< Back to Current Version

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Changes from September 12, 2023 to July 29, 2025

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


The State of Campaign Finance Policy:
September 12, 2023
Recent Developments and Issues for Congress
R. Sam Garrett
Recent Developments and Issues for Congress Updated July 29, 2025 (R41542) Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Summary

Major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress
Major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress
Specialist in American
substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA).
National Government
The Supreme Court’BCRA stands as the most recent major amendment to campaign finance law. The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in s 2010 ruling in Citizens United and a related lower-court decision, and a related lower-court decision,

SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably , arguably representrepresented the most fundamental changes to campaign finance the most fundamental changes to campaign finance
law in decades. law in decades. Citizens United lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent

expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. SpeechNow permitted unlimited permitted unlimited
contributions supporting such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy contributions supporting such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy
remains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few recent major legislative or regulatory changesremains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few recent major legislative or regulatory changes.
since BCRA and Citizens United. In recent Congresses, both major parties have proposed campaign finance bills, but In recent Congresses, both major parties have proposed campaign finance bills, but none hasno major amendments have become law. Most legislative become law. Most legislative
activity has emphasized alternative omnibus elections bills that have included campaign finance provisions. activity has emphasized alternative omnibus elections bills that have included campaign finance provisions. Thus far during
the 118th Congress, no campaign finance legislation has become law. On September 7, 2023, S. 2747 (Klobuchar) passed the
Senate, by voice vote, the same day it was introduced. The legislation would extendNo major changes in campaign finance law were enacted during the 118th Congress. One enacted law, P.L. 118-26, extended authority for the Federal Election Commission the Federal Election Commission’s
's (FEC(FEC's) Administrative Fine Program until 2033. s) Administrative Fine Program until 2033. On July 13, 2023, the Committee on House Administration ordered
reported H.R. 4563 (Steil), the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act. Legislative or oversight hearings at some other
committees, in both chambers, also have addressed campaign finance topics. Although most campaign finance legislation
proposes to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), provisions in recent appropriations laws also have required
or prohibited some reporting requirements surrounding contributions, expenditures, or foreign interference in U.S.
campaigns.
Post-Citizens United, debate over disclosure and deregulation have been recurring themesAlthough most campaign finance legislation proposes to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), provisions in recent appropriations laws also have addressed campaign finance issues, such as various reporting requirements or prohibitions.

Recent Congresses also organized much of their legislative work on elections around omnibus bills spanning multiple policy issues, some of which included campaign finance provisions. In particular, during the 118th Congress, some House Members emphasized the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act (H.R. 4563). The Committee on House Administration ordered the ACE Act reported after a series of hearings; the House also considered some provisions from the ACE Act as stand-alone legislation. Other Members concentrated their efforts on alternative proposals, such as the Freedom to Vote Act (H.R. 11; S. 1).

More generally post-Citizens United, debate over disclosure has been a recurring theme
in Congress and beyond. in Congress and beyond.
Legislation to require additional information about the flow of money among various donorsLegislation to require additional information about the flow of money among various donors, the DISCLOSE Actthe DISCLOSE Act, passed the passed the
House during the House during the 111th111th Congress and was reintroduced during subsequent Congresses. Congress also has considered Congress and was reintroduced during subsequent Congresses. Congress also has considered
alternatives that include some elements of DISCLOSE and proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain alternatives that include some elements of DISCLOSE and proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain
groups regulated primarily under Section 501(c) of the groups regulated primarily under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (tax law). Omnibus elections bills that passed (tax law). Omnibus elections bills that passed
the House in the the House in the 117th117th Congress (H.R. 1) and the Congress (H.R. 1) and the 116th116th Congress (H.R. 1) also contained DISLCOSE provisions. The debate Congress (H.R. 1) also contained DISLCOSE provisions. The debate
over whether or how additional disclosure is needed has also extended to the over whether or how additional disclosure is needed has also extended to the Federal Election CommissionFEC—and —and
congressional oversight of the agency—and the courts.congressional oversight of the agency—and the courts.
During the same period Also post-Citizens United, statutory and judicial changes eased some contribution limits and affected the presidential public , statutory and judicial changes eased some contribution limits and affected the presidential public
financing program. Most consequentially, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in April 2014 financing program. Most consequentially, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in April 2014
((McCutcheon v. FEC). Also in 2014, Congress and President Obama terminated public funding for presidential nominating ). Also in 2014, Congress and President Obama terminated public funding for presidential nominating
conventions (P.L. 113-94). Congress responded to these events by including language in the FY2015 omnibus appropriations conventions (P.L. 113-94). Congress responded to these events by including language in the FY2015 omnibus appropriations
law (P.L. 113-235) that increased limits for some contributions to political party committees, including for conventions. More law (P.L. 113-235) that increased limits for some contributions to political party committees, including for conventions. More
recently, in May 2022recently, in May 2022 ((Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate), the Court invalidated a FECA limit on the ), the Court invalidated a FECA limit on the
amount of post-election campaign contributions that could be used to repay loans from the candidate to the campaign.
This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict
and consensus. This report emphasizes issues that have been most prominent in recent Congresses. It also discusses major
elements of campaign finance policy. This report will be updated occasionally to reflect major developments.
Congressional Research Service


link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 12 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 14 link to page 32 The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Development of Modern Campaign Finance Law .......................................................................... 2
Policy Background .................................................................................................................... 2
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) ........................................................................... 3
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and Beyond ................................................... 4
Major Issues: What Has Changed Post-Citizens United and What Has Not ............................. 5
What Has Changed ............................................................................................................. 5
What Has Not Changed ...................................................................................................... 9
Potential Policy Considerations and Emerging Issues for Congress ............................................. 12
Recent Legislative Activity ..................................................................................................... 12
118th Congress ................................................................................................................... 13
117th Congress ................................................................................................................... 14
116th Congress ................................................................................................................... 15
115th Congress ................................................................................................................... 16
Foreign Money and Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections .................................................... 17
Foreign Money .................................................................................................................. 17
Foreign Interference and Campaign Operations ............................................................... 18
FEC Activity on Funding for Certain Candidate Security and Child Care Expenses ............. 19
Regulation and Enforcement by the FEC or Through Other Areas of Policy and Law .......... 20
Politically Active Tax-Exempt Organizations and Internal Revenue Service
Disclosure Issues .................................................................................................................. 22
Selected Recent Litigation About Donor Disclosure in Independent Spending ...................... 23
Federal Communications Commission Rules on Political Advertising Disclosure ................ 24
Revisiting Disclosure Requirements ....................................................................................... 25
Disclosure and Disclaimers in Online and Digital Communications ................................ 26
Revisiting Contribution Limits ............................................................................................... 27
Revisiting Coordination Requirements ................................................................................... 28
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Tables
Table 1. Major Federal Contribution Limits, 2023-2024 ............................................................... 11

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 29

Congressional Research Service


The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Introduction
Federal law has regulated money in elections for more than a century.1amount of post-election campaign contributions that could be used to repay loans from the candidate to the campaign. During the 118th Congress, a provision in consolidated appropriations law P.L. 118-47 transferred $320 million from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF) to the U.S. Secret Service for 2024 election-cycle protection.

This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict and consensus. This report emphasizes issues that have been most prominent in recent Congresses. It also discusses major elements of campaign finance policy. This report will be updated occasionally to reflect major developments.

Introduction

Federal law has regulated money in elections for more than a century.1
Concerns about limiting Concerns about limiting
the potential for corruption and informing voters have been at the heart of that law and related the potential for corruption and informing voters have been at the heart of that law and related
regulations and judicial decisions. Restrictions on private money in campaigns, particularly large regulations and judicial decisions. Restrictions on private money in campaigns, particularly large
contributions, have been a common theme throughout the history of federal campaign finance contributions, have been a common theme throughout the history of federal campaign finance
law. The roles of corporations, unions, interest groups, and private funding from individuals have law. The roles of corporations, unions, interest groups, and private funding from individuals have
attracted consistent regulatory attention. Congress has also required that certain information about attracted consistent regulatory attention. Congress has also required that certain information about
campaigns’campaigns' financial transactions be made public. Collectively, three principles embodied in this financial transactions be made public. Collectively, three principles embodied in this
regulatory tradition—limits on sources of funds, limits on contributions, and disclosure of regulatory tradition—limits on sources of funds, limits on contributions, and disclosure of
information about these funds—constitute ongoing themes in federal campaign finance policy.information about these funds—constitute ongoing themes in federal campaign finance policy.
Throughout most of the Throughout most of the 20th20th century, campaign finance policy was marked by broad legislation century, campaign finance policy was marked by broad legislation
enacted sporadically. Major legislative action on campaign finance issues remains rare. Since the enacted sporadically. Major legislative action on campaign finance issues remains rare. Since the
1990s, however, momentum on federal campaign finance policy, including regulatory and judicial 1990s, however, momentum on federal campaign finance policy, including regulatory and judicial
action, has arguably increased. Congress last enacted major campaign finance legislation in 2002. action, has arguably increased. Congress last enacted major campaign finance legislation in 2002.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) largely banned unregulated The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) largely banned unregulated soft money2 in federal 2 in federal
elections and restricted funding sources for pre-election broadcast advertising known as elections and restricted funding sources for pre-election broadcast advertising known as
electioneering communications (ECs). As BCRA was implemented, regulatory developments at the . As BCRA was implemented, regulatory developments at the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), and some court cases, stirred controversy and renewed Federal Election Commission (FEC), and some court cases, stirred controversy and renewed
popular and congressional attention to campaign finance issues. Since BCRA, Congress has also popular and congressional attention to campaign finance issues. Since BCRA, Congress has also
continued to explore legislative options and has made comparatively minor amendments to the continued to explore legislative options and has made comparatively minor amendments to the
nation’nation's campaign finance law. The most substantial recent statutory changes occurred in 2014, s campaign finance law. The most substantial recent statutory changes occurred in 2014,
when Congress eliminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions and when Congress eliminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions and
increased limits for some contributions to political parties.increased limits for some contributions to political parties.
Some of the most notable campaign finance developments beyond Congress have occurred at the Some of the most notable campaign finance developments beyond Congress have occurred at the
Supreme Court. The 2010 Citizens United ruling spurred substantial legislative action during the

