R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Campaign finance policy is arguably at a crossroads. For decades, Congress, regulatory agencies, and courts have emphasized the need to reduce potential corruption by providing public disclosure of information about campaign contributions and expenditures. Preventing corruption and enhancing transparency remain prominent themes in campaign finance policy, but what those goals mean and how they should be accomplished appears to be in flux.
Both minor and major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress last substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). More recently, the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. During the 111th Congress, the House responded by enacting the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175; S. 3295; S. 3628). The Senate has, thus far, declined to do so.
Fundraising and spending in the 2010 election cycle suggest that previously prohibited sources and amounts of funds will continue to be a factor in federal elections. Activities by independentexpenditure- only political action committees (commonly called super PACs) and tax-exempt organizations that are typically not political committees (e.g., many Internal Revenue Code 501(c) and 527 organizations) may be particularly prominent.
Despite these recent developments, some traditional aspects of campaign finance policy, such as disclosure requirements and most contribution limits, remain unchanged. Issues such as the presidential public financing program and the Federal Election Commission may require congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. In addition, the Supreme Court will continue examining campaign finance issues during the 112th Congress. Arizona Free Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett appear to be most relevant for state-level policy, but might also affect federal campaign finance law or legislation in Congress.
As Congress decides how or whether to revisit law surrounding political campaigns, it may be appropriate to take stock of the current landscape and to examine what has changed, what has not, and what policy options might be relevant. This report provides a starting point for doing so. It includes an overview of selected historical and recent developments. It also provides comments on how those events might affect future policy considerations.
Date of Report: December 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41542
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
Campaign finance policy is arguably at a crossroads. For decades, Congress, regulatory agencies, and courts have emphasized the need to reduce potential corruption by providing public disclosure of information about campaign contributions and expenditures. Preventing corruption and enhancing transparency remain prominent themes in campaign finance policy, but what those goals mean and how they should be accomplished appears to be in flux.
Both minor and major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress last substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). More recently, the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. During the 111th Congress, the House responded by enacting the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175; S. 3295; S. 3628). The Senate has, thus far, declined to do so.
Fundraising and spending in the 2010 election cycle suggest that previously prohibited sources and amounts of funds will continue to be a factor in federal elections. Activities by independentexpenditure- only political action committees (commonly called super PACs) and tax-exempt organizations that are typically not political committees (e.g., many Internal Revenue Code 501(c) and 527 organizations) may be particularly prominent.
Despite these recent developments, some traditional aspects of campaign finance policy, such as disclosure requirements and most contribution limits, remain unchanged. Issues such as the presidential public financing program and the Federal Election Commission may require congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. In addition, the Supreme Court will continue examining campaign finance issues during the 112th Congress. Arizona Free Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett appear to be most relevant for state-level policy, but might also affect federal campaign finance law or legislation in Congress.
As Congress decides how or whether to revisit law surrounding political campaigns, it may be appropriate to take stock of the current landscape and to examine what has changed, what has not, and what policy options might be relevant. This report provides a starting point for doing so. It includes an overview of selected historical and recent developments. It also provides comments on how those events might affect future policy considerations.
Date of Report: December 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R41542
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
