Federal campaign finance laws regulate the use of money in federal elections. According to the Congressional Research Service, federal campaign finance laws regulate the sources, recipients, amounts, and frequency of contributions to political campaigns, as well as the purposes for which donated money may be used. Federal campaign finance laws also emphasize regular disclosure by candidates in the form of required reports. The first federal campaign finance law, the Tillman Act, was enacted in 1907. In the years following the enactment of that law, campaign finance has remained a source of contention in American politics. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and a series of federal court cases, including Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, together form the foundation of federal campaign finance law. HIGHLIGHTS It should be noted that federal campaign finance laws apply only to candidates and groups participating in federal elections (i.e., congressional and presidential elections). States enact and enforce their own campaign finance laws for state and local elections. This article deals exclusively with federal campaign finance laws. To learn more about state campaign finance laws, see this article. BackgroundKey terms and conceptsTypes of communications
Types of spending
Types of groups
HistoryPresident Theodore Roosevelt According to the Congressional Research Service, the 1907 Tillman Act, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, is "generally regarded as the first major campaign finance law." The Tillman Act barred corporations and national banks from making contributions to federal election campaigns. According to The New York Times, the Tillman Act was prompted in part by allegations that corporations had exerted outsize influence in prior presidential elections. In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which "was arguably the first federal statute combining multiple campaign finance provisions, particularly disclosure requirements." Amended in 1911, the act required congressional candidates to disclose their finances; it also established campaign spending limits. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was further amended in 1925 "to expand the list of who must file [quarterly disclosure] reports." The 1925 law, which applied only to general elections, also raised campaign spending limits.[10][11][12][13] The Hatch Act of 1939 "asserted the right of Congress to regulate primary elections and included provisions limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections." In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibited corporations and unions from contributing to federal candidates and making expenditures on their behalf. Enforcement of these various laws proved problematic, however. [10][11][12]
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971See also: Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 replaced existing federal campaign finance laws and required campaigns to file quarterly disclosure reports of contributions and expenditures. The law also "provided the basic legislative framework for separate segregated funds," which are more commonly known as political action committees. Although the law prohibits corporations and unions from making direct contributions to federal candidates, it allows a group to "establish, operate and solicit voluntary contributions for the organization's" political action committee. These funds can then be used in federal elections. As originally enacted, the law did not provide for a single regulatory agency; instead, administrative responsibilities were divided between the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the Secretary of the United States Senate, and the Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office.[10][11] In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act was amended to impose contribution and spending limits on campaigns. The 1974 amendments also established the Federal Election Commission as "an independent agency to assume the administrative functions previously divided between congressional officers and the General Accounting Office." In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that campaign spending limits were unconstitutional.[10][11] Bipartisan Campaign Reform ActSee also: Bipartisan Campaign Reform ActAccording to the Congressional Research Service, "by the 1990s, attention began to shift to perceived loopholes" in the Federal Election Campaign Act.[10]
Federal Election CommissionSee also: Federal Election CommissionThe Federal Election Commission (FEC) is a federal regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws. The commission was created by the United States Congress in 1975. The commission comprises six members who serve six-year terms of office. Two seats are appointed every two years. All commissioners are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.[15] The commission is authorized to do the following:[16]
No more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party. Any action taken by the commission must be approved by at least four commissioners. The commission is led by a chairperson who serves a single one-year term. The table below lists commissioners as of December 2016.[15]
Contribution limits2015-2016The Federal Election Campaign Act establishes contribution limits for federal candidates. A contribution may be made in the form of money, goods and services, and loans. Some contribution limits apply to each election in which a federal candidate participates. For example, a primary and a general election are considered separate elections. An individual could donate $2,700 to a candidate in the primary election; the individual could then donate another $2,700 in the general election. The table below details contribution limits for federal elections in 2015 and 2016.[17]
Court casesFederal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for SenateSee also: Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for SenateOn May 16, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal law limiting the monetary amount of post-election contributions a candidate could use to pay back personal campaign loans impermissibly limited political speech and violated the First Amendment. Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) capped personal loan repayment using post-election campaign contributions at $250,000. Writing for the 6-3 majority striking down the law, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech."[19] Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Buckley v. ValeoSee also: Buckley v. ValeoOn January 30, 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political campaign spending limits violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Contribution and spending limits for federal campaigns were established with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The court held that limits on campaign contributions "served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections." The court determined, however, that spending limits "restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups and candidates," thus violating the First Amendment. The court decided the case 7-1, with one justice abstaining.[20][21] Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSee also: Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionOn January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to freedom of expression applies to corporations; thus, the government cannot limit political spending by corporations. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.[22][23]