1 The 1907 Tillman Act (34 Stat. 864), which prohibited federal contributions from nationally chartered banks and
corporations, is generally regarded as the first major federal campaign finance law. Congress extended those
restrictions to unions temporarily in 1943 and, permanently, in 1947, with the Smith-Connolly (57 Stat. 163; 57 Stat.
167) and Taft-Hartley Acts (61 Stat. 136; 61 Stat. 159) respectively. The 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act (43 Stat.
1070) was arguably the first federal statute combining multiple campaign finance provisions, particularly disclosure
requirements first enacted in 1910 and 1911 (36 Stat. 822 and 37 Stat. 25). An 1867 statute barred requiring political
contributions from naval yard workers (14 Stat. 489 (March 2, 1867)). This appears to be the first federal law
concerning campaign finance. The Pendleton Act (22 Stat. 403), which created the civil service system is also
sometimes cited as an early campaign finance measure because it banned receiving a public office in exchange for a
political contributions (see 22 Stat. 404). For additional historical discussion of the evolution of campaign finance law
and policy, see Anthony Corrado et al., The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 2005), pp. 7-47. See also, for example, Kurt Hohenstein, Coining Corruption: The Making of the
American Campaign Finance System
(DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), Robert E. Mutch,
Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York: Praeger, 1988), Robert
E. Mutch, Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014),
Raymond J. La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform (Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 2008), pp. 43-80, and Money and Politic$, ed. Paula Baker (University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002). On the federal role in campaigns versus elections, see CRS Report R45302,
Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.
2 Soft money is a term of art referring to funds generally believed to influence federal elections but not regulated under
federal election law. Soft money stands in contrast to hard money. The latter is a term of art referring to funds that are
generally subject to regulation under federal election law, such as restrictions on funding sources and contribution
amounts. These terms are not defined in federal election law. For an overview, see, for example, David B. Magleby,
“Outside Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections,” in The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the
2002 Congressional Elections
, ed. David B. Magleby and J. Quin Monson (Washington: Brookings Institution Press,
2004), pp. 10-13.
Congressional Research Service

1

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

111thSupreme Court. The 2010 Citizens United ruling spurred substantial legislative action during the 111th Congress and continued interest during subsequent Congresses. Congress and continued interest during subsequent Congresses.33 In another 2010 decision, In another 2010 decision,
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia held that contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make only Columbia held that contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make only
independent expenditures independent expenditures (IEs) cannot be limited—a development that led to formation of cannot be limited—a development that led to formation of "super super
PACs.PACs." Both decisions continue to shape campaign finance policy debates and options. As noted Both decisions continue to shape campaign finance policy debates and options. As noted
later in this report, rulings in 2014 (later in this report, rulings in 2014 (McCutcheon) and 2022 () and 2022 (Ted Cruz for Senate) addressed ) addressed
narrower regulatory topics but nonetheless continue to affect policy options.narrower regulatory topics but nonetheless continue to affect policy options.
This report is intended to provide an accessible overview of major policy issues facing Congress. This report is intended to provide an accessible overview of major policy issues facing Congress.
Citations to other CRS products, which provide additional information, appear where relevant.Citations to other CRS products, which provide additional information, appear where relevant.4
4 The report discusses selected litigation to demonstrate how those events have changed the The report discusses selected litigation to demonstrate how those events have changed the
campaign finance landscape and affected the policy issues that may confront Congress, but it is campaign finance landscape and affected the policy issues that may confront Congress, but it is
not a constitutional or legal analysis. As in the past, this version of the report contains both not a constitutional or legal analysis. As in the past, this version of the report contains both
additions of new material and deletions of old material compared with previous versions.additions of new material and deletions of old material compared with previous versions.55 This This
update emphasizes those topics that appear to be most relevant for Congress, while also providing update emphasizes those topics that appear to be most relevant for Congress, while also providing
historical background that is broadly applicable. historical background that is broadly applicable. The report emphasizes campaign finance issues that are contained in statutory or regulatory provisions, or proposals that have been the focus of substantial legislative activity.6 This report will be updated occasionally as This report will be updated occasionally as
events warrant.events warrant.
Development of Modern Campaign Finance Law
Policy Background
Dozens or hundreds of campaign finance bills have been introduced in each Congress since the Dozens or hundreds of campaign finance bills have been introduced in each Congress since the
1970s. Nonetheless, major changes in campaign finance law have been rare. A generation passed 1970s. Nonetheless, major changes in campaign finance law have been rare. A generation passed
between the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and BCRA, the two most prominent between the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and BCRA, the two most prominent
campaign finance statutes of the past 50 years. Federal courts and the FEC played active roles in campaign finance statutes of the past 50 years. Federal courts and the FEC played active roles in
interpreting and implementing both statutes and others. Over time and in all facets of the policy interpreting and implementing both statutes and others. Over time and in all facets of the policy
process, anti-corruption themes have been consistently evident. Specifically, federal campaign process, anti-corruption themes have been consistently evident. Specifically, federal campaign
finance law seeks to limit corruption or apparent corruption in the lawmaking process that might finance law seeks to limit corruption or apparent corruption in the lawmaking process that might
result from monetary contributions. Campaign finance law also seeks to inform voters about result from monetary contributions. Campaign finance law also seeks to inform voters about
sources and amounts of contributions. In general, Congress has attempted to limit potential sources and amounts of contributions. In general, Congress has attempted to limit potential
corruption and increase voter information through two major policy approachescorruption and increase voter information through two major policy approaches
:limiting sources and amounts of financial contributions, andlimiting sources and amounts of financial contributions, and
requiring disclosure about contributions and expenditures.requiring disclosure about contributions and expenditures.
Another hallmark of the nationAnother hallmark of the nation's campaign finance policy concerns spending restrictions. s campaign finance policy concerns spending restrictions.
Congress has occasionally placed restrictions on the amount candidates can spend, as it did Congress has occasionally placed restrictions on the amount candidates can spend, as it did
initially through FECA. Today, candidates and political committees can generally spend unlimited

3 For additional discussion of activity during the 111th Congress, see CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy
After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS
Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K.
Lunder.
4 As explained in the text, this report does not address constitutional or legal issues except to provide policy context.
For additional discussion, see, in particular, CRS Report R46521, Political Campaign Contributions and Congress: A
Legal Primer
, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues,
Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
5 Congressional requesters may contact the author for additional information.
Congressional Research Service

2

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

initially through FECA. Today, candidates and political committees can generally spend unlimited amounts on their campaigns, as long as those funds are not coordinated with other parties or amounts on their campaigns, as long as those funds are not coordinated with other parties or
candidates.candidates.6
7 The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
Modern campaign finance law was largely shaped in the 1970s, particularly through FECA.Modern campaign finance law was largely shaped in the 1970s, particularly through FECA.78 First First
enacted in 1971 and substantially amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, FECA remains the enacted in 1971 and substantially amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, FECA remains the
foundation of the nationfoundation of the nation's campaign finance law.s campaign finance law.89 As originally enacted, FECA subsumed As originally enacted, FECA subsumed
previous campaign finance statutes, such as the 1925 Corrupt Practices Act, which, by the 1970s, previous campaign finance statutes, such as the 1925 Corrupt Practices Act, which, by the 1970s,
were largely regarded as ineffective, antiquated, or both.were largely regarded as ineffective, antiquated, or both.910 The 1971 FECA principally mandated The 1971 FECA principally mandated
reporting requirements similar to those in place today, such as quarterly disclosure of a political reporting requirements similar to those in place today, such as quarterly disclosure of a political
committee’committee's receipts and expenditures. Subsequent amendments to FECA played a major role in s receipts and expenditures. Subsequent amendments to FECA played a major role in
shaping campaign finance policy as it is understood today. In briefshaping campaign finance policy as it is understood today. In brief
Among other requirements, the 1974 amendments, enacted in response to the Among other requirements, the 1974 amendments, enacted in response to the
Watergate scandal, placed contribution and spending limits on campaigns. The Watergate scandal, placed contribution and spending limits on campaigns. The
1974 amendments also established the FEC.1974 amendments also established the FEC.
After the 1974 amendments were enacted, the first in a series of prominent legal After the 1974 amendments were enacted, the first in a series of prominent legal
challenges (most of which are beyond the scope of this report) came before the challenges (most of which are beyond the scope of this report) came before the
Supreme CourtSupreme Court of the United States.10.11 In its landmark In its landmark Buckley v. . Valeo (1976) (1976)
ruling, the Court declared mandatory spending limits unconstitutional (except for ruling, the Court declared mandatory spending limits unconstitutional (except for
publicly financed presidential candidates) and invalidated the original publicly financed presidential candidates) and invalidated the original
appointment structure for the FEC.appointment structure for the FEC.
Congress responded to Congress responded to Buckley through the 1976 FECA amendments, which through the 1976 FECA amendments, which
reconstituted the FEC, established new contribution limits, and addressed various reconstituted the FEC, established new contribution limits, and addressed various
PAC and presidential public financing issues.PAC and presidential public financing issues.
The 1979 amendments simplified reporting requirements for some political The 1979 amendments simplified reporting requirements for some political
committees and individuals.committees and individuals.
To summarize, the 1970s were devoted primarily to establishing and testing limits on To summarize, the 1970s were devoted primarily to establishing and testing limits on
contributions and expenditures, creating a disclosure regime, and constructing the FEC to contributions and expenditures, creating a disclosure regime, and constructing the FEC to
administer the nationadminister the nation's campaign finance laws.s campaign finance laws.
Despite minor amendments, FECA remained essentially uninterrupted for the next 20 years. Despite minor amendments, FECA remained essentially uninterrupted for the next 20 years.
Although there were relatively narrow legislative changes to FECA and other statutes, such as the

