Federal Politics

Published — December 15, 2010 Updated — May 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm ET

FEC penalties plummet even as campaign spending hits record high

Introduction

As outside spending to influence elections soared in 2010, the federal agency charged with enforcing election laws handed out some of the smallest penalties in its three-decade history.

The Federal Election Commission levied less than $1 million in fines this year to election scofflaws, a far cry from the $6.7 million in civil penalties in 2006.

Experts said the low output resulted from internal politics that deadlocked the six-member regulatory body and from a landmark Supreme Court ruling that gutted campaign finance laws and opened the spigot for massive corporate and union spending in the 2010 election.

“Court decisions have changed the rules of the game,” said Paul Ryan, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that generally favors stricter enforcement of campaign finance laws. “There is now a smaller universe of illegal activities.”

A current commissioner, Republican appointee Donald McGahn, attributes the decline to the FEC paying more attention to compliance and prevention.

“In the past, the commission used to be like the police officer at the bar, waiting for a drunk driver to get in the car and drive away, then arrest them for drunk driving. I’d rather be the cop at the door taking the keys. You don’t have to let people gets themselves in big trouble before fixing the problem,” McGahn told the Center for Public Integrity.

The FEC slapped penalties on 108 cases in 2006, 252 in 2007, 104 in 2008, 248 in 2009, and 34 in 2010.

Some cases that might have drawn penalties in the past were resolved instead through dispute resolution, a form of mediation. That applied to 51 cases in 2006, 67 in 2007, 36 in 2008, 52 in 2009, and 39 in 2010.

A November report released by the FEC shows penalties for the 2010 fiscal year amount to only $860,000.

That is a sharp decline from 2006 fines totaling $6.71 million, which was more than double the amount of penalties in any other year in the agency’s history. “Our performance this year sends a strong message that while we will do our best to encourage voluntary compliance, we will also seek significant civil penalties when we uncover serious violations of federal election laws,” then-Chairman Michael Toner said at the time.

More than half of the 2006 fines came from a single penalty, $3.8 million paid by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), for using corporate funds and company resources to illegally contribute to political committees. Freddie Mac’s actions would have been illegal even under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in January that opened the floodgates of corporate contributions to finance political ads.

“I would think the generalized confusion in the state of the law since January also impacted the enforcement process,” said former commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democratic appointee, referring to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling. Spending in the 2010 elections is estimated to have reached as high as $4 billion, a record amount even as FEC enforcement declined.

Thomas added, “There may also be a decrease in the number of complaints being filed simply because the FEC has gotten some press about just dropping cases that the staff has presented to the commission with civil penalties in hand. ”

Commission deadlocked in some cases

Another former commissioner attributed the decline to the court rulings as well as political splits among the FEC’s six commissioners. The FEC is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

“There were several who settled rather than going to court because of the costs of litigation. More recently there have been deadlocks on the commission and inability to agree on the proper level of fines,” said ex-commissioner Karl Sandstrom, also a Democratic appointee. “A good thing to look at is how many matters were actually pursued. I think most practitioners working in the area would say there’s been a big drop off.”

The Citizens United ruling said corporate funding of political ads in elections could not be limited under the First Amendment. The decision struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold Act prohibiting unions and corporations from broadcasting political ads.

Addressing a complaint against Freedom Watch, Inc., the FEC set a new legal precedent by not requiring reporting of single donor sources. The complaint accused the political action committee of violating FEC disclosure laws when it aired a political ad but failed to identify donors. The FEC case was dismissed in August when the commission deadlocked, once again, on a 3-3 vote.

A statement released by the three Republican commissioners said that only funds donated for the explicit purpose of funding an ad must be disclosed.

The political split among the six FEC commissioners leads to frequent deadlocks because it takes four votes to conclude that the law was broken.

“We have complained about the increase in deadlocked votes at the FEC. There are some Republican commissioners with less of an appetite for enforcing the law than anyone in the agency’s history. With deadlocked votes, nothing happens,” Ryan said.

Read more in Federal Politics

Share this article

Join the conversation

Show Comments

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
SOUTH JERSEYTed SiroisMark SullivanTom LarkinAnonymous Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Trump needs to conduct these activities because the entire MSM media, excluding Fox, is campaigning against him 24/7/365.

Didn’t Monica’s boyfriend’s wife and various criminal enterprises outspend Trump by almost 2-1?

CapitalistRoader
Guest
CapitalistRoader

Why wouldn’t he get an early start on fund raising? Hillary outspent him two-to-one in 2016. The Dem’s are the party of big money. The President knows this and is attempting to get a jump on it. Of course the Dem candidate will outspend him in 2020 so it’s only rational that he starts fund raising now.

George Young
Guest
George Young

Oh brother. We just 8 years of the Campaigner – in – Chief. Where was this journalistic rectal thermometer then. Just another article about 2000 words too long that merely takes another slap at Trump for something he far from initiated.

j stevenson
Guest
j stevenson

The big difference between Trump and all the rest is his refusing to accept funds from lobbyists, so they don’t have the White House access they are used to. These are the donors who buy the presidency and are as pixxed off that he won the election as are the media and the Dems. Lobbyists have never been shut out of the WH and Trump has told them he is not for sale.

jan v
Guest
jan v

all the lobbyists are running all our government agencies and all the career civil servants who know how to run the country have been fired. YOU think this is a good thing ? what a crock…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Trump needs to be impeached and tossed in prison. Then have the key thrown away so he will never be free. Then he can see how it feels not to have freedom.

Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Thank you for the usual insightful leftist low IQ Snowflake response.

barney
Guest

hes not imprisoning them hes sending them back to their country chill tf out

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

WHY DONT YOU HAVE FREEDOM?

Tom Larkin
Guest
Tom Larkin

First, something positive. I was happy to learn of empirical information in article. BUT, the article was so slanted against President Trump as to be deemed fake news (“Perhaps Trump just lied.” (Two different issues)). The article mentions that President Trump raised over $67 million, but ended 2018 with $19 million. President Trump spent over $40 million 2016 and 2017. President Trump conducted 57 political rallies. The article notes the hats and T-shirts sold, but NEVER MENTIONS THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS during a mid-term election that lost the House and the number of political rallies in… Read more »

Ted Sirois
Guest
Ted Sirois

At least Trump is getting donations from willing donors. Fresh from his first election, Obama used billions of our children’s tax dollars to save thousands of union jobs in the car industry and bailed out the banks and many Wall Street businesses. This secured his source of reelection funds for his reelection four years later.

South Jersey
Guest
South Jersey

TRUMP 2020; IS AN AMAZINGLY SMART MAN! VERY ORIGINAL & CREATIVE. I AM HAPPY TO HAVE HIS AS POTUS.

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

THIS ARTICLE WAS OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY, A TRUMP-HATE-GROUP. THAT FEELS; IT IS NOT NORMAL TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH YOUR OWN BRAND NAME. WHEN, IF FACT, IT IS NORMAL! >>>>> THIS IS >>> FAKE NEWS!!! <<<< ie: A PACK-OF-LIES; SPUN INTO; DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. FOR A SINISTER-AGENDA OF; FASCIST DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, COUP D'ETAT

David
Guest
David

Are you on some kind of drugs? Writing in caps makes me think that you are grumpy old fart or a uneducated hillbilly.