11 C.F.R. § 111.37

What will the Commission do once it receives the respondent's written response and the reviewing officer's recommendation?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If the Commission, after having found reason to believe and after reviewing the respondent's written response and the reviewing officer's recommendation, determines by an affirmative vote of at least four (4) of its members, that the respondent has violated 52 U.S.C. 30104(a) and the amount of the civil money penalty, the Commission shall authorize the reviewing officer to notify the respondent in writing of its final determination.

(b) If the Commission, after reviewing the reason to believe finding, the respondent's written response, and the reviewing officer's written recommendation, determines by an affirmative vote of at least four (4) of its members, that no violation has occurred (either because the Commission had based its reason to believe finding on a factual error or because the respondent used best efforts to file in a timely manner) or otherwise terminates its proceedings, the Commission shall authorize the reviewing officer to notify the respondent in writing of its final determination.

(c) The Commission will modify the proposed civil money penalty only if the respondent is able to demonstrate that the amount of the proposed civil money penalty was calculated on an incorrect basis.

(d) When the Commission makes a final determination under this section, the statement of reasons for the Commission action will, unless otherwise indicated by the Commission, consist of the reasons provided by the reviewing officer for the recommendation, if approved by the Commission, although statements setting forth additional or different reasons may also be issued. If the reviewing officer's recommendation is modified or not approved, the Commission will indicate the grounds for its action and one or more statements of reasons may be issued.

[65 FR 31794, May 19, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 14668, Mar. 29, 2007; 79 FR 77848, Dec. 29, 2014; 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2016 · leading case: Combat Vets. for Cong. Political Action Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Combat Vets. for Cong. Political Action Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 434 (a) by the respondent has occurred and whether to assess a civil money penalty under 11 C.F.R. § 111.37 . When the Commission makes a final determination, the statement of reasons for the Commission’s actions will, unless otherwise indicated by the Commission, consist of…”

McChesney v. Petersen, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (D. Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “11 C.F.R. § 111.37 . The reasons provided by the Reviewing Officer for the recommendation serve as the reasons for the Commission’s action, unless otherwise indicated by the Commission.”

McChesney v. Peterson, 226 F. Supp. 3d 920 (D. Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “11 C.F.R. § 111.37 . The reasons provided by the Reviewing Officer for the recommendation serve as the reasons for the Commission’s action, unless *926 otherwise indicated by the Commission.”

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.