6 Political committees include candidate committees, party committees, and PACs. See 52 U.S.C. §30101 (previously
codified at 2 U.S.C. §431(4), as explained later in this report).
7 FECA is 52 U.S.C. §30101 et seq. (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.). Congress first addressed modern
campaign finance issues in the 1970s through the 1971 Revenue Act, which established the presidential public
financing program. The 1970s are primarily remembered, however, for enactment of and amendments to FECA. See
CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
8 On the 1971 FECA, see P.L. 92-225. On the 1974, 1976, and 1979 amendments, see P.L. 93-443, P.L. 94-283, and
P.L. 96-187 respectively.
9 The Corrupt Practices Act, which FECA generally supersedes, is 43 Stat. 1070.
10 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions
and Expenditures
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service

3

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

1986 repeal11Although there were relatively narrow legislative changes to FECA and other statutes, such as the 1986 repeal12 of tax credits for political contributions, much of the debate during the 1980s and of tax credits for political contributions, much of the debate during the 1980s and
early 1990s focused on the role of interest groups, especially PACs.early 1990s focused on the role of interest groups, especially PACs.12
13 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and Beyond
By the 1990s, attention began to shift to perceived loopholes in FECA. Two issues—soft money By the 1990s, attention began to shift to perceived loopholes in FECA. Two issues—soft money
and issue advocacy (issue advertising)—were especially prominent. and issue advocacy (issue advertising)—were especially prominent. Soft money is a term of art is a term of art
referring to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign referring to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign
finance law. At the federal level before BCRA, soft money came principally in the form of large finance law. At the federal level before BCRA, soft money came principally in the form of large
contributions from otherwise prohibited sources, and went to party committees for contributions from otherwise prohibited sources, and went to party committees for "party-party-
building”building" activities that indirectly supported elections. Similarly, activities that indirectly supported elections. Similarly, issue advocacy traditionally fell traditionally fell
outside FECA regulation because these advertisements praised or criticized a federal candidate—outside FECA regulation because these advertisements praised or criticized a federal candidate—
often by urging voters to contact the candidate—but did not explicitly call for election or defeat often by urging voters to contact the candidate—but did not explicitly call for election or defeat
of the candidate (which would be of the candidate (which would be express advocacy).).
In response to these and other concerns, BCRA specified several reforms.In response to these and other concerns, BCRA specified several reforms.1314 Among other Among other
provisions, the act banned national parties, federal candidates, and officeholders from raising soft provisions, the act banned national parties, federal candidates, and officeholders from raising soft
money in federal elections; increased most contribution limits; and placed additional restrictions money in federal elections; increased most contribution limits; and placed additional restrictions
on pre-election issue advocacy. Specifically, the acton pre-election issue advocacy. Specifically, the act's s electioneering communications provision provision
prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to air broadcast ads referring prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to air broadcast ads referring
to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a
primary election or caucus.primary election or caucus.14
15 After Congress enacted BCRA, momentum on federal campaign finance policy issues arguably After Congress enacted BCRA, momentum on federal campaign finance policy issues arguably
shifted to the FEC and the courts. Implementing and interpreting BCRA were especially shifted to the FEC and the courts. Implementing and interpreting BCRA were especially
prominent issues. Noteworthy post-BCRA events include the following:prominent issues. Noteworthy post-BCRA events include the following:
The Supreme Court upheld most of BCRAThe Supreme Court upheld most of BCRA's provisions in a 2003 facial challenge s provisions in a 2003 facial challenge
((McConnell v. Federal Election Commission).).15
16 Over time, the Court held aspects of BCRA unconstitutional as applied to Over time, the Court held aspects of BCRA unconstitutional as applied to
specific circumstances. These included a 2008 ruling related to additional specific circumstances. These included a 2008 ruling related to additional
fundraising permitted for congressional candidates facing self-financed fundraising permitted for congressional candidates facing self-financed
opponents (the opponents (the “Millionaire’"Millionaire's Amendment,s Amendment," Davis v. Federal Election
Commission
) and a 2007 ruling on the electioneering communication provision) and a 2007 ruling on the electioneering communication provision’s
's restrictions on advertising by a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization (restrictions on advertising by a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization (Wisconsin Right
to Life v. Federal Election Commission
).).16
17 Since 2002, the FEC has undertaken several rulemakings related to BCRA and Since 2002, the FEC has undertaken several rulemakings related to BCRA and
other topics. Complicated subject matter, protracted debate among

11 See P.L. 99-514 §112. Congress repealed a tax deduction for political contributions in 1978. See P.L. 95-600 §113.
12 See, for example, Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance
Law
(New York: Praeger, 1988); and Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections, ed. Robert
Biersack, Clyde S. Wilcox, and Paul S. Herrnson (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994).
13 BCRA is P.L. 107-155; 116 Stat. 81. BCRA amended FECA, which appears at 52 U.S.C. §30101 et seq. (previously
codified at 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.) BCRA is also known as McCain-Feingold.
14 On the definition of electioneering communications, see 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434
(f)(3)).
15 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions
and Expenditures
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
16 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions
and Expenditures
, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments
and Policy Issues in the 110th Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service

4

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

other topics. Complicated subject matter, protracted debate among commissioners, and litigation have made some rulemakings lengthy and commissioners, and litigation have made some rulemakings lengthy and
controversial.controversial.17
18 Congress enacted some additional amendments to campaign finance law since Congress enacted some additional amendments to campaign finance law since
BCRA. The 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) BCRA. The 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA)
placed new disclosure requirements on lobbyistsplaced new disclosure requirements on lobbyists' campaign contributions (certain campaign contributions (certain
bundled contributions) and restricted campaign travel aboard private aircraft.bundled contributions) and restricted campaign travel aboard private aircraft.1819 In In
2014, as discussed below, Congress raised some limits for contributions to 2014, as discussed below, Congress raised some limits for contributions to
political parties.political parties.
Major Issues: What Has Changed Post-Citizens United and
What Has Not
The following discussion highlights those topics that appear to be enduring and significant in the The following discussion highlights those topics that appear to be enduring and significant in the
current policy environment. The discussion begins with changes directly affected by current policy environment. The discussion begins with changes directly affected by Citizens
United
because those developments most fundamentally altered the campaign finance landscape. because those developments most fundamentally altered the campaign finance landscape.
What Has Changed
Unlimited Corporate and Union Spending on Independent Expenditures and
Electioneering Communications

In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission
..1920 In brief, the opinion invalidated FECA In brief, the opinion invalidated FECA's prohibitions on corporate and union s prohibitions on corporate and union
treasury funding of independent expenditures and electioneering communications. As a treasury funding of independent expenditures and electioneering communications. As a
consequence of consequence of Citizens United, corporations and unions are free to use their treasury funds to air , corporations and unions are free to use their treasury funds to air
political advertisements and make related purchases explicitly calling for election or defeat of political advertisements and make related purchases explicitly calling for election or defeat of
federal or state candidates (federal or state candidates (independent expenditures) or advertisements that refer to those ) or advertisements that refer to those
candidates during pre-election periods, but do not necessarily explicitly call for their election or candidates during pre-election periods, but do not necessarily explicitly call for their election or
defeat (defeat (electioneering communications).).2021 Previously, such advertising would generally have had Previously, such advertising would generally have had
to be financed through voluntary contributions raised by PACs affiliated with unions or to be financed through voluntary contributions raised by PACs affiliated with unions or
corporations.corporations.
DISCLOSE Act Consideration Following Citizens United. Since Since Citizens United, the House and , the House and
Senate have considered various legislation designed to increase public availability of information Senate have considered various legislation designed to increase public availability of information
((disclosure) about corporate and union spending. Particularly in the immediate aftermath of the ) about corporate and union spending. Particularly in the immediate aftermath of the
decision, during the decision, during the 111th111th Congress, most congressional attention responding to the ruling focused Congress, most congressional attention responding to the ruling focused
on the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175on the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175; ; S. 3295S. 3295; ; S. 3628S. 3628). The DISCLOSE Act has been the most consistent focus of generally proregulatory legislative activity on disclosure issues since Citizens United. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 5175). The House of Representatives passed H.R.

