R. Sam Garrett
Specialist 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 declined to do so.
Campaign finance issues continue developing in Congress, at regulatory agencies, and in the courts. In January 2011, the House passed legislation (H.R. 359) that would repeal the presidential public financing program. The House and Senate have held hearings on two bills. S. 750 (see also S. 749 and H.R. 1404) is the latest version of the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), which would publicly finance Senate campaigns. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights held a hearing on the bill in April 2011. The Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, held an April 2011 hearing on H.R. 672. That measure, which is not primarily a campaign finance bill, proposes to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and transfer some functions to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In addition, in March 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in Arizona Free Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett. That case addresses state-level public financing issues, but may also be relevant for federal policymaking.
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 recent changes, 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 FEC may require congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. 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: April 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
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.
Specialist 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 declined to do so.
Campaign finance issues continue developing in Congress, at regulatory agencies, and in the courts. In January 2011, the House passed legislation (H.R. 359) that would repeal the presidential public financing program. The House and Senate have held hearings on two bills. S. 750 (see also S. 749 and H.R. 1404) is the latest version of the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), which would publicly finance Senate campaigns. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights held a hearing on the bill in April 2011. The Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, held an April 2011 hearing on H.R. 672. That measure, which is not primarily a campaign finance bill, proposes to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and transfer some functions to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). In addition, in March 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in Arizona Free Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett. That case addresses state-level public financing issues, but may also be relevant for federal policymaking.
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 recent changes, 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 FEC may require congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. 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: April 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 27
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
