That agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), would come to symbolize the fierce debate that occupies campaign finance policy overall. The FEC is responsible for civil enforcement of federal campaign finance law. Scope of the Report

The report provides background information about key areas of controversy and context that might be relevant for Congress as the House and Senate approach their oversight duties, appropriate funds, consider nominations, and explore options for restructuring the FEC or maintaining the status quo. As discussed throughout this report, issues ranging from minor administrative matters to fundamental changes in campaign finance law might be relevant as Congress considers the FEC. Because there appears to be little congressional consensus about how or whether to address the FEC and its functions, this report provides a resource for Congress to examine which policy questions and options are of particular interest, if any. Another CRS report discusses the FEC's role in enforcing campaign finance law and regulation. Congress most recently held an oversight hearing focusing on the FEC in 2011, as discussed later in this report. Modern campaign finance policy took root in the 1970s with enactment of FECA and related amendments—where this report begins. Today, all commissioners are presidentially appointed with Senate advice and consent. No more than three commissioners may be affiliated with the same political party. The " Deadlocked Votes " section provides additional detail. Selected Policy and Organizational Issues

Throughout its history, the FEC has been controversial. Congress has not actively addressed either topic through recent legislation or oversight. Congress has not recently considered legislation on this proposal. Reorganization Proposals

Since the agency's inception, some Members of Congress have proposed reorganizing the FEC to alter the number of commissioners or otherwise change the agency's structure. In these debates, commissioners do not necessarily differ on transparency per se, but on their interpretation of how and whether public input should be limited to those who are directly affected by a commission decision—such as a particular enforcement action or advisory opinion—or whether the commission also should solicit public feedback about campaign finance policy generally rather than on specific regulatory matters. "[W]hile most observers are content to dismiss the commission as a bureaucratic sideshow on the American political landscape, most also are willing to credit the agency with at least one major success.... [T]he FEC has built on earlier attempts to make campaign finance data open to public scrutiny and has made disclosure of campaign dollars an accepted and expected part of the electoral process." The IG reported that the agency nonetheless "continues to struggle with implementing IT projects" and said that it would continue to monitor the FEC's progress on IT issues. Potential Considerations for Congress and Concluding Comments

The Federal Election Commission is one of the most roundly criticized agencies in Washington. These criticisms are familiar, but examining the agency's mission and the context in which it operates is less common. Does Congress want to retain the FEC's six-member, bipartisan structure?
More than 40 years ago, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and related amendments. Today, the FEC is responsible for administering disclosure of millions of campaign finance transactions; interpretation and civil enforcement of FECA and agency regulations; and administering the presidential public financing program.
Six presidentially appointed commissioners, who are subject to Senate advice and consent, head the FEC. No more than three members may be affiliated with the same political party. Congress arrived at this bipartisan, even-numbered structure amid debate over how to properly insulate the campaign finance agency from political pressures. Although this structure ensures that commissioners must reach bipartisan agreement to make most decisions, it has not saved the agency from bipartisan criticism. Throughout its history, critics have alleged that the FEC fails to adequately regulate campaign finance activity or does so too stringently.
Discussion of what the commission does, why it does so, and how is less common. This report provides selected information about the FEC's history and ongoing issues that are likely to be of interest to Congress for appropriations, legislative, or oversight activities. The discussion is organized around those factors that most actively shape the FEC: its structure and commission appointments; organizational issues; and debate over campaign finance policy. These selected topics represent both ongoing and recent areas of congressional activity. CRS Report R44319, The Federal Election Commission: Enforcement Process and Selected Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed] provides additional information about the FEC's enforcement process—a topic that is related to some of the issues discussed in this report but also distinct from the organizational and administrative themes considered here.
As the FEC heads toward a half-century of regulating campaigns, perhaps the most fundamental question facing Congress and the commission is what the agency's mission should be today and in the future. As Congress monitors the FEC, it perhaps faces a choice similar to that facing the agency itself: whether to focus on major change—if any—or to emphasize managing routine business. Recent Congresses have engaged in oversight activities surrounding the FEC's enforcement practices and agency transparency. For more than 20 years, Congress occasionally has considered legislation to restructure the agency, particularly to change the number of commissioners, thereby reducing possibilities for deadlocked votes. H.R. 2931 in the 114th Congress is the latest such proposal.
This report will be updated occasionally as events warrant.