Congress established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) via the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments. The six-member independent regulatory agency is responsible for civil enforcement of the nation's campaign finance law. The Commission also administers public financing of presidential campaigns (applicable to participating candidates) and presidential nominating conventions. In addition to enforcement and regulatory duties, the FEC conducts a variety of outreach and educational activities. Under FECA, no more than three Commissioners may be affiliated with the same political party. In practice, the Commission has been divided equally among Democrats and Republicans. Affirmative votes from at least four commissioners are required to (among other duties): make, amend, or repeal rules, issue advisory opinions (AOs), and approve enforcement actions. (For the purposes of this report, enforcement actions can include finding "reason to believe" FECA has been violated, which can prompt an enforcement investigation. ) Matters without at least four votes for or against an action can have the effect of leaving questions of law, regulation, or enforcement unresolved, as some view the issues in question as having been neither approved nor rejected. Throughout its history, the Commission has been criticized for failing to reach at least a four-vote consensus on some key policy and enforcement issues, resulting in what are commonly termed deadlocked votes. The issue of deadlocked votes has received renewed attention since late June 2008, when most of the current Commissioners took office (see Table 1 ), and following a six-month loss of the agency's policymaking quorum. Some deadlocked votes among current (and previous) Commissioners were marked by controversy and apparently staunch, public disagreement. For example, two enforcement cases—one involving the 527 organization the November Fund and another involving Arjinderpal Sekhon, a former congressional candidate—featured an exchange of sharply worded "statements of reasons" articulating Commissioners' justifications for their votes. In the November Fund case, which focused on whether the organization should have registered with the Commission as a political committee, a deadlock resulted in the Commission rejecting an already-signed conciliation agreement. In the Sekhon case, a deadlock forced the Commission to refund a civil-penalty check that had already been submitted. Amid deadlocks in these and other cases, some Members of Congress, media organizations, and interest groups began to comment on what was characterized as the "increasingly public and acrimonious" nature of deadlocked votes. In August 2009, citing deadlocks and other issues, Senators Feingold and McCain introduced legislation ( S. 1648 ) to restructure the agency. Deadlocks also reportedly motivated congressional concern about FEC nominations. Although the topic of deadlocked votes arises frequently, empirical analyses of the phenomenon are rare. Those that exist rely on older data. Nonetheless, it is clear that deadlocked votes are sometimes controversial and are a regular topic of interest among those who monitor the Commission. What is less clear, however, is whether deadlocks are common or whether deadlocks fall along party lines. Both points are commonly cited (although often without quantitative data) in anecdotal accounts. This report addresses those questions by exploring deadlocks in rulemakings, enforcement matters, and AOs during the current Commission's first year in office—from July 2008 through June 2009. In doing so, the report presents data on how many issues—and which ones—resulted in deadlocked votes. Matters (rulemakings, enforcement actions, or advisory opinions (AOs)) voted on by the Commission are the unit of analysis. As such, the quantitative analysis that follows is based on the number of rulemakings, enforcement actions, and AOs the Commission considered during the period—not the number of individual votes that occurred on each issue. Although this report examines deadlocks that can occur during rulemakings, enforcement matters, and AOs, it is not intended to provide an exhaustive account of Commission operations, procedures, or processes. As such, detailed discussion of Commissioners' deliberations, the FEC enforcement process, or other issues that might be relevant for the broader context in which some deadlocks arise is beyond the scope of this report. The following analysis is based on data provided by the FEC and on other publicly available FEC documentation. Although certain matters remain outside the public record (e.g., votes on negotiations over civil-penalty amounts), the data presented here account for all publicly available deadlocks that occurred during the year under review. The analysis also provides an overview of the policy or legal issues considered in each of those deadlocks. The data show that although deadlocks occurred throughout the year, they occurred in a minority of the matters the Commission considered. Those issues on which deadlocks occurred, however, featured strong disagreement among Commissioners and reflected apparently unsettled positions on some major policy questions, such as: political committee status, when particular activities triggered