17 For example, rulemakings on various BCRA provisions resulted in a series of at least three lawsuits covering six
years. These are the Shays and Meehan v. Federal Election Commission cases.
18 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for
the 111th Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett. HLOGA is primarily an ethics and lobbying statute. For additional discussion,
see, for example, CRS Report R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Before and After the Enactment of the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
, by Jacob R. Straus.
19 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). For additional discussion, see, for example, CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An
Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
20 Independent expenditures explicitly call for election or defeat of political candidates (known as express advocacy),
may occur at any time, and are usually (but not always) broadcast advertisements. They must also be uncoordinated
with the campaign in question. On the definition of independent expenditures, see 52 U.S.C. §30101 (previously
codified at 2 U.S.C. 431 §17). As noted previously, electioneering communications refer to clearly identified
candidates during pre-election periods but do not contain express advocacy.
Congressional Research Service

5

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

5175, with amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. By a 57-41 vote, the Senate , with amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. By a 57-41 vote, the Senate
declined to invoke cloture on companion bill S. 3628 on July 27, 2010.declined to invoke cloture on companion bill S. 3628 on July 27, 2010.2122 A second cloture vote A second cloture vote
failed (59-39) on September 23, 2010.failed (59-39) on September 23, 2010.2223 No additional action on the bill occurred during the No additional action on the bill occurred during the 111th
111th Congress. The DISCLOSE Act text has remained a focal point of legislative activity in Congress. The DISCLOSE Act text has remained a focal point of legislative activity in
subsequent Congresses for those who support additional reporting requirements.subsequent Congresses for those who support additional reporting requirements.
This period during the This period during the 111th111th Congress marked the most substantial legislative progress that the Congress marked the most substantial legislative progress that the
DISCLOSE Act made initially, and the bill has never become law. Versions of the bill were DISCLOSE Act made initially, and the bill has never become law. Versions of the bill were
introduced in both chambers in subsequent Congresses. In the introduced in both chambers in subsequent Congresses. In the 112th112th Congress, the Senate debated Congress, the Senate debated
a motion to proceed to the measure in July 2012 but declined (by a 53-45 vote) to invoke cloture. a motion to proceed to the measure in July 2012 but declined (by a 53-45 vote) to invoke cloture.
In the In the 113th113th Congress, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing on a Congress, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing on a
version of the bill, S. 2516version of the bill, S. 2516. The 114th and 115th. The 114th and 115th Congresses considered the DISCLOSE Act again, Congresses considered the DISCLOSE Act again,
but no substantial legislative activity occurred. DISCLOSE Act text was included in H.R. 1but no substantial legislative activity occurred. DISCLOSE Act text was included in H.R. 1, ,
Division B, Subtitle B, which the House passed in March 2019. Stand-alone versions of Division B, Subtitle B, which the House passed in March 2019. Stand-alone versions of
DISCLOSE (H.R. 2977 and S. 1147) did not advance in the DISCLOSE (H.R. 2977 and S. 1147) did not advance in the 116th116th Congress. In the Congress. In the 117th
117th Congress, a version of DISCLOSE was included in H.R. 1. The House passed the bill (220-210) Congress, a version of DISCLOSE was included in H.R. 1. The House passed the bill (220-210)
in March 2021. The Senate did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a Senate in March 2021. The Senate did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a Senate
companion bill (S. 2093; see also S. 1companion bill (S. 2093; see also S. 1). Versions of the DISCLOSE Act were introduced in the 118th Congress, either as components of other bills or as stand-alone measures; none advanced beyond committee referral.24).
Unlimited Contributions to Independent-Expenditure-Only Political Action
Committees (Super PACs)

On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission2325 that contributions to PACs that make only that contributions to PACs that make only
independent expenditures—but not contributions—could not be constitutionally limited. As a independent expenditures—but not contributions—could not be constitutionally limited. As a
result, these entities, commonly called result, these entities, commonly called super PACs, may accept previously prohibited amounts , may accept previously prohibited amounts
and sources of funds, including large corporate, union, or individual contributions used to and sources of funds, including large corporate, union, or individual contributions used to
advocate for election or defeat of federal candidates. Existing reporting requirements for PACs advocate for election or defeat of federal candidates. Existing reporting requirements for PACs
apply to super PACs, meaning that contributions and expenditures must be disclosed to the FEC.apply to super PACs, meaning that contributions and expenditures must be disclosed to the FEC.
Unlimited Contributions to Certain Nonconnected Political Action Committees
(PACs)

As the ramifications of As the ramifications of Citizens United and and SpeechNow continued to unfold, other forms of continued to unfold, other forms of
unlimited fundraising were also permitted. In October 2011, the FEC announced that, in response unlimited fundraising were also permitted. In October 2011, the FEC announced that, in response
to an agreement reached in a case brought after to an agreement reached in a case brought after SpeechNow ( (Carey v. FEC),),2426 the agency would the agency would
permit permit nonconnected PACs—those that are unaffiliated with corporations or unions—to accept PACs—those that are unaffiliated with corporations or unions—to accept
unlimited contributions for use in independent expenditures. The agency directed PACs choosing unlimited contributions for use in independent expenditures. The agency directed PACs choosing
to do so to keep the independent expenditure contributions in a separate bank account from the to do so to keep the independent expenditure contributions in a separate bank account from the
one used to make contributions to federal candidates.one used to make contributions to federal candidates.2527 As such, nonconnected PACs that want to As such, nonconnected PACs that want to
raise unlimited sums for independent expenditures may create a separate bank account and meet raise unlimited sums for independent expenditures may create a separate bank account and meet

21 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed,” Senate vote 220, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (July 27,
2010), p. S6285.
22 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed—Resumed,” Senate vote 240, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156
(September 23, 2010), p. S7388.
23 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
24 Civ. No. 11-259-RMC (D.D.C. 2011).
25 Federal Election Commission, “FEC Statement on Carey v. FEC: Reporting Guidance for Political Committees that
Maintain a Non-Contribution Account,” press release, October 5, 2011, http://www.fec.gov/press/Press2011/
20111006postcarey.shtml.
Congressional Research Service

6

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

additional reporting obligations rather than forming a separate super PAC. Super PACs have, additional reporting obligations rather than forming a separate super PAC. Super PACs have,
nonetheless, continued to be an important force in American politics because only some nonetheless, continued to be an important force in American politics because only some
traditional PACs qualify for the traditional PACs qualify for the Carey exemption to fundraising limits. exemption to fundraising limits.26
28 PACs that utilize both the super PAC and traditional PAC approach simultaneously have come to be known as Carey PACs or hybrid PACs.29 FEC Rules Implementing Parts of Citizens United
Implementing Implementing Citizens United and and SpeechNow fell to the FEC. The commission issued advisory fell to the FEC. The commission issued advisory
opinions (AOs) within a few months of the rulings recognizing corporate independent opinions (AOs) within a few months of the rulings recognizing corporate independent
expenditures and super PACs. Afterward, some corporations, unions, and other organizations expenditures and super PACs. Afterward, some corporations, unions, and other organizations
began making previously prohibited expenditures or raising previously prohibited funds for began making previously prohibited expenditures or raising previously prohibited funds for
electioneering communications or independent expenditures.electioneering communications or independent expenditures.27
30 Despite progress on post-Despite progress on post-Citizens United AOs, agreement on final rules took years. A December AOs, agreement on final rules took years. A December
2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) posing questions about what form post-2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM) posing questions about what form post-Citizens
United
rules should rules should take28take31 remained open until late 2014, reflecting an apparent stalemate over remained open until late 2014, reflecting an apparent stalemate over
the scope of the agencythe scope of the agency's s Citizens United response. In October 2014, the commission approved response. In October 2014, the commission approved
rules essentially to remove portions of existing regulations that rules essentially to remove portions of existing regulations that Citizens United had invalidated, had invalidated,
such as spending prohibitions on corporate and union treasury funds.such as spending prohibitions on corporate and union treasury funds.2932 The 2014 rules did not The 2014 rules did not
require additional disclosure surrounding independent spending, which some commenters had require additional disclosure surrounding independent spending, which some commenters had
urged, but which others argued was beyond the agencyurged, but which others argued was beyond the agency's purview.s purview.30
33 Other rules discussed throughout this report have referenced Citizens United, but the commission has not approved comprehensive rules to implement the decision, just as Congress has not enacted substantial legislation to do so. Aggregate Caps on Individual Campaign Contributions
On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon v.
FEC
. . “Base”"Base" limits capping the amounts that donors may give to individual candidates still limits capping the amounts that donors may give to individual candidates still
apply.apply.3134 For 2013-2014—pre- For 2013-2014—pre-McCutcheon—individual contributions could total no more than —individual contributions could total no more than
$123,200. Of that amount, $48,600 could go to candidates, with the remaining $74,600 to parties $123,200. Of that amount, $48,600 could go to candidates, with the remaining $74,600 to parties
and PACs. Following and PACs. Following McCutcheon, individuals may contribute to as many candidates as they , individuals may contribute to as many candidates as they
wish provided that they adhere to the base contribution limits (e.g., $3,wish provided that they adhere to the base contribution limits (e.g., $3,300500 per candidate, per per candidate, per
election for the election for the 20242026 election cycle).
Higher Contribution Limits and Special Accounts for Political Party Committees
election cycle).

