Flexibility in Ensuring Compliance with the Law
Letters of Admonishment[27]
The Commission approved a policy statement that clarifies the various actions the Commission may take when beginning the enforcement process. The Commission will find "reason to believe" in situations where there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation and where the alleged violation is serious enough to require an investigation or immediate conciliation. Previously, the Commission used the finding "reason to believe, but take no further action" when the Commission found a basis for investigating or attempting to conciliate but declined to investigate or conciliate. The Commission has determined that "dismissals" or "dismissals with admonishment" are clearer explanations about the Commission's intentions than "reason to believe but take no further action."
The Commission may dismiss a matter when it concludes that a violation did occur, but the violation is of minor significance. In such a matter, the Commission will send a letter admonishing the respondent. If available information provides no basis for proceeding with the matter, the Commission will find "no reason to believe." Such a finding occurs when the complaint, the response by the respondent and any publicly available information, taken together, fail to suggest that a violation has occurred.
Self-Reporting of violations
The Commission proposed an enforcement policy designed to encourage political committees and other persons to self-report possible violations of the Act. These self-reported violations— also known as sua sponte submissions—are generally resolved more quickly and result in lower civil penalties than matters arising by other means, such as complaints or the Commission's own review of reports. The proposed policy seeks to increase the number of sua sponte submissions in order to expedite the enforcement process and decrease the number of litigation and enforcement matters that the Commission must address. The policy details the various factors the Commission may consider in deciding how to proceed regarding sua sponte submissions.
The factors include the nature of the violation, the extent of corrective action (including new self-governance measures taken by the respondent), and the level of cooperation and disclosure with the Commission once the violation has been reported. Based on its consideration of these factors, the Commission may choose to reduce the amount of the civil money penalty it would otherwise have sought in the enforcement process. Additionally, a limited number of cases of self-reported violations may be subject to an expedited "Fast-Track Resolution," which may be granted at the Commission's discretion.
Dispute Resolution
As supplements to the standard enforcement process, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program offers a process for negotiating the settlement of cases and the Administrative Fine Program handles late filing and failure to file disclosure reports.
A permanent Commission program since 2002, ADR resolves cases outside the formal enforcement process. Instead, cases are settled through informal negotiation between the FEC and the respondent. Agreements typically involve smaller civil penalties, but require respondents to take specific steps to prevent repeat infractions. The Administrative Fine Program promotes timely filing by assessing civil money penalties for committees that file reports and notices late or fail to report at all. Not only has the program significantly increased the timeliness of committee filings, but it has enabled the Commission to devote its enforcement resources to more substantive violations.
In sum, the FEC closed 315 enforcement matters in 2006 (including Administrative Fine and Alternative Dispute Resolution cases), the largest number since 2001. At year's end, the total in civil penalties collected by the Commission in 2006 was $6,262,052, with $5,925,800 from enforcement cases, $136,299 through its Alternative Dispute Resolution program, and $201,953 from Administrative Fines.
| 
