Prosecute only clear violations of election law
What the document says“The President must ensure that the DOJ, just like the FEC, is directed to only prosecute clear violations of FECA.”
The chapter says the department must not construe ambiguous provisions against the public instead of the government, or apply the act in a way that infringes protected First Amendment activity, and that it would be unjust to prosecute people who cannot tell whether they are breaking a confusing law.
What the document actually says“The President must ensure that the DOJ, just like the FEC, is directed to only prosecute clear violations of FECA.”
Only bring charges for clear breaches of the election law.
Election law is complex. The book says people cannot always tell if they broke it. It says only clear breaches should be charged.
Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations
2025-05-09 · 90 FR 20363
Executive Order 14294 of May 9, 2025 sets as the policy of the United States that criminal enforcement of criminal regulatory offenses is disfavored, that prosecutions should focus on matters where a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful, and that strict liability offenses are disfavored. It directs each agency, in consultation with the Attorney General, to publish every criminal regulatory offense it enforces together with the applicable mens rea standard, and it strongly discourages criminal enforcement of any offense left off that list. That is a presidential direction against prosecuting people who cannot tell that they are breaking the law, which is the reason the passage gives for its request. The fit breaks down because the order reaches criminal regulatory offenses, which it defines as federal regulations enforceable by a criminal penalty, rather than violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act itself, because it names neither the Justice Department's election crimes work, the Federal Election Commission, nor the First Amendment concern the passage raises, and because it governs when a regulatory offense should be charged rather than setting any standard of clarity for election law.
The order says people should not face charges for rules they could not know they broke. Agencies must list each rule that can bring a charge. That matches the chapter's reason for its ask. But the order covers agency rules, not election law. It never names that law.