Bar prosecutions under readings the election commission rejects
What the document says“The President should direct the DOJ and the attorney general not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC”
The full sentence covers interpretations the commission, as the expert agency Congress designated to enforce the law civilly and issue regulations, does not agree with. The chapter says prosecutors should consult all official commission actions including prior enforcement actions, regulatory pronouncements and advisory opinions, and that this should hold even where commissioners split three to three, since the commission cannot act without four affirmative votes.
What the document actually says“The President should direct the DOJ and the attorney general not to prosecute individuals under an interpretation of the law with which the FEC”
Say the vote agency reads the law one way. Do not charge people under a different reading.
One agency sets the rules for money in votes. The Justice Department can bring charges. The book says it must go by that agency's reading.
Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
2025-02-18 · 90 FR 10447
Executive Order 14215 of February 18, 2025 acts on exactly the question the proposal raises, whose reading of the law governs, and settles it the other way. It amends Executive Order 12866 so that the definition of agency expressly includes the Federal Election Commission, bringing the commission's significant regulatory actions under review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and section 7 makes the opinions of the President and the Attorney General controlling on all executive branch employees, barring any employee from advancing an interpretation of law as the position of the United States that contravenes them, including in regulations, guidance and litigation positions, unless authorized. The proposal asks the President to direct the Justice Department not to prosecute under a reading the commission rejects. Where they part: the order says nothing about prosecutions or about the Federal Election Campaign Act, and it does not forbid such a directive, so it reverses the direction of deference without addressing the charging decision the chapter is about.
The chapter asked that the election board's reading of the law win out. The order settles that point the other way. Now the President and the top lawyer set the reading. It says nothing about who gets charged.