Apparently most of the fines go straight to the "US Treasury." Basically, congress decides how to spend the money. That makes some sense: at least it is being spent by people who are elected, so that there is a chance at accountability.

However, it also doesn't make sense, because it doesn't seem "fair." The money from fines should be used to compensate victims.

That being said, compare this to the common practice of civil forfeiture: The money often goes back to the very same government entities who took the money. This is very bad because it incentivizes government agencies to be way too aggressive.

On balance, I think it might be better for the money to go back to the general fund. That way the temptation for corruption is severely mitigated. Though, I'm not sure about this, as I haven't spent much time thinking about it. There could, perhaps, be a more nuanced approach, based on each unique agencies needs/situation. That would require a lot of legislation, though.

Earmarking money at a too granular level is a great way to lower the efficiency of government. I also don't see why it should be the case that this money gets spent in the same domain it was levied, the whole point of democratic institutions is to be able to set priorities dynamically.

Many excellent points -- and this is a key part of the discussion when it comes to fine.

The post above has emotion -- and I'm personally ok with that -- but I think it would be better received without the two letter abbreviations for swear words.