(a) To challenge a reason to believe finding or proposed civil money penalty, the respondent must submit a written response to the Commission within forty (40) days of the Commission's reason to believe finding.
(b) The respondent's written response must assert at least one of the following grounds for challenging the reason to believe finding or proposed civil money penalty:
(1) The Commission's reason to believe finding is based on a factual error including, but not limited to, the committee was not required to file the report, or the committee timely filed the report in accordance with 11 CFR 100.19;
(2) The Commission improperly calculated the civil money penalty; or
(3) The respondent used best efforts to file in a timely manner in that:
(i) The respondent was prevented from filing in a timely manner by reasonably unforeseen circumstances that were beyond the control of the respondent; and
(ii) The respondent filed no later than 24 hours after the end of these circumstances.
(c) Circumstances that will be considered reasonably unforeseen and beyond the control of respondent include, but are not limited to:
(1) A failure of Commission computers or Commission-provided software despite the respondent seeking technical assistance from Commission personnel and resources;
(2) A widespread disruption of information transmissions over the Internet not caused by any failure of the Commission's or respondent's computer systems or Internet service provider; and
(3) Severe weather or other disaster-related incident.
(d) Circumstances that will not be considered reasonably unforeseen and beyond the control of respondent include, but are not limited to:
(1) Negligence;
(2) Delays caused by committee vendors or contractors;
(3) Illness, inexperience, or unavailability of the treasurer or other staff;
(4) Committee computer, software or Internet service provider failures;
(5) A committee's failure to know filing dates; and
(6) A committee's failure to use filing software properly.
(e) Respondent's written response must detail the factual basis supporting its challenge and include supporting records.
[72 FR 14667, Mar. 29, 2007, as amended at 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Combat Vets. for Cong. Political Action Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013).
· cites it 5× “As discussed, 11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (b)(3) allows parties to challenge fines on the grounds that “[t]he respondent used best efforts to file in a timely manner in that: (i) The respondent was prevented from filing in a timely manner by reasonably unforeseen circumstances that were…”
Lovely v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 307 F. Supp. 2d 294 (D. Mass. 2004).
· cites it 3× “The recommendation summarized the facts at issue, Lovely’s submission, and the regulations, and then stated that since Lovely had not raised any of the three defenses permitted by 11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (b), the Officer recommended that a fine of $3100 be imposed for the 27 days the…”
McChesney v. Petersen, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Neb. 2016).
· cites it 6× “11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (a), (e). The written response must assert one of three possible grounds for such a challenge: (1) factual errors in the Commission’s finding; (2) inaccurate calculation of the penalty; or (3) a showing that the respondent used “best efforts” to file in a…”
Robert McChesney v. Caroline C. Hunter, 900 F.3d 578 (8th Cir. 2018).
“It contends that McChesney did not bring a proper challenge because he did not assert one of the three grounds enumerated in the Commission's regulation on challenges to a civil penalty, 11 C.F.R. § 111.35 . The regulation provides that the respondent's written response "must…”
McChesney v. Peterson, 226 F. Supp. 3d 920 (D. Neb. 2016).
· cites it 6× “11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (a), (e). The written response must assert one of three possible grounds for such a challenge: (1) factual errors in the Commission’s finding; (2) inaccurate calculation of the penalty; or (3) a showing that the respondent used “best efforts” to file in a…”
Garcia for Cong. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 22 F. Supp. 3d 655 (N.D. Tex. 2014).
“The Reviewing Officer specifically noted that the Garcia Committee’s admitted negligence was not a defense to its failure to timely file the 48-hour notices as “negligence is included at 11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (d) as an example of a circumstance that will not be considered…”
Conway for Senate v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 966 F. Supp. 2d 748 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
· cites it 2× “11 C.F.R. § 111.35 (b)(3). However, in its submissions to the FEC during the administrative review process, Conway for Senate never cited the “best efforts” provision or made any argument sounding in the “best efforts” standard detailed in the FEC’s regulation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.