

7.1 Accounts Payable process begins when an accounting 

technician inputs vendor data into vendor file. These data 

include vendor name, address, account number, and routing 

number. The vendor file feeds into the payment system. 

Then weekly, an administrative assistant reviews system 

changes and notifies the accounting officer of security 

violations. 

7.2 Procurement process begins when an FEC employee 

prepares a Purchase Requisition Form (PRF) and receives his 

or her manager’s approval for the purchase. The employee 

sends the PRF to the Budget Officer, who reviews it for 

reasonableness and to ensure that the request is within 

budget guidelines. Then Administration reviews and 

approves the requisition, assigns it a cost code, prepares a 

purchase order (PO), and manually distributes eight copies. 

At this point, the process splits: the 7.3 Vouchering process 

begins, and the receiving unit fills the order, accepts the 

goods, matches the PO to the packing slip, completes and 

forwards the Receiving Report to Accounting, and files the 

PO and Receiving Report. 

7.3 Vouchering begins when Administration files the 

invoice, PO, and Receiving Report seven days prior to the 

payment due date and sorts payments into batches 

according to type of electronic payment. 

For electronic fund transfer payments, an accounts payable 

technician inputs into the accounting system the payment 

data, including amount, date, schedule, and DAC. Then the 

technician runs a program to create information on a floppy 

disk. An accounting officer logs onto the Treasury Payment 

system, and an accounts payable technician loads payment 

information from floppy disk onto system. A certifying officer 

verifies and certifies payment information and forwards the 

payment document to the Accounting Director. The 

accounts payable technician files invoices, PO, and 

Receiving Report in Paid file. Treasury reviews payment data 

and transfers funds into the vendor’s bank. 

For check payments, an accounts payable technician enters 

check payment information into OBL- 12 and prints screen. 

A different technician copies payment information onto a 

floppy disk. An accounting officer logs onto the Treasury 

Payment system, and the technician loads the payment 

information from the floppy disk onto the system. The 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C7- 1 
 

 

Management Review of the Federal Election Commission 

certifying officer verifies and certifies payment information 

and forwards invoices to Accounting, where they are filed 

along with the PO and Receiving Report, in the Paid file. 

Treasury reviews payment data, issues checks, and mails the 

check to the vendors. 

7.4 Monthly Reconciliation begins when Administration 

prints the reconciliation report from the Armour system and 

reconciles the report with the General Ledger trial balance 

and Treasury’s bank statement. In addition, Administration 

reviews the account status and notifies account holder of 

low balances or of the option of closing his or her account. 

7.5 Cash Receipt System has three subprocesses. 7.5.1 Cash 

Receipt System – Daily Operations begins when a sales 

transaction in Public Records occurs. Sales can be paid for 

by cash, check or credit card or by using a prepaid customer 

account. Public Records runs a daily batch report of daily 

transactions and reconciles the batch report with the cash 

and receipts in cash drawer. Once reconciled, Public 

Records takes the report, cash, and receipts to Accounting. 

Accounting reviews the report, counts the cash and receipts, 

and provides Public Records with a receipt. In addition, 

Accounting inputs the receipt data into the Accounting 

system and deposits the money into Treasury’s bank account 

via courier service. 

7.5.2 Cash Receipt System – Opening a Customer Account 

begins when a customer completes the paperwork and 

makes a payment, which is entered into the Armour system. 

The payment is considered a daily transaction, and this 

process feeds into 7.5.1 Daily Operations process. 

7.5.3 Cash Receipt System – Replenishing a Customer 

Account begins when the Mailroom receives and routes 

payment to Accounting, which sends it to Public Records. 

Accounting prepares remittance and forwards to Public 

Records, which holds the receipts in a safe, enters them 

daily into the Armour system, and deposits them twice a 

week into Treasury’s bank account via courier service. The 

payment is considered a daily transaction, and this process 

feeds into 7.5.1 Daily Operations process. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Appendix C7- 2 
7.0 Administration 

7.1 Accounts Payable 

Accounting Administrativ 

Technician 1 e Assistant 

Review system 

Input vendor data1 changes weekly 

into vendor file and notify 

(feeds payment Accounting Officer 

system) of security 

violations 

1 Input name, address, account number, routing number 

7.2 Procurement 

1/15/99 

Prepare Purchase 

Requisition form 

(PRF) 

Receive approval 

Review PRF for 

reasonableness 

and to ensure 

within budget 

guidelines 

Approve 

requisition and 

assign cost code 

Manually distribute 

eight PO copies 

Prepare Purchase 

Order (PO) 

FEC Employee Manager/Supervisor Budget Officer Administration Administration Administration 

7.3 

Voucherin 

g 

Receiving Unit Receiving Unit Receiving Unit

Accept goods and 

match PO to 

packing slip 

Complete 

receiving report 

and forward to 

Accounting 

File PO and 

receiving report 
File invoice, PO 

and Receiving 

Report seven days 

prior to prompt 

payment due date 

Sort payments into 

batches according 

to type of 

Electronic 

Payment (ECS) 

For electronic fund transfer payments: 

AP Technician 2 AP Technician 2 Accounting Officer 

Input payment 

data amount, date, 

schedule and DAC 

into accounting 

Run program to 

create information 

on floppy disk 

Log onto Treasury 

Payment system 

system 

For check payments: 

AP Technician AP Technician 2 Accounting Officer 

Enter check 

payment 

information into 

OBL-12 and print 

Copy payment 

information onto 

floppy disk 

Log onto Treasury 

Payment system 

screen 

Treasury 

AP Technician 

Load payment 

information from 

floppy disk 

AP Technician 

Load payment 

information from 

floppy disk 

Ce

Ver

i

AP Techni

File 

an

Rep

Cer

Ver

i

File invoices, PO 

and Receiving 

Report in Paid file 

AP Technician 

Review payment 

data, issue checks 

and mail to 

vendors 

7.0 Administration 

7.3 Vouchering 

1/15/99 
7.0 Administration 

7.4 Monthly Reconciliation 

Print reconciliation 

report from 

Armour system 

Agree 

reconciliation 

report to General 

Ledger trial 

balance 

Notify account 

holder of low 

balances or of the 

option of closing 

account 

Review account 

status 

Agree to Treasury 

Department’s bank 

statement 

7.5 Cash Receipt System 

7.5.3 Replenishing 7.5.1 Daily 7.5.2 Opening a a Customer Operations Customer Account Account 

7.5.1 Cash Receipt System Daily Operations 

Give re

Public R

Sales can either be 

Sales transaction paid by cash, check, Run daily batch at Public Record’s credit card, or by using report of daily cash register into a prepaid customer transactions

account Armour system

Reconcile between 

batch report and 

cash/receipts in 

cash drawer 

Take report, cash 

and receipts to 

Accounting 

Review re

count ca

rece

A 

1/15/99 
7.0 Administration 

7.5.2 Cash Receipt System - Opening a Customer Account 

A Complete paperwork Input into Armour system Make payment 

7.5.3 Cash Receipt System - Replenishing a Customer Account 

1/15/99 

Prepare 

remittance and 

forward to Public 

Records 

Holds receipts in 

safe 

Deposit every 

Tuesday and 

Thursday into 

Treasury 

Department’s bank 

via courier service 

Mailroom receives 

and routes 

payment to Accounting 

Public Records 

records daily 

receipts onto 

Armour system 

Public Records 

receives payment A