The court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by the sponsors of political advertisements. The court also sustained the prohibition against direct contributions by corporations to candidates.[25] McCutcheon v. Federal Election CommissionSee also: McCutcheon v. Federal Election CommissionOn April 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that biennial aggregate contribution limits were unconstitutional. The Federal Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act imposed biennial aggregate contribution limits on campaign donors, limiting the total amount donors could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. At the time of the court's ruling, an individual could donate no more than $123,000 total to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down this cap. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, reaffirmed the federal government's right to place certain limits on campaign contributions "to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption." He added, however, that the federal government can only limit contributions to prevent "quid pro quo" corruption.[26]
IssuesPolitical spending not controlled by candidates or their campaignsSee also: Political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaignsThe terms "satellite spending" or "independent spending" refer broadly to any political expenditures made by groups or individuals that are not directly affiliated with or controlled by a candidate or candidate campaign. This includes spending by political party committees, super PACs, trade associations and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups. Under federal campaign finance law, these groups can spend unlimited sums of money on political activities, sometimes without disclosing their donors.[27][28] In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that for-profit and nonprofit corporations and unions cannot be prohibited from making independent expenditures in an election. Subsequently, spending by these groups increased. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaigns increased roughly 125 percent between 2008 and 2012. The 2008 presidential election was the last to take place before the Citizens United ruling; the 2012 presidential content was the first to take place post-Citizens United. See the table below for further details.[28][27][28]
Federal disclosure requirements vary according to the type of group making the expenditure and the type of expenditure being made. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, spending not controlled by candidates or their campaigns that required full disclosure totaled $571.2 million in the 2014 election cycle. Spending that required no disclosure totaled $173.2 million, while spending that required some disclosure totaled $52.6 million. The chart below provides further details for 2012 (a presidential election year) and 2014 (a midterm election year).[29] Political spending by nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donorsSee also: Political spending not controlled by candidates or their campaignsCampaign spending by select nonprofit organizations, including 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups, is sometimes referred to as "dark money" because the organizations are not required to disclose their donors. This type of spending has become a contentious issue in recent years. Critics argue that this type of spending serves special interests and lacks transparency, thereby contributing to corruption in politics. Proponents maintain that it is a protected form of free expression; proponents also argue that additional disclosure requirements might discourage political participation.[30][31] Social welfare groups, which are regulated under Section 501(c)(4) of the federal tax code, are defined as "civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." These organizations are not required to disclose their donors.[32] It is unclear to what extent social welfare organizations may participate in political activity. Nonprofit Quarterly summarized the issue as follows:[33]
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, political spending by organizations are not required to disclose their donors amounted to approximately $5.8 million in 2004. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this type of spending increased substantially. In 2012, 501(c) organizations that were not required to disclose their donors spent approximately $308.7 million on political activities. See the chart and table below for further details.[34][35]
OrganizationsThe organizations listed below are involved in campaign finance advocacy efforts, either in favor of or in opposition to greater campaign finance regulation. The organizations are listed in alphabetical order. 1. The Institute for Free Speech describes itself as an organization that "works to promote and defend First Amendment rights to free political speech, assembly and petition." According to the organization, "[Federal] campaign finance laws and regulations now contain over 375,000 words that are widely regarded to be nearly incomprehensible. State laws are often worse. Such complexity makes arbitrary and selective enforcement more likely, and has enabled politicians and bureaucrats to harass, intimidate, and persecute their political opponents in order to silence their voices."[42]The Institute for Free Speech is a 501(c)(3) group headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2014, the organization's expenses totaled $1,567,715.[43]2. The Center for Responsive Politics describes itself as "the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy." The group's mission is to "inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives, empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information, [and] for a transparent and responsive government." The group maintains the website OpenSecrets.org[44]The Center for Responsive Politics is a 501(c)(3) group headquartered in Washington, D.C. In 2013, the organization's expenses totaled $1,414,376.[45]Campaign finance in the statesSee also: State campaign finance informationState and local political candidates and campaigns must adhere to different campaign finance regulations than federal candidates. These laws are written, administered and enforced at the state level. To learn more about the campaign finance laws in your state, see this page. The following is a list of recent campaign finance bills that have been introduced in or passed by state legislatures. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan. Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently. Recent newsThe link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Campaign finance. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. See alsoState and local candidates for
political office must adhere to the campaign finance laws in force in their particular states. Click on a state below to learn more about campaign finance requirements for political candidates in that state. http://ballotpedia.org/Campaign_finance_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_STATE
Footnotes
What did the main provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 1974 do quizlet?A law passed in 1974 for reforming campaign finances. The act created the Federal Election Commission (FEC), provided public financing for presidential primaries and general elections, limited presidential campaign spending, required disclosure, and attempted to limit contributions.
What was the purpose of the Federal Election Campaign Act quizlet?The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, , et seq.) is a United States federal law which increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns, and amended in 1974 to place legal limits on the campaign contributions. The amendment also created the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
What was the main effect of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission quizlet?What was the main effect of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? It gave corporations the ability to make unlimited campaign contributions.
Which of the following best describes what happens when citizens vote for a president quizlet?Which of the following best describes what happens when citizens vote for a president on election day? They are voting for a slate of electors pledged to support a particular candidate.
|