1

INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY I21INV00037

Allegations of Bias Against Federal Election Commission Personnel Reviewing 58Th

Presidential Inaugural Committee Reports

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated an 

investigation based on allegations reported in the media in October 2020 concerning the FEC’s 

Reports Analysis Division (RAD). The media report alleged that RAD may have failed to 

exercise adequate oversight of the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee (the Inaugural 

Committee) due to an alleged personal relationship between a RAD senior manager and a former 

FEC Commissioner who was associated with the 2016 Trump campaign and related entities. 

The same report further questioned expenditures by the Inaugural Committee, including alleged 

fraudulent and excessive spending at Trump properties. In addition, it questioned the 

Commission’s decision to dismiss a May 2, 2017 complaint that alleged the Inaugural 

Committee violated federal law and agency regulations by filing a disclosure report that did not 

include required information and that contained erroneous donor addresses. 

The OIG investigation sought answers to the following questions:

 Did personal or political biases on the part of senior RAD personnel undermine the 

impartiality of its oversight of the 58th Inaugural Committee’s FEC filings or the 

Commission’s dismissal of the 2017 complaint against the Inaugural Committee?

 What criteria did RAD use to determine that there were no apparent serious 

violations on the Inaugural Committee’s report in light of allegations to the contrary 

filed in the 2017 complaint and raised in media reports?

In order to answer the foregoing questions, the OIG reviewed relevant statutes, regulations, and 

FEC policies; obtained and reviewed relevant agency records; and interviewed FEC personnel 

that included attorneys from the Office of General Counsel and RAD staff. The OIG issued a 

Report of Investigation to the Commission on July 29, 2021 that detailed the following findings. 

First, the relevant legal standards provide for limited FEC oversight of presidential inaugural 

committees. Specifically, 36 U.S.C. § 510 provides for virtually no oversight of inaugural 

committee expenditures and places essentially no restrictions on expenditures. Accordingly, the 

OIG found there were no opportunities for the RAD senior manager or other RAD staff to 

improperly influence agency reviews or outcomes concerning Inaugural Committee 

expenditures. 
Investigative Summary I21INV00037: Allegations of Bias Against Federal Election Commission 

Personnel Reviewing 58Th Presidential Inaugural Committee Reports

2

The OIG considered developing recommendations to address the risks posed by the lack of FEC 

oversight of presidential inaugural committee expenditures given the allegations of fraud and 

conflicts of interest reported in multiple media outlets. However, the lack of statutory authority 

for FEC review of inaugural committee expenditures prevents the OIG from recommending 

additional oversight absent Congressional action to amend 36 U.S.C. § 510 and related 

standards.

Second, the investigation found that the RAD senior manager and other RAD personnel acted 

consistent with relevant law and policy concerning review of the Inaugural Committee’s reports. 

The evidence obtained by the OIG established that RAD personnel adhered to the FEC practice 

that delegates review of filings to staff-level career analysts. Senior RAD personnel were not 

directly involved in the review or analysis of the Inaugural Committee’s reports. As such, there 

were no opportunities for senior RAD personnel to act improperly without personally intervening 

in the review and analysis of the relevant reports, which by all accounts did not occur here. 

Although this investigation found no instances in which RAD officials acted improperly, it is 

important to address the ethical principle that federal employees should avoid even the 

appearance of impropriety. Ethical principles promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics 

encourage (and in some cases require) federal employees to seek guidance and potentially recuse 

themselves to avoid unethical situations, in fact or appearance. Although the facts of this case 

did not trigger any such requirements, the FEC’s unique mission raises heightened concerns 

when allegations of personal or political bias are raised against FEC senior personnel that could 

undermine the public’s confidence in the agency. Accordingly, the OIG developed a 

recommendation that the Commission evaluate the current agency policies on ethical behavior 

and update them, as may be appropriate.

Third, this investigation found that FEC policy regarding the oversight of presidential inaugural 

committees provides insufficient guidance concerning the identification of potential violations. 

The standard applicable to inaugural committees is inconsistent with standards that govern 

political committees and confers broad, subjective discretion to the RAD senior manager to 

determine what potential violations of law warrant further inquiry. That ill-defined and 

subjective standard creates a reasonable likelihood of inconsistent results and arbitrary or 

capricious application (in fact or appearance). Accordingly, the OIG recommends that the 

Commission update the relevant standards to clarify the criteria used to identify potential 

violations and provide measurable standards concerning the review of inaugural committee 

reports.

Fourth, this investigation found that RAD’s existing process for review of inaugural committee 

reports is antiquated and lacks adequate internal controls. Unlike reviews of political committee 

reports (which are submitted and reviewed electronically), inaugural committee reports are 

completed on paper and manually reviewed by a RAD analyst and are subject to less scrutiny 

than political committee reports. Those manual submission and review processes are inefficient 

and creates substantial risk of human error, given the voluminous data involved. As such, the 

OIG recommends that the Commission update the inaugural committee review process.
Investigative Summary I21INV00037: Allegations of Bias Against Federal Election Commission 

Personnel Reviewing 58Th Presidential Inaugural Committee Reports

3

Lastly, the OIG found that the FEC’s current practice concerning donors to all committees 

(inauguration and political) with foreign addresses poses significant national security risks, 

particularly in light of recent high-profile reports of foreign influence in U.S. elections. Federal 

law prohibits inaugural committees (as well as other political committees) from accepting 

donations from foreign nationals. RAD identifies potential foreign national donations based on 

the reported addresses of donors. However, RAD personnel testified that the division generally 

defers to a committee’s self-certification that it verified the U.S. citizenship of donors with 

foreign addresses. 

This investigation found the current practice of relying on a committee’s conclusory verification 

is not memorialized in any RAD policy. In addition, committees may not be familiar with 

regulations concerning citizenship verification and the relevant FEC forms provide neither 

instructions nor direct reference to the regulations concerning foreign donations. Accordingly, 

the OIG recommends that RAD memorialize a policy concerning the identification of potential 

foreign donations and that the Commission consider updating relevant forms and instructions to 

ensure filers are aware of verification requirements imposed by federal regulation.

The OIG further recommends that RAD’s policy include specific thresholds that will trigger the 

issuance of requests for additional information (RFAIs) for donations with foreign addresses, 

notwithstanding purported verification by the relevant committees (political and inaugural). We 

recommend that RFAIs should require the relevant committees to produce the bases for their 

citizenship verifications (e.g., copies of current and valid U.S. passport papers for U.S. citizens, 

as provided in 11 C.F.R. § 110.20) when donations associated with foreign addresses exceed a 

specific threshold. We also recommend that RAD’s policy include appropriate referrals when

U.S. citizenship cannot be verified.