26 In particular, the exemption only applies to nonconnected PACs (i.e., those that exist independently as PACs and are
not affiliated with a parent organization, such as an interest group or labor union).
27 Perhaps most notably, the FEC issued AOs 2010-09 (Club for Growth) and 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten),
recognizing corporate independent expenditures and super PACs. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42042,
Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. AOs provide an opportunity
to pose questions about how the commission interprets the applicability of FECA or FEC regulations to a specific
situation (e.g., a planned campaign expenditure). AOs apply only to the requester and within specific circumstances,
but can provide general guidance for those in similar situations. See 52 U.S.C. §30108 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C.
§437f).
28 Federal Election Commission, “Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and
Labor Organizations,” 248 Federal Register 80803, December 27, 2011.
29 Federal Election Commission, “Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and
Labor Organizations,” 79 Federal Register 62797, October 21, 2014.
30 Some Senators filed comments calling for additional donor disclosure. See Letter from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen et al. to
Commissioner Caroline Hunter, Chair, FEC, February 21, 2012. The document may be obtained from the FEC
rulemaking comments search function at http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/.
31 For additional policy discussion, as well as citations to other CRS products that cover legal issues, see CRS Report
R43334, Campaign Contribution Limits: Selected Questions About McCutcheon and Policy Issues for Congress, by R.
Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service

7

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Higher Contribution Limits and New Accounts for Political Party Committees
For the first time since enacting BCRA in 2002, Congress raised the statutory limit on some For the first time since enacting BCRA in 2002, Congress raised the statutory limit on some
campaign contributions in December 2014. Specifically, the FY2015 omnibus appropriations law, campaign contributions in December 2014. Specifically, the FY2015 omnibus appropriations law,
P.L. 113-235, increased contribution limits to national political party committees.P.L. 113-235, increased contribution limits to national political party committees.3235 Most Most
prominently, these party committees include the Democratic National Committee (DNC), prominently, these party committees include the Democratic National Committee (DNC),
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee (DSCC), Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional Committee (DSCC), Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Congressional
Committee (NRCC), and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). The Committee (NRCC), and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). The newFY2015 law law
also permits these committees to establish also permits these committees to establish newspecial accounts, each with separate contribution limits, accounts, each with separate contribution limits,
to support party conventions,to support party conventions,3336 facilities, and recounts or other legal matters. facilities, and recounts or other legal matters.
Under inflation adjustments announced in Under inflation adjustments announced in February 2023January 2025, individuals could contribute , individuals could contribute at least
$991$1,063,200 to national party committees annually in ,200 to national party committees annually in 2023-2024.342025-2026.37 Political action committees Political action committees
(PACs) may also make larger contributions to parties. For multicandidate PACs—the most (PACs) may also make larger contributions to parties. For multicandidate PACs—the most
common type of PAC—contributions to a national party increased from $45,000 to at least common type of PAC—contributions to a national party increased from $45,000 to at least
$360,000 annually. Unlike limits for individual contributions, those for PACs are not adjusted for $360,000 annually. Unlike limits for individual contributions, those for PACs are not adjusted for
inflation.inflation.35
38 Some Public Financing Issues
Two notable public financing changes have occurred since 2010, although neither is directly Two notable public financing changes have occurred since 2010, although neither is directly
related to related to Citizens United. Most relevant for federal campaign finance policy, P.L. 113-94Most relevant for federal campaign finance policy, P.L. 113-94, ,
enacted in April 2014, terminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions.enacted in April 2014, terminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions.3639 The The
2016 conventions were the first since 1972 funded entirely with private money.2016 conventions were the first since 1972 funded entirely with private money.37
40 The second major development occurred in 2011 and primarily affects state-level candidates but The second major development occurred in 2011 and primarily affects state-level candidates but
also has implications for federal policy options. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 5-also has implications for federal policy options. On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 5-
4 opinion in the consolidated case 4 opinion in the consolidated case Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC et al. v.
Bennett
and and McComish v. Bennett..3841 The decision invalidated portions of Arizona The decision invalidated portions of Arizona's public s public
financing program for state-level candidates.financing program for state-level candidates.3942 The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice
Roberts, held that the stateRoberts, held that the state's use of matching funds (also called s use of matching funds (also called trigger funds, rescue funds,, or or
escape hatch funds) unconstitutionally burdened privately financed candidates) unconstitutionally burdened privately financed candidates' free speech and free speech and
did not meet a compelling state interest. The decision has been most relevant for state-level public

32 See P.L. 113-235; 128 Stat. 2130; and, especially, 128 Stat. 2772.
33 As noted elsewhere in this report, only the “headquarters” committees (e.g., the DNC or RNC) could collect
additional funds for conventions.
34 CRS calculated this figure from individual-account adjustments that appear in Federal Election Commission, “Price
Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold,” 88
Federal Register
7088, February 2, 2023.
35 For historical discussion of the provisions’ enactment, see CRS Report R43825, Increased Campaign Contribution
Limits in the FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently Asked Questions
, by R. Sam Garrett.
36 128 Stat. 1085.
37 See CRS Report R43976, Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and
Shawn Reese; CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy
Options
, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn Reese; and CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns
, by R. Sam Garrett. On appropriated security funding, which is separate from campaign
finance policy, see also CRS In Focus IF11555, Presidential Candidate and Nominating Convention Security, by
Shawn Reese.
38 131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011). The slip opinion is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf.
39 For additional discussion of state-level public financing, see the “State Experiences with Public Financing” section of
CRS Report RL33814, Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service

8

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

did not meet a compelling state interest. The decision has been most relevant for state-level public financing programs, as a similar matching fund system does not operate at the federal level. financing programs, as a similar matching fund system does not operate at the federal level.
However, the decision also appears to preclude rescue funds in future federal proposals to However, the decision also appears to preclude rescue funds in future federal proposals to
restructure the existing presidential public financing program or create a congressional public restructure the existing presidential public financing program or create a congressional public
financing program.
FECA Editorial Reclassification
The Office of Law Revision Counsel, which maintains the U.S. Code, moved FECA and other
portions of federal election law to a new Title 52 of the U.S. Code in September 2014.40
Previously, FECA and most other relevant campaign finance law were housed in Title 2 of the
U.S. Code. This editorial change does not affect the content of the statutes. Nonetheless, it is a
major change for those who need to search or cite federal election law. Unless otherwise noted,
FECA citations throughout this report have been changed to reflect the new Title 52 location.
Electronic Filing of Senate Campaign Finance Reports
Congress amended FECA in an FY2019 appropriations bill to require Senate political committees
to file their campaign finance reports electronically. H.R. 5895 (P.L. 115-244) amended FECA to
change the place of filing for Senate campaign finance reports from the Secretary of the Senate to
the FEC.41 The text does not require electronic filing per se. However, per FECA, all political
committee reports filed with the commission (except for political committees with less than
$50,000 of annual activity) must be filed electronically. Therefore, changing the place of filing to
the FEC changes both the place and method of filing.
What Has Not Changed
Federal Ban on Corporate and Union Treasury Contributions
financing program.

The presidential public financing program remains in operation, but has not been substantially utilized since the 2012 election cycle.43 In the 118th Congress, a provision in consolidated appropriations law P.L. 118-47 transferred $320 million from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), the repository for public financing checkoff designations, to the U.S. Secret Service for 2024 election-cycle protection duties.

What Has Not Changed
Federal Ban on Corporate and Union Treasury Contributions
Corporations and unions are still banned from making contributions in federal elections.Corporations and unions are still banned from making contributions in federal elections.4244 PACs PACs
affiliated with, but legally separate from, those corporations and unions may contribute to affiliated with, but legally separate from, those corporations and unions may contribute to
candidates, parties, and other PACs. As noted elsewhere in this report, corporations and unions candidates, parties, and other PACs. As noted elsewhere in this report, corporations and unions
may use their treasury funds to make electioneering communications, independent expenditures, may use their treasury funds to make electioneering communications, independent expenditures,
or both, but this spending is not considered a or both, but this spending is not considered a contribution under FECA. under FECA.43
45 Federal Ban on Soft Money Contributions to Political Parties
The prohibition on using soft money in federal elections remains in effect. This includes The prohibition on using soft money in federal elections remains in effect. This includes
prohibiting the pre-BCRA practice of large, generally unregulated contributions to national party prohibiting the pre-BCRA practice of large, generally unregulated contributions to national party
committees for generic committees for generic "party buildingparty building" activities. activities.
As noted elsewhere in this report, in December 2014, Congress enacted legislation, which As noted elsewhere in this report, in December 2014, Congress enacted legislation, which
President Obama signed (P.L. 113-235President Obama signed (P.L. 113-235), permitting far larger contributions to political parties than had been permitted previously.46), permitting far larger contributions to political parties

40 For background on the reclassification, see Office of Law Revision Counsel, Editorial Reclassification,
http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/reclassification.html. For a table comparing old and new citations, see
http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/t52/Reclassifications_Title_52.pdf.
41 See Division B, §102. For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN10970, Electronic Filing of Senate Campaign
Finance Reports
, by R. Sam Garrett. As codified, see 52 U.S.C. §30102(g).
42 52 U.S.C. §30118 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §441b).
43 On the definition of contribution, see, in particular, 52 U.S.C. §30101 and 52 U.S.C. §30118 (previously codified at
2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A) and 2 U.S.C. §441(b)(b)(2)).
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

