.
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns
R. Sam Garrett
Acting Section Research Manager/Specialist in American National
Government
November 28, 2011May 10, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41604
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
What Are the Essential Policy Issues?
There is a consensus that, in 2012 and beyond, the most competitive presidential candidates will
either need substantial additional resources via a reformed public financing program or will need
to engage in substantial private fundraising. For some, this signals an urgent need to save the
public campaign financing program that has existed since the 1970s; for others, it signals the
program’s demise.
On January 26, 2011, the House passed (239-160) H.R. 359, sponsored by Representative Tom
Cole, to repeal public financing of presidential campaigns and nominating conventions. If the
Senate decides to pursue that bill or companion S. 194 (introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell),
Senators might seek to curtail all or part of the program, strengthen the program, or pursue other
options. Two other bills may also be relevant. H.R. 3463 proposes to terminate the public
financing program (in addition to eliminating the Election Assistance Commission) and transfer
remaining amounts to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for use in deficit reduction. In
addition, Section 620 of the FY2012 Financial Services and General Government appropriations
bill, H.R. 2434, contains a provision that would prohibit spending funds to administer the public
financing program for the fiscal year the presidential public financing program is antiquated and offers
insufficient benefits to attract the most competitive candidates. No major candidate accepted
public funds in 2012. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama became the first person, since the
public financing program’s inception, elected President without accepting any public funds. For
some, these developments signal an urgent need to save the public campaign financing program
that has existed since the 1970s; for others, they suggest that the program is unnecessary.
Six bills introduced in the 113th Congress would terminate all or parts of the program. These
measures—H.R. 94, H.R. 95, H.R. 260, H.R. 270, H.R. 1724, and S. 118—are discussed in the
next section of this report. The 112th Congress also considered terminating the program; two bills
passed the House but died in the Senate. On January 26, 2011, the House passed (239-160) H.R.
359, sponsored by Representative Cole, to repeal public financing of presidential campaigns and
nominating conventions. In addition, on December 1, 2011, the House passed (235-190) H.R.
3463. The latter bill, sponsored by Representative Harper, proposed to terminate the public
financing program (in addition to eliminating the Election Assistance Commission) and transfer
remaining amounts to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for use in deficit reduction.
This report provides a brief policy overview and raises potential issues for congressional
consideration. Readers are encouraged to consult the following CRS products for additional
information.
•
CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview
and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett;
•
CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating
Conventions: Overview and Policy Options, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn
Reese; and
•
CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent
Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett (the “Public Financing
Issues” section).
For a discussion of constitutional considerations, which are beyond the scope of this report and
those noted above, readers may consult CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of
Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by L. Paige
Whitaker.
What Would The Bills Do?
H.R. 359 and S. 194All bills would end public financing of presidential campaigns andeither entirely or for party conventions.
The bills would make inapplicable a section of the Internal Revenue Code that permits
individuals to make voluntary designations on their individual income tax returns to support
public financing.1 Amounts already designated would be transferred from the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund (PECF) to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Unlike the Senate bill,
1
26 U.S.C. §6096.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
an amendment to H.R. 359 would require that amounts returned to the Treasury be used
specifically for deficit reduction. The Senate bill only requires that funds be returned to the
Treasury.
The public financing provisions of H.R. 3463 are substantially similar to H.R. 359, although the
former bill would although abolish the Election Assistance Commission.2 H.R. 3463 would
terminate the public financing program and direct that amounts remaining in the PECF be
returned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for use in deficit reduction. As of November 28,
2011, approximately $199.0 million remained in the PECF.3
Finally, Section 620 of the FY2012 Financial Services and General Government appropriations
bill, H.R. 2434, contains a provision that would prohibit spending funds to administer the public
financing program for the fiscal year Some bills also
specify other purposes for remaining balances after the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
(PECF) was terminated. Table 1 below provides a brief summary.
