Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns
R. Sam Garrett
Acting Section Research Manager/Specialist in American National
Government
May 10December 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41604
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
What Are the Essential Policy Issues?
There is a consensus that 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.
SixEight 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, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2857, and S.
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 Thethe Bills Do?
All bills would end public financing either entirely or for party conventions. 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 x77048Congressional Research Service
2
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
Bill
Primary Sponsor
Short Title
Brief Summary
Most Recent
Major Action
H.R. 2019
Harper
Kids First Research
Act of 2013
Relevant provisions of
amended version of
bill would eliminate
PECF convention
funding and convert
amounts to “10-Year
Pediatric Research
Initiative Fund,” with
some amounts
available to National
Institutes of Health;
contains healthresearch provisions
unrelated to this
reporta
Referred to
Committees on
Energy and
Commerce; House
Administration;
Ways and Means
05/16/2013b
H.R. 2857
Barletta
Disaster Loan
Fairness Act of 2013
Relevant provisions
would eliminate PECF
convention financing;
contains small
business disaster-loan
provisions unrelated
to this reportc
Referred to
Committees on
Small Business;
House
Administration
07/30/2013
S. 118
Coburn
—
Would eliminate PECF
convention funding
Referred to
Committee on
Rules and
Administration
01/23/2013
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.
b.
As of this writing, the House majority leader had announced that the House could consider the bill under
suspension of the rules during the week of December 9, 2013.
c.
For additional information on small business disaster-relief provisions in the bill, congressional requesters
may contact CRS Analyst Bruce Lindsay at x77048. See also CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan
Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
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 2012, the Democratic and Republican
parties each 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
•
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. 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.1
•
Matching funds for primary candidates. Publicly financed primary candidates
may receive 100% matches of individual contributions up to $250, 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.4 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.5 Congress tripled the checkoff designation from $1 to
$3 (and from $2 to $6 for married couples) in 1993.6
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
ran as a Democrat) collectively received about 4% of approximately $1.3 billion provided to
candidates overall.7
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.8 Repealing the public financing program would eliminate a major tenet of modern
campaign finance policy, albeit a controversial one.
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
ran as a Democrat) collectively received about 4% of approximately $1.3 billion provided to
candidates overall.7
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.8 Repealing the public financing program would eliminate a major tenet of modern
campaign finance policy, albeit a controversial one.
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.
8
2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
2
Congressional Research Service
4
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
•
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 April
September 2013, the PECF balance was approximately $253.8270.0 million.9 It is also possible
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.
8
2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
9
Information provided to CRS by the Financial Management Service, U.S. Treasury Department, via email, April 16,
2013.
Congressional Research Service
4
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
open 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 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 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
9
Information provided to CRS by the Financial Management Service, U.S. Treasury Department, via email, October
2013.
10
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
Author Contact Information
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
(...continued)
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
56