than had been permitted previously.44 These funds are not soft money, in that they are subject to These funds are not soft money, in that they are subject to
contribution limits and other FECA requirements (e.g., disclosure). Nonetheless, some might contribution limits and other FECA requirements (e.g., disclosure). Nonetheless, some might
contend that the spirit of these contributions resembles soft money. Others contend that the contend that the spirit of these contributions resembles soft money. Others contend that the
increased limits allow parties to compete with newly empowered groups, such as super PACs, increased limits allow parties to compete with newly empowered groups, such as super PACs,
that are not subject to contribution limits.that are not subject to contribution limits.
Some Contribution Limits Remain Intact
Pre-existing base Base limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs generally remain in limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs generally remain in
effect. Despite effect. Despite Citizens United's implications for independent expenditures and electioneering implications for independent expenditures and electioneering
communications, the ruling did not affect the prohibition on corporate and union treasury communications, the ruling did not affect the prohibition on corporate and union treasury
contributions in federal campaigns. As noted above, contributions in federal campaigns. As noted above, SpeechNow permitted unlimited permitted unlimited
contributions to independent-expenditure-only PACs (contributions to independent-expenditure-only PACs (super PACs). The FEC has not issued rules . The FEC has not issued rules
regarding super PACs per se. In July 2011 the commission issued an advisory opinion stating that regarding super PACs per se. In July 2011 the commission issued an advisory opinion stating that
federal candidates (including officeholders) and party officials could solicit funds for super PACs, federal candidates (including officeholders) and party officials could solicit funds for super PACs,
but that those solicitations were subject to the limits established in FECA and discussed below. but that those solicitations were subject to the limits established in FECA and discussed below.
Also as noted elsewhere in this report, the FEC announced in October 2011, per an agreement Also as noted elsewhere in this report, the FEC announced in October 2011, per an agreement
reached in reached in Carey v. FEC, that nonconnected PACs would be permitted to raise unlimited amounts , that nonconnected PACs would be permitted to raise unlimited amounts
for independent expenditures if those funds are kept in a separate bank account.for independent expenditures if those funds are kept in a separate bank account.
Although major contribution limits remain in place, as noted above, some party contribution Although major contribution limits remain in place, as noted above, some party contribution
limits have increased. More consequentially, post-limits have increased. More consequentially, post-McCutcheon aggregate contribution limits no aggregate contribution limits no
longer apply. Therefore, although individuals are, for example, still prohibited from contributing longer apply. Therefore, although individuals are, for example, still prohibited from contributing
more than $3,more than $3,300500 per candidate, per election during the per candidate, per election during the 20242026 cycle, the total amount of such cycle, the total amount of such
giving is no longer capped.giving is no longer capped.4547 Table 1 below and the table notes provide additional information, as below and the table notes provide additional information, as
do other CRS products.46

44 For the codified text, see 52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(9).
45 Statutory inflation adjustments as administered by the FEC, based on Department of Labor data, did not increase the
individual contribution limit, which was $2,700 per candidate, per election during 2016-2018 as well. The inflation
adjustments are codified at 52 U.S.C. §30116(c).
46 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43334, Campaign Contribution Limits: Selected Questions About
McCutcheon and Policy Issues for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance:
Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 14 The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

do other CRS products.48 Table 1. Major Federal Contribution Limits, 2023-2024
2025-2026 (See table notes below for additional information(See table notes below for additional information.)

Recipient
Multicandidate
Principal
Committee (most
National Party
State, District,
Campaign
PACs, including
Committee
Local Party
Contributor
Committee
leadership PACs)
(DSCC; NRCC, etc.)
Committee
Individual
$3,300 per election* $5,000 per year
$41,300 per year*
$10,000)

Recipient

Contributor

Principal Campaign Committee

Multicandidate Committee (most PACs, including leadership PACs)

National Party Committee (DSCC; NRCC, etc.)

State, District, Local Party Committee

Individual

$3,500 per election*

$5,000 per year

$44,300 per yeara
per year
Additional $123,900 limit (combined limit)
for each special party
account
†*
Principal
$2,000 per election
$5,000 per year
Additional $132,900 limit for each special party accounta,b

$10,000 per year (combined limit)

Principal Campaign Committee

$2,000 per election

$5,000 per year

Unlimited transfers to party committees

Unlimited transfers to party committees

Multicandidate Committee (most PACs, including leadership PACs)c

$5,000 per election

$5,000 per year

$15,000 per year

Additional $45,000 limit for each special party accountb

$5,000 per year (combined limit)

State, District, Local Party Committee

Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Campaign
party committees
transfers to
Committee
party
committees
Multicandidate
$5,000 per election
$5,000 per year
$15,000 per year
$5,000 per year
Committee (most
Additional $45,000 limit
(combined limit)
PACs, including
for each special party
leadership PACs)a
account
State, District,
$5,000 per election
$5,000 per year
Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Local Party
(combined limit)
(combined limit)
party committees
transfers to
Committee
party
committees
National Party
$5,000 per election
$5,000 per year
$5,000 per election (combined limit)

$5,000 per year (combined limit)

Unlimited transfers to party committees

Unlimited transfers to party committees

National Party Committee

$5,000 per election

$5,000 per year

Unlimited transfers to party committees

Unlimited
Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Committee
party committees
transfers to transfers to
party
committees
party committees Source: CRS adaptation from FEC, CRS adaptation from FEC, "Contribution Limits for Contribution Limits for 2019-20202025-2026 Federal Elections, Federal Elections," https://www.fec.gov/https://www.fec.gov/
help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/. See also Federal Election help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/. See also Federal Election
Commission, Commission, "Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling
Disclosure Threshold,Disclosure Threshold,” 88 " 90 Federal Register 7088, February 2, 2023.
8526, January 30, 2025. Notes: The table assumes that leadership PACs would qualify for multicandidate status.The table assumes that leadership PACs would qualify for multicandidate status. The original source, The original source,
noted above, includes additional information and addresses nonmulticandidate PACs (which are relatively rare). noted above, includes additional information and addresses nonmulticandidate PACs (which are relatively rare).
The national party committee and the national party Senate committee (e.g., the DNC and DSCC or RNC and The national party committee and the national party Senate committee (e.g., the DNC and DSCC or RNC and
NRSC) share a combined NRSC) share a combined 2023-20242025-2026 per-candidate limit of $ per-candidate limit of $57,80062,000 per six-year cycle. This limit is adjusted per six-year cycle. This limit is adjusted
biennially for inflation.biennially for inflation.
* a. These limits are adjusted biennially for inflation.These limits are adjusted biennially for inflation.
b. As noted elsewhere in this report, national party committees may accept these contributions for separate As noted elsewhere in this report, national party committees may accept these contributions for separate
accounts for (1) presidential nominating conventions (headquarters committees (e.g., DNC; RNC) only); (2) accounts for (1) presidential nominating conventions (headquarters committees (e.g., DNC; RNC) only); (2)
recounts and other legal compliance activities; and (3) party buildings. For additional historical discussion, see recounts and other legal compliance activities; and (3) party buildings. For additional historical discussion, see
CRS Report R43825, CRS Report R43825, Increased Campaign Contribution Limits in the FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently
Asked Questions
, by R. Sam Garrett., by R. Sam Garrett.
a. c. Multicandidate committees are those that have been registered with the FEC for at least six months; have are those that have been registered with the FEC for at least six months; have
received federal contributions from more than 50 people; and (except for state parties) have made received federal contributions from more than 50 people; and (except for state parties) have made
contributions to at least five federal candidates. See 11 C.F.R. §100.5(e)(3). In practice, most PACs attain contributions to at least five federal candidates. See 11 C.F.R. §100.5(e)(3). In practice, most PACs attain
this status automatically over time.this status automatically over time.
Congressional Research Service

11

The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

Reporting Requirements
Other recent developments notwithstanding, disclosure requirements enacted in FECA and BCRA Other recent developments notwithstanding, disclosure requirements enacted in FECA and BCRA
remain intact.remain intact.4749 In general, political committees must In general, political committees must regularly48regularly50 file reports with the FEC file reports with the FEC
providing information aboutproviding information about
receipts and expenditures, particularly those exceeding an aggregate of $200;receipts and expenditures, particularly those exceeding an aggregate of $200;
the identity of those making contributions of more than $200, or receiving more the identity of those making contributions of more than $200, or receiving more
than $200, in campaign expenditures per election cycle; andthan $200, in campaign expenditures per election cycle; and
the purpose of expenses.the purpose of expenses.
Those making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, such as party Those making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, such as party
committees and PACs, have additional reporting obligations. Among other requirementscommittees and PACs, have additional reporting obligations. Among other requirements
: Independent expenditures aggregating at least $10,000 must be reported to the Independent expenditures aggregating at least $10,000 must be reported to the
FEC within 48 hours; 24-hour reports for independent expenditures of at least FEC within 48 hours; 24-hour reports for independent expenditures of at least
$1,000 must be made during periods immediately preceding elections.$1,000 must be made during periods immediately preceding elections.49
51 The existing disclosure requirements concerning electioneering communications The existing disclosure requirements concerning electioneering communications
mandate 24-hour reporting of communications aggregating at least $10,000.mandate 24-hour reporting of communications aggregating at least $10,000.50
52 Donor information must be included for those who designated at least $200 Donor information must be included for those who designated at least $200
toward the independent expenditure, or $1,000 for electioneering toward the independent expenditure, or $1,000 for electioneering
communications.communications.51
53 If 501(c) or If 501(c) or 5275252754 organizations make independent expenditures or electioneering organizations make independent expenditures or electioneering
communications, those activities would be reported to the FEC.communications, those activities would be reported to the FEC.
Potential Policy Considerations and Emerging
Issues for Congress

Recent Legislative Activity
As discussed above, recent Congresses generally have not made substantial amendments to As discussed above, recent Congresses generally have not made substantial amendments to
federal campaign finance law. Since the federal campaign finance law. Since the 115th Congress, as summarized briefly below115th Congress, Congress , Congress
has considered recurring proposals related to disclosure; foreign interference and funds in U.S.