Congressional Research Service
1
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
Table 1. 113th Congress Legislation That Proposes to Eliminate Aspects of the
Presidential Public Financing Program
Bill
Primary Sponsor
Short Title
Brief Summary
Most Recent
Major Action
H.R. 94
Cole
—
Would eliminate PECF
convention funding
Referred to
Committee on
House
Administration,
01/03/2013
H.R. 95
Cole
—
Would eliminate PECF
and transfer balance
to the general fund of
the U.S. Treasury for
use in deficit
reduction
Referred to
Committees on
Ways and Means;
House
Administration,
01/03/2013
H.R. 260
Harper
—
Would eliminate PECF
and transfer balance
to the general fund of
the U.S. Treasury for
use in deficit
reduction; would
eliminate Election
Assistance
Commission (EAC)
and transfer some
functions to the
Federal Election
Commission (FEC)
Referred to
Committees on
House
Administration;
Ways and Means
01/15/2013
H.R. 270
Price
Empowering
Citizens Act
Relevant provisions
would eliminate PECF
convention financing;
remainder of bill
proposes revised
public financing of
presidential campaigns,
and new public
financing program for
House campaigns
Referred to
Committees on
House
Administration;
Ways and Means
01/15/2013
H.R. 1724
Harper
Kids First Research
Act of 2013
Relevant provisions
would eliminate PECF
and convert it to “10Year Pediatric
Research Initiative
Fund,” with some
amounts available to
National Institutes of
Health; contains
health-research
provisions unrelated
to this reporta
Referred to
Committees on
Energy and
Commerce; House
Administration;
Ways and Means
04/25/2013
S. 118
Coburn
Would eliminate PECF
convention funding
Referred to
Committee on
Rules and
Administration
—
01/23/2013
Congressional Research Service
2
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
Source: CRS analysis of bill texts.
Notes: The table excludes provisions unrelated to public financing of campaigns.
a.
For additional information on health-research provisions in the bill, congressional requesters may contact
CRS Analyst Pamela Smith at x77048.
What Is the Presidential Public Financing Program?
For those candidates and party conventions choosing to participate, the presidential public
financing program provides funds for three phases of the campaign:
•
Grants to party nominating conventions. In 20082012, the Democratic and Republican
parties were eligible to receive approximately $16.8 million. The Republican
convention, which ended early due to Hurricane Gustav, ultimately received
$13.0each received grants of $18.2 million. Convention committees receiving
public funds must agree not to
raise more funds, but separate “host committees”
often raise substantial private
amounts. Funding for convention grants is reserved
first, followed by payments
for general and primary funding. For the 2012 cycle, two convention grants of
approximately $17.7 million each have already been paid to the Democratic and
Republican convention committees. Inflation adjustments of approximately
$600,000 each are scheduled to follow in 2012.
•
Grants for general-election nominees for general and primary funding.
•
Grants for general-election nominees. In 2012, neither Democratic nominee
Barack Obama nor Republican nominee Mitt Romney chose to accept a grant of
approximately $91.2 million. In 2008, then-candidate John McCain
accepted the
$84.1 million grant available to major-party nominees. Thencandidate Barack Obama Then-candidate Obama
chose not to accept public funds. Candidates who
accept general election grants
must agree not to engage in additional private
fundraising for their campaigns,
and not to spend funds other than the general
election grant.4 It is currently unclear whether any candidate will participate in
2012 general-election public financing. election grant.1
•
Matching funds for primary candidates. Publicly financed primary candidates
may receive 100% matches of individual contributions up to $250. In 2008,
primary candidates could spend up to approximately $42 million. It is currently
unclear whether any candidate will participate in 2012 primary-election public
financing.
2
EAC issues are beyond the scope of this report. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RS20898, The Help
America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues, by Kevin J. Coleman and Eric A. Fischer.
3
The Financial Management Service of the U.S. Treasury Department provided this information to CRS, November
2011. CRS rounded the amount provided.
4
Limited exceptions exist for additional fundraising and spending for legal and accounting expenses.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, in exchange
for limited spending. In 2012, Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, Governor
Buddy Roemer III,2 and Green Party candidate Jill Stein qualified for a total of
approximately $1.2 million in matching funds.3 Major candidates most recently
received primary matching funds in 2008.
Congress established the current public financing system during the early and mid-1970s,
especially via the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments.54 Congress created
the voluntary public financing option amid concerns about potential corruption in campaign
fundraising following Watergate. Initially, individual taxpayers could designate $1 ($2 for
married couples filing jointly) to the PECF.65 Congress tripled the checkoff designation from $1 to
$3 (and from $2 to $6 for married couples) in 1993.7
6
1
Limited exceptions exist for additional fundraising and spending for legal and accounting expenses.
The cited source does not provide a party affiliation for Gov. Roemer. As is often the case with minor candidates, it
appears that he pursued ballot access under different party labels depending on the state.
3
CRS aggregated these figures from data in Federal Election Commission, “Federal Election Commission Certifies
Federal Matching Funds for Gary Johnson ,” press release, December 20, 2012, http://fec.gov/press/press2012/
20121220_JohnsonMatchFund.shtml.
4
P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263.
