Partially due to enforcement controversies, Congress has occasionally considered restructuring the agency. In recent years, commissioners have sparred at open meetings and in the media about whether the agency's enforcement activities are inadequate or overzealous. Rather, it represents broader controversies about what the FEC does and what it should do, and what federal campaign finance policy is and should be. This report is not about the FEC's individual enforcement controversies, but, rather, about why controversies surrounding the enforcement process might matter to Congress as it provides the agency with overall direction and shapes campaign finance policy generally. In particular, another CRS product provides an overview of the FEC. Some discussions of the FEC's authority, which are generally beyond the scope of this report, use the term "commission" to denote members of the FEC as opposed to agency staff. More generally, enforcement is one of the most prominent topics in federal campaign finance policy. Latest Congressional Activity

Congress has considered various campaign finance legislation, and conducted FEC oversight, for decades. In the 114 th Congress, H.R. Another CRS report provides additional detail about the commission. The " Deadlocked Votes " section contains additional detail. Selected Major Topics of Debate in Enforcement

		Transparency and the Enforcement Process

At least two transparency issues are central to the enforcement process. Much of that hearing emphasized transparency surrounding the FEC's enforcement process. Congress appears to have anticipated that the commission might be unable to reach consensus in some controversial cases, and perhaps intended for deadlocks to occur. Potential Considerations for Congress and Concluding Comments

Enforcement is important not only for encouraging compliance with law and regulation or correcting non-compliance, but also for what it represents about the state of campaign finance policy overall. For others, it is too lax to be effective. As such, some contend that more vigorous enforcement of campaign finance law requires restructuring the FEC. Other observers warn that an odd number of commissioners could invite politicized enforcement. Does the commission have a unified understanding of what the agency's enforcement priorities are and should be? The FEC can determine how to prioritize enforcement activities, fill relevant staff vacancies, and whether or not commissioners can agree on enforcement actions.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for civil enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and other campaign finance statutes. Enforcement, one of the FEC's principal functions, is perhaps the most controversial thing the agency does. Enforcement matters not only for encouraging compliance with law and regulation, but also for what it represents about the state of campaign finance policy overall. Some agency critics argue that modest fines, protracted processes, and deadlocked commission votes demonstrate that the FEC cannot effectively enforce campaign finance law. Others contend that Congress designed the FEC, which includes six commissioners who typically represent the two major political parties, to be deliberate and driven by consensus so that enforcement would not be politicized.
Enforcement has drawn attention inside and outside the agency. In recent years, commissioners have sparred at open meetings and in the media about whether the agency's enforcement activities are inadequate or overzealous. The commission has struggled to staff some senior enforcement positions. Through oversight hearings, recent Congresses have monitored the FEC's enforcement activities and, in some cases, criticized the transparency surrounding those processes. 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 provides Congress with a resource for understanding the FEC's enforcement process and context for why enforcement is consequential. Enforcement represents broader debates about what the FEC does and what it should do, and what federal campaign finance policy is and should be. The FEC can determine how to prioritize enforcement activities and can manage its response to ongoing campaign finance policy disagreements. The agency has less or no control over other aspects of its environment, such as the enforcement process mandated in FECA. CRS Report R44318, The Federal Election Commission: Overview and Selected Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed] provides an overview of the FEC generally, including attention to organizational and administrative matters that are related to but distinct from the enforcement topics discussed here.
This report will be updated occasionally as events warrant.