47 This excludes requirements that were subsequently invalidated, such as reporting associated with the now-defunct
Millionaire’s Amendment (which required additional reporting for self-funding above certain levels and for receipt of
contributions in response to such funding).
48 Reporting typically occurs quarterly. Pre- and post-election reports must also be filed. Noncandidate committees may
also file monthly reports. See, for example, 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434) and the FEC’s
Campaign Guide series for additional discussion of reporting requirements.
49 See, for example, 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434(g)).
50 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434(f)).
51 Higher thresholds apply if the expenditures are made from a designated account. For additional summary
information, see Table 1 in CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L.
Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder. Donor information is reported in regularly filed financial reports rather than in
independent expenditure reports.
52 As the term is commonly used, 527 refers to groups registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political
organizations that seemingly intend to influence federal elections. By contrast, political committees (which include
candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees) are regulated by the FEC and federal election
law. There is a debate regarding which 527s are required to register with the FEC as political committees.
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 25 link to page 25 The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

elections; contribution limits or spending restrictions; and public financing of presidential
campaigns. The Committee on House Administration and Senate Rules and Administration
Committee are the primary committees of jurisdiction on campaign finance policy issues.
118th Congress
As of this writing, no major legislative or regulatory developments have occurred to alter federal
campaign finance policy during the 118th Congress.53
• On September 7, 2023, S. 2747 (Klobuchar) passed the Senate, by voice vote, the
same day it was introduced. The legislation would extend the FEC
Administrative Fine Program until 2033. Existing authority for the program
expires on December 31, 2023.54
has considered recurring proposals related to disclosure; foreign interference and funds in U.S. elections; contribution limits or spending restrictions; and public financing of presidential campaigns. The Committee on House Administration and Senate Rules and Administration Committee are the primary committees of jurisdiction on campaign finance policy issues. 119th Congress

As of this writing, the 119th Congress has not enacted legislation substantially addressing campaign finance policy. Other potentially notable developments for Congress include the following:

  • As discussed in another CRS product, as of April 30, 2025, the FEC lost its policymaking quorum after President Trump dismissed one commissioner and two others voluntarily departed the agency.55 As of this writing, three commissioners remain in office. FECA prohibits the FEC from taking major enforcement or policymaking actions without agreeing votes from at least four commissioners. In the interim, the agency remains open for business and campaign finance law and regulation remain in effect. The Senate could consider nominations if they occurred in the future.
  • In April and May 2025, House committees released staff reports on an investigation into fundraising platform ActBlue, and on the state of the FEC on the occasion of the agency's 50th anniversary.56
  • At least two executive orders (E.O.s) that President Trump issued in early 2025 could be relevant for congressional consideration of campaign finance legislation, oversight, or both. Both executive orders are subject to ongoing litigation that is beyond the scope of this report. In addition, executive orders do not alter the statutory provisions discussed elsewhere in this report. As such, the executive orders' ultimate significance for campaign finance policy remains to be seen.
  • First, on February 18, 2025, President Trump issued an E.O. placing various requirements on many federal agencies, specifically including the FEC.57 Among other provisions, the E.O. requires agencies to submit "significant regulatory actions" to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, and declares that the President or the Attorney General "shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch," including covered agencies.58 The ranking members of the Committee on House Administration and Senate Committee on Rules and Administration wrote to members of the FEC to "oppose [FEC] action in response to this EO and have great concerns that there is no clear way for the FEC to reach decisions on these matters given its bipartisan and independent structure."59
  • Second, on March 25, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that primarily concerns election administration and voting issues that are beyond the scope of this report.60 The E.O. also directs the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to prioritize enforcement of the FECA prohibition on contributions from or expenditures by foreign nationals.61

In addition, on June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a First Amendment challenge to the coordinated party expenditure limits during its term beginning in October 2025.62 Brief additional discussion of coordinated party expenditures appears in the "Revisiting Limits on Contributions or Coordinated Party Expenditures" section of this report.

118th Congress

The 118th Congress did not enact major statutory changes affecting campaign finance policy, but the House and Senate consistently considered campaign finance matters.

  • P.L. 118-26 extended authority for the FEC's Administrative Fine Program until 2033. Authority for the program previously expired in 2023.63
  • A provision in consolidated appropriations law P.L. 118-47 transferred $320 million from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), the repository for public financing checkoff designations, to the U.S. Secret Service for 2024 election-cycle protection duties. Another provision in the bill also prohibited certain campaign finance disclosure as a condition of the government-contracting process.64
  • On December 16, 2024, the House passed, by voice vote, H.R. 9488 (Steil), the Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations (SHIELD) Act. The legislation would have prohibited political committees from accepting internet credit-card contributions without obtaining card verification value (CVV) numbers, or from accepting contributions via gift cards.
  • On July 13, 2023, after several hearings, the Committee on House Administration
    On July 13, 2023, after several hearings, the Committee on House Administration
    ordered reported H.R. 4563 (Steil), the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) ordered reported H.R. 4563 (Steil), the American Confidence in Elections (ACE)
    Act.Act.5565 Title III of the ACE Act Title III of the ACE Act includesincluded several provisions related to campaign several provisions related to campaign
    finance and to certain tax-exempt organizations. The bill generally finance and to certain tax-exempt organizations. The bill generally proposes
    proposed deregulation, modernization, or clarification of current provisions in FECA or deregulation, modernization, or clarification of current provisions in FECA or
    parts of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). (On July 18, Representative Sarbanes
    introduced an alternative bill, the Freedom to Vote Act [H.R. 11] that would
    generally require additional regulation on various elections and campaign finance
    issues. As of this writing, it has not advanced beyond introduction.)
    parts of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). On August 14, 2023, the House Ways and Means Committee majority released a On August 14, 2023, the House Ways and Means Committee majority released a
    "request for informationrequest for information" seeking public input about, among other topics, seeking public input about, among other topics,
    whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should update its guidance on what whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should update its guidance on what
    constitutes campaign intervention by organizations operating under Sections constitutes campaign intervention by organizations operating under Sections
    501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the IRC. The request also 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) of the IRC. The request also posesposed questions concerning questions concerning
    relationships between super PACs and tax-exempt organizations.relationships between super PACs and tax-exempt organizations.5666 Recent Recent
    appropriations laws have prohibited the appropriations laws have prohibited the Treasury DepartmentDepartment of the Treasury (which houses the (which houses the
    IRS) from spending appropriated funds to issue rules or guidance concerning IRS) from spending appropriated funds to issue rules or guidance concerning
    501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.57 The “67 The "Politically Active Tax-Exempt Organizations
    and Internal Revenue Service Disclosure Issues” s
    ection" section of this report contains of this report contains
    additional discussion of potentially related topics.additional discussion of potentially related topics.

    53 A CRS congressional distribution memorandum that briefly summarizes campaign finance, elections, and voting
    legislation information in the 118th Congress is available upon request. Congressional requesters may contact the author
    of this report for a copy of the memorandum or additional information.
    54 For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN12198, Federal Election Commission Administrative Fine Program, by
    R. Sam Garrett.
    55 For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF12451, H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act,
    coordinated by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS In Focus IF12453, H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections Act
    (ACE Act): Legal Background
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    56 Letter from Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means; and Rep. David Schweikert, Chairman,
    Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, Request for Information: Understanding and Examining
    the Political Activities of Tax-Exempt Organizations under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code
    , August 14, 2023,
    https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RFI-on-501c3-and-c4-Activities-FINAL.pdf. For
    additional discussion, see, for example, Samantha Handler, “GOP Concerns About Tax-Exempt Groups May Prompt
    Probes, Guidance,” Bloomberg, September 6, 2023.
    57 See, for example, §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions in the FY2023 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660.
    Congressional Research Service