5
On the presidential public financing portion of the Revenue Act, see 85 Stat. 573.
6
26 U.S.C. §6096(a). On the increase, see P.L. 103-66; 107 Stat. 567-568.
2
Congressional Research Service
3
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
Since the 1976 election cycle, approximately $1.5 billion has gone to publicly financed
candidates and nominating conventions. Almost all that money has benefitted Democratic and
Republican campaigns. Third party candidates, independents, and Lyndon LaRouche (who often
runsran as a Democrat) collectively received about 4% of approximately $1.3 billion provided to
candidates overall.87
What Might Happen If the Bills Were Enacted?
If any of the bills discussed above became law, presidential candidates and nominating
conventions would have to be entirely privately financed, as all other federal campaigns are
today.9 H.R. 2434 appears to limit spending funds to administer the public financing program
only for the FY2012 fiscal year, whereas the other bills would repeal public financing itself. In
any case, however, the effect would be to at least temporarily halt public funds for presidential
campaigns.8 Repealing the public financing program would eliminate a major tenet of modern
campaign finance policy, albeit a controversial one.
•
For those who believe that they could raise higher amounts than would be
available through public funds—or who wanted to spend more than would be
permitted—an end to public financing might be of little consequence. Those who
are philosophically opposed to using public funds would likely support repealing
or otherwise curtailing the program.
•
Some otherwise qualified candidates could be deterred from seeking the
presidency because they do not have access to, or do not believe they can raise,
sufficient private funds.
•
Candidates might have to spend additional time raising private funds, perhaps
with an incentive to pursue large contributions, to make up for the lack of public
funds.
•
Amounts currently in the PECF could be used for other purposes. As of January
21, 2011April
2013, the PECF balance was approximately $194253.8 million.10 It is also
5
P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263.
On the presidential public financing portion of the Revenue Act, see 85 Stat. 573.
7
26 U.S.C. §6096(a). On the increase, see P.L. 103-66; 107 Stat. 567-568.
8
9 It is also possible
that additional savings could be achieved if the Federal Election Commission and
Treasury Department no longer had to administer the program.
Why Are There Concerns About the
Program’s Viability?
Elections since 2000 have raised concerns about whether spending limits required of publicly
financed candidates, and funds available to those candidates, are sufficient.
•
In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush was the first person elected President
since 1976 without participating in all elements of the public financing program
7
These figures are based on CRS analysis of data provided by the Federal Election Commission, data in Federal
Election Commission, Report on the Presidential Public Funding Program (FEC: April 1993), and data in FEC press
releases. Data on program totals sometimes vary over time and by source.
98
2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
109
Information provided to CRS by the Financial Management Service, U.S. Treasury Department, via email, January
21, 2011.
6April 16,
2013.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
4
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
possible that additional savings could be achieved if the Federal Election
Commission and Treasury Department no longer had to administer the program.
Why Are There Concerns About the
Program’s Viability?
Elections since 2000 have raised concerns about whether spending limits required of publicly
financed candidates, and funds available to those candidates, are sufficient.
•
In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush wasopen to candidates (primary and general election funding). Instead, Mr. Bush
accepted only general election public funds.
•
In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected President
since 1976 without participating in all elements of the public financing program
open to candidates (primary and general). Instead, Mr. Bush accepted only
general election public funds.
•
In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected President since 1976
without accepting any public funds
without accepting any public funds. No major candidate accepted public funds in
2012.
•
Given these developments, and the rise in non-candidate spending from entities
such as super PACs10, there is general consensus that the spending limits
associated with the current program are insufficient to attract the most
competitive candidates.
Taxpayer designations have also generally declined over time.
•
Designations reached a high point in 1980, when 28.7% of filers designated
funds for the PECF; participation reached a low of 7.3% in 2009. Despite a slight
increase in 2010, for rounding purposes, the figure remained at 7.3. Participation has generally declined since then. In 2012, the
checkoff rate reached a low of 6.0%.11
Author Contact Information
R. Sam Garrett
Acting Section Research Manager/Specialist in
American National Government
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
11
Financial Management Service data obtained via the FEC indicate that the 2009 rate was 7.27%, compared with
7.28% for 2010.
Congressional Research Service
410
For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42042, Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for
Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
11
These are Financial Management Service figures provided by the FEC. The 2012 figure is for FY2012. Some FEC
and Treasury sources vary in their use of calendar year data vs. fiscal year data. Calendar year and fiscal year
participation rates generally vary by approximately 1% - 2% per year.
Congressional Research Service
5