filing requirements or other regulation, and questions related to investigations and other enforcement matters. In addition, the deadlocks that did occur always fell along partisan lines. If Congress chooses to examine FEC deadlocked votes, a variety of perspectives and options could be relevant, as discussed at the end of this report. This report discusses substantive deadlocks (or simply deadlocks ). As used here, the term means votes that precluded the Commission from reaching a consensus about how to proceed on a rulemaking, enforcement action, or AO. This includes 3-3 tie votes and 2-2, 2-3, 3-2 split votes that had the same effect as a tie (i.e., cases in which at least one Commissioner recused or otherwise did not vote). Substantive deadlocks are rarely the final vote on a matter, as the Commission usually votes to close the file after a substantive deadlock has occurred. In the cases explored here, however, the deadlocked vote essentially halted substantive Commission action on the matters in question. During the first year of the current Commission, no substantive deadlocks occurred on rulemaking issues. During the period, the FEC held votes on four rulemakings: reporting bundled campaign contributions, extension of the Administrative Fine Program (AFP), repealing increased contribution limits following the Supreme Court's invalidation of the so-called Millionaire's amendment, and adjusting certain penalties for inflation. Although the FEC was able to reach agreement on these four issues, the lack of deadlocks does not necessarily indicate that no conflicts exist on rulemakings. In fact, only one of the four rulemakings (the bundling regulations) approved during the period was controversial. Other rulemaking matters remain open—perhaps because consensus has not been reached. In short, it might be expected that no deadlocks occurred on rulemakings given that Commissioners appear to value consensus surrounding rulemakings and might, therefore, postpone formal consideration of proposed rules until at least a four-vote majority can be attained. As the data in Table 2 and Figure 1 show, evaluating the frequency of substantive deadlocks depends on what segment of the data is analyzed. FEC enforcement actions are handled through three mechanisms: the Administrative Fine Program (AFP), alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and matters under review (MURs). It is perhaps unsurprising that no substantive deadlocks occurred in AFP cases, which are limited to comparatively simple matters involving late filings. Similarly, although ADR cases can involve a variety of issues, the program is designed to facilitate negotiation that leads to relatively speedy resolution on fairly simple cases. Both the administrative fine and ADR programs typically involve cases that can be closed with little controversy and without the complexity and potential litigation involved in some MURs. By contrast, MURs can be complex and cumbersome. They may entail lengthy investigations or audits, protracted negotiations between the Commission and respondents, substantial civil penalties, or litigation—although the pace can vary depending on individual circumstances. Votes on each of those elements (where applicable)—and others—can generate deadlocks if the questions under consideration are controversial. Unlike ADR and AFP matters, MURs are also likely to involve cases in which facts or substantial questions or law or policy are in dispute. Substantive deadlocks occurred in approximately 13% of publicly available MURs closed between July 2008 and June 2009. Substantive deadlocks occurred in about 6% of cases during the period if the data are combined to include action on MURs, AFP, and ADR cases. Advisory opinions (AOs) allow requesters to ask the Commission for guidance about how campaign finance law applies to a specific situation. Typically, requesters use AOs to determine whether a planned campaign activity is permissible. The degree to which AOs are controversial can vary substantially depending on the request and complexity of the issues involved. As Table 3 shows, substantive deadlocks affected 5 of 29 (17.2%) AOs considered during the period. In three of those cases, however, the Commission was able to reach sufficient agreement to issue partial guidance. It is unclear whether substantive deadlocks occurred because of party affiliation, but every deadlock during the review period involved party-line votes. As noted previously, Commissioners Bauerly, Walther, and Weintraub are widely regarded as Democratic appointees; Commissioners Hunter, McGahn, and Petersen are widely regarded as Republican appointees. Notes accompanying the FEC data and a review of the individual vote certifications make clear that in every instance in which a deadlock occurred—whether on MURs or AOs—Democratic and Republican Commissioners voted in partisan blocs (although not every Commissioner voted in every case). In addition, in each case of a deadlocked vote in a MUR, Democratic votes would have resulted in additional enforcement action, while Republican votes would not. In most cases, this meant that Democratic Commissioners "voted to approve" Office of General Counsel (OGC) enforcement recommendations, while Republican Commissioners voted against those recommendations.