    13

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    • Some hearings held during the 118th
  • On September 20, 2023, the Committee on House Administration held an oversight hearing on the Federal Election Commission.
  • On September 27, 2023, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing on artificial intelligence and elections.
  • On April 17, 2024, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law held a hearing on artificial intelligence and election "deepfakes."
  • On December 18, 2024, the Committee on House Administration held a hearing entitled "American Confidence in Elections: Prohibiting Foreign Interference."
  • Some hearings held during the 118th Congress that were devoted primarily to
    Congress that were devoted primarily to
    other topics also included discussion of campaign finance policy and related other topics also included discussion of campaign finance policy and related
    issues.58
    117th Congress
    issues.68 117th Congress No major campaign finance law amendments were enacted during the No major campaign finance law amendments were enacted during the 117th Congress.59117th Congress.69 The The
    House passed three bills that contained several provisions related to campaign finance, election House passed three bills that contained several provisions related to campaign finance, election
    administration, and voting issues.administration, and voting issues.
    H.R. 1 (Sarbanes), the For the People Act, proposed major changes that, among H.R. 1 (Sarbanes), the For the People Act, proposed major changes that, among
    other provisions, would have affected disclosure and disclaimer requirements; the other provisions, would have affected disclosure and disclaimer requirements; the
    FECA foreign national provision; foreign interference in U.S. campaigns and FECA foreign national provision; foreign interference in U.S. campaigns and
    elections; and public financing for federal campaigns.elections; and public financing for federal campaigns.6070 The House passed the bill The House passed the bill
    (220-210) in March 2021. The Senate did not invoke cloture on the motion to (220-210) in March 2021. The Senate did not invoke cloture on the motion to
    proceed to a Senate companion bill (S. 2093; see also S. 1proceed to a Senate companion bill (S. 2093; see also S. 1). ).
    H.R. 5314 (Schiff), the Protecting Our Democracy Act, primarily addressed non-H.R. 5314 (Schiff), the Protecting Our Democracy Act, primarily addressed non-
    campaign finance topics. It also contained provisions concerning the FECA campaign finance topics. It also contained provisions concerning the FECA
    foreign national provision and foreign interference in U.S. campaigns and foreign national provision and foreign interference in U.S. campaigns and
    elections. The House passed the bill (220-208) in December 2021.elections. The House passed the bill (220-208) in December 2021.
    H.R. 5746 (Beyer) served as a legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John H.R. 5746 (Beyer) served as a legislative vehicle for the Freedom to Vote: John
    R. Lewis Act. The legislation primarily contained election administration and R. Lewis Act. The legislation primarily contained election administration and
    voting provisions. It also included some provisions related to campaign finance voting provisions. It also included some provisions related to campaign finance
    disclosure; the FECA foreign national provision; and foreign interference in U.S. disclosure; the FECA foreign national provision; and foreign interference in U.S.
    campaigns and elections. The House passed the bill (220-203) on January 13, campaigns and elections. The House passed the bill (220-203) on January 13,
    2022, and sent it to the Senate in the form of an amendment between the houses 2022, and sent it to the Senate in the form of an amendment between the houses
    on an unrelated bill, H.R. 5746on an unrelated bill, H.R. 5746.61.71 On January 19, 2022, the Senate did not agree On January 19, 2022, the Senate did not agree
    to a cloture motion on the text.to a cloture motion on the text.
    Also during the Also during the 117th117th Congress, the Senate did not invoke cloture on motions to proceed to other Congress, the Senate did not invoke cloture on motions to proceed to other
    legislation containing disclosure and foreign-national provisions. These included the Freedom to legislation containing disclosure and foreign-national provisions. These included the Freedom to
    Vote Act, S. 2747 (Klobuchar), and the DISCLOSE Act, S. 4822 (Whitehouse).Vote Act, S. 2747 (Klobuchar), and the DISCLOSE Act, S. 4822 (Whitehouse).
    In addition, the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-328) endorsed committee In addition, the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 117-328) endorsed committee
    report language directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to update a report on report language directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to update a report on
    public financing of political campaigns, with attention to state-level developments during the past public financing of political campaigns, with attention to state-level developments during the past
    five election cycles.five election cycles.6272 The law The law's general provisions also contain language relevant for campaign s general provisions also contain language relevant for campaign

    58 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel
    Dark Money’s Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget
    , 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 21, 2023. As of this
    writing, the hearing has not been published. See https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/dollars-and-degrees-
    investigating-fossil-fuel-dark-moneys-systemic-threats-to-climate-and-the-federal-budget.
    59 For a brief summary of legislative activity related to campaign finance, elections, and voting issues during the 117th
    Congress, see CRS In Focus IF12291, Elections and Voting: Policy and Legal Issues for the 118th Congress, by R.
    Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker.
    60 For an overview, see CRS In Focus IF11097, H.R. 1 and S. 1: Overview and Related CRS Products, coordinated by
    R. Sam Garrett. A CRS congressional distribution memorandum, Major Provisions in S. 1 and H.R. 1, the For the
    People Act of 2021
    , coordinated by R. Sam Garrett and Sarah J. Eckman, is available to congressional readers upon
    request.
    61 The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act combined elements of other election administration and voting legislation,
    including parts of H.R. 1 and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (Sewell).
    62 H.Rept. 117-393, p. 67. The GAO report is U.S. Government Accountability Office, Campaign Finance Reform:
    (continued...)
    Congressional Research Service

    14

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    finance policy. Section 735 prohibits reporting certain political contributions or expenditures as a finance policy. Section 735 prohibits reporting certain political contributions or expenditures as a
    condition of the government contracting process. The law also prohibits certain IRS activity on condition of the government contracting process. The law also prohibits certain IRS activity on
    501(c)(4) rules, and prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from issuing rules 501(c)(4) rules, and prohibits the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from issuing rules
    regarding disclosure of corporate trade association dues or political activity.regarding disclosure of corporate trade association dues or political activity.63
    73 Finally, also during the Finally, also during the 117th117th Congress, in May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion Congress, in May 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion
    concerning campaign finance. As another CRS product discusses, in concerning campaign finance. As another CRS product discusses, in Federal Election
    Commission (FEC) v. Ted Cruz for Senate
    , the Court , the Court "invalidated a [FECA] provision … invalidated a [FECA] provision …
    establishing a $250,000 limit on the amount of post-election campaign contributions that may be establishing a $250,000 limit on the amount of post-election campaign contributions that may be
    used to repay candidates for personal loans made to their campaign committees pre-election.”64
    116th Congress
    Most legislative action on elections issues during the 116th Congress concerned election
    administration and voting rather than campaign finance. As such, the 116th Congress did not enact
    any substantial changes to federal campaign finance law, although some major proposed changes
    to the existing law passed the House. In addition, reporting language concerning foreign
    interference in U.S. elections, and potentially relevant for campaign finance policy, was contained
    in enacted appropriations or defense authorization (NDAA) legislation that became law.
    Additional detail appears below.
    • Appropriations legislation enacted (P.L. 116-6; P.L. 116-93; and P.L. 116-260)
    during the 116th Congress did not contain major campaign finance provisions, but
    did continue previous prohibitions on requiring reporting of certain political
    contributions or expenditures as a condition of the government-contracting
    process, and on requiring certain contribution disclosure to the SEC.65
    • The FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; P.L. 116-92) required
    certain pre-election reporting about counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats
    to U.S. campaigns and required notifications to Congress in some cases.66
    • The House included several campaign finance provisions in H.R. 1, the For the
    People Act (Sarbanes), which that chamber passed (234-193), as amended, on
    March 8, 2019.67 Senate companion measure S. 949 did not advance beyond
    introduction. Campaign finance provisions in H.R. 1 would have substantially
    amended federal campaign finance law. Major provisions of the bill would have
    (1) required additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending,
    including by some entities that do not currently normally report to the Federal
    Election Commission (FEC); (2) established a voluntary public financing system
    for U.S. House campaigns; (3) substantially revised the current presidential

    Experiences of Two States That Offered Full Public Funding for Political Candidates, 10-390, May 28, 2010,
    https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-390.
    63 See §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions, and §633 of general provisions, in the
    FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660, 4703.
    64 For additional discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10796, Supreme Court Invalidates Cap on Repayment of
    Candidate Loans Under the First Amendment: Considerations for Congress
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    65 For FY2019, see P.L. 116-6; 133 Stat. 194 and 133 Stat. 186 respectively. For FY2020, see P.L. 116-93; 133 Stat.
    2491-2492 and 133 Stat. 2483-2484 respectively. For FY2021, see the enrolled version of H.R. 133 (Title VII, §735;
    and Title VI, §631). As of this writing, public law text for the FY2021 measure (H.R. 133) is unavailable.
    66 See 133 Stat. 2119 and 133 Stat. 2207 respectively. More generally, see CRS Report R46146, Campaign and
    Election Security Policy: Overview and Recent Developments for Congress
    , coordinated by R. Sam Garrett.
    67 “Roll call vote no. 118,” House debate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 165, part 42 (2019), p. H2602.
    During floor consideration, the House considered 54 amendments and agreed to 46.
    Congressional Research Service

    15

    link to page 8 The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    public financing system; (4) required additional disclaimer requirements
    surrounding certain political advertising and restricted coordination between
    campaigns and other organizations; and (5) restructured the FEC.
    • Congress also considered legislation designed to prevent or respond to foreign
    interference in U.S. elections. Some such legislation contained campaign finance
    provisions or relied on concepts defined in campaign finance law. In particular,
    H.R. 1 proposed additional reporting requirements surrounding foreign money or
    foreign interference, and would have broadened and clarified FECA’s foreign
    national provisions. In addition, on October 23, 2019, the House passed (227-
    181) H.R. 4617 (Lofgren), the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a
    Lasting Democracy (SHIELD) Act. The SHIELD Act contained several subtitles,
    including the Honest Ads Act (§111, Subtitle B of H.R. 4617).
    • Following commissioner departures, the FEC lacked a policymaking quorum on
    two separate occasions in 2019 and 2020. Collectively, the quorum loss spanned
    most of the 116th Congress, preventing the agency from exercising some of its
    core policy and enforcement functions. In December 2020, the Senate confirmed
    three commissioners, restoring the agency to a full slate of six members for the
    first time since 2017. Another CRS report provides additional detail.68
    • Congress investigated allegations of prohibited foreign funds in U.S. campaigns
    during House and Senate oversight concerning Russian interference during the
    2016 elections;69 Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of foreign
    interference;70 and related oversight in Congress.
    115th Congress
    As explained in the “What Has Changed” section of this report, the 115th Congress changed the
    filing format for Senate political committees. The 115th Congress did not otherwise substantially
    alter campaign finance law. As with other recent Congresses, provisions in enacted appropriations
    measures (including the electronic-filing provision) also affected campaign finance policy or law.
    Congress also held related oversight hearings. Additional detail appears below.
    • On February 7, 2017, the Committee on House Administration ordered H.R. 133
    reported favorably. The bill would have terminated the presidential public
    financing program. Remaining amounts in the Presidential Election Campaign
    Fund (PECF) would be transferred to a pediatric research71 fund to which
    previously eliminated party-convention funds were transferred under P.L. 113-94,
    and to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction. Additional
    information appears in another CRS product.72
    • Also on February 7, 2017, the Committee on House Administration ordered H.R.
    634 reported favorably. The bill would have terminated the Election Assistance

    68 For additional information, see CRS Report R45160, Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking
    Quorum, In Brief
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    69 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Russian Active Measures Campaigns and
    Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Volumes I-V
    , