R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
To critics, public campaign financing, generally in conjunction with spending limits, is the ultimate solution to perceived problems arising from ever-growing costs of campaigns and the accompanying need for privately donated campaign funds. Public financing supporters maintain that replacing private funds with public money would most effectively reduce potentially corrupting influence from “interested” money. On the other hand, opponents of public financing question whether real or apparent corruption from private fundraising is as serious a problem as critics claim. They also argue that public financing would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars and would compel taxpayers to fund candidates they find objectionable.
In the early 1970s, supporters succeeded in enacting public financing in presidential elections, a system that has been available since 1976. In addition, many states and localities have provided public financing in their elections since the 1970s (or before). Today, 16 states offer some form of direct aid to candidates’ campaigns through fixed subsidies or matching funds. Perceptions about the presidential and state public financing systems have shaped opinions about adding public financing to congressional elections. Also shaping that debate was the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down mandatory spending limits, but sanctioned voluntary spending limits accompanying public financing.
Proposals for publicly funded congressional elections have been offered in almost every Congress since 1956; the issue was prominently debated in the mid-1970s and the late 1980s through early 1990s. Proposals were passed twice by the Senate in the 93rd Congress and by both the House and Senate in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Only the 102nd Congress proposal was reconciled in conference but was vetoed by the President. In the 101st through 103rd Congresses, resistance to public funding was sufficiently strong that the proposed role of public funds per se was reduced, while broader public benefits (such as advertising vouchers) became more prominent. Other than one hearing, no legislative activity occurred on five 110th Congress bills (H.R. 1614, H.R. 2817, H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285) that would have extended public financing to congressional elections.
Five bills introduced in the 111th Congress propose to publicly fund congressional campaigns. Two of those bills would limit participating candidates’ spending, while the other three would not. H.R. 1826 and S. 752 (S. 751, a stand-alone financing bill, accompanies S. 752.) emphasize a mix of base subsidies, matching funds, and broadcast vouchers. H.R. 6116 takes a similar approach (but does not include some of H.R. 1826’s media provisions) and is apparently intended to supersede H.R. 1826. These bills would not limit participant spending if funds were raised within proposed public financing limitations. These bills have been the focus of most legislative and public attention thus far during the 111th Congress. Two other bills, H.R. 158 and H.R. 2056, propose different funding mechanisms; both would require participating candidates to limit their spending. The “111th Congress” section of this report and Appendix D at the end of the report summarize the legislation introduced in the 111th Congress.
This report reviews past proposals for and debate over congressional public financing. It also discusses experiences with the presidential and state public financing systems. Finally, the report offers potential considerations for Congress in devising a public financing system for its elections.
Date of Report: September 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 89
Order Number: RL33814
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Analyst in American National Government
To critics, public campaign financing, generally in conjunction with spending limits, is the ultimate solution to perceived problems arising from ever-growing costs of campaigns and the accompanying need for privately donated campaign funds. Public financing supporters maintain that replacing private funds with public money would most effectively reduce potentially corrupting influence from “interested” money. On the other hand, opponents of public financing question whether real or apparent corruption from private fundraising is as serious a problem as critics claim. They also argue that public financing would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars and would compel taxpayers to fund candidates they find objectionable.
In the early 1970s, supporters succeeded in enacting public financing in presidential elections, a system that has been available since 1976. In addition, many states and localities have provided public financing in their elections since the 1970s (or before). Today, 16 states offer some form of direct aid to candidates’ campaigns through fixed subsidies or matching funds. Perceptions about the presidential and state public financing systems have shaped opinions about adding public financing to congressional elections. Also shaping that debate was the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down mandatory spending limits, but sanctioned voluntary spending limits accompanying public financing.
Proposals for publicly funded congressional elections have been offered in almost every Congress since 1956; the issue was prominently debated in the mid-1970s and the late 1980s through early 1990s. Proposals were passed twice by the Senate in the 93rd Congress and by both the House and Senate in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Only the 102nd Congress proposal was reconciled in conference but was vetoed by the President. In the 101st through 103rd Congresses, resistance to public funding was sufficiently strong that the proposed role of public funds per se was reduced, while broader public benefits (such as advertising vouchers) became more prominent. Other than one hearing, no legislative activity occurred on five 110th Congress bills (H.R. 1614, H.R. 2817, H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285) that would have extended public financing to congressional elections.
Five bills introduced in the 111th Congress propose to publicly fund congressional campaigns. Two of those bills would limit participating candidates’ spending, while the other three would not. H.R. 1826 and S. 752 (S. 751, a stand-alone financing bill, accompanies S. 752.) emphasize a mix of base subsidies, matching funds, and broadcast vouchers. H.R. 6116 takes a similar approach (but does not include some of H.R. 1826’s media provisions) and is apparently intended to supersede H.R. 1826. These bills would not limit participant spending if funds were raised within proposed public financing limitations. These bills have been the focus of most legislative and public attention thus far during the 111th Congress. Two other bills, H.R. 158 and H.R. 2056, propose different funding mechanisms; both would require participating candidates to limit their spending. The “111th Congress” section of this report and Appendix D at the end of the report summarize the legislation introduced in the 111th Congress.
This report reviews past proposals for and debate over congressional public financing. It also discusses experiences with the presidential and state public financing systems. Finally, the report offers potential considerations for Congress in devising a public financing system for its elections.
Date of Report: September 17, 2010
Number of Pages: 89
Order Number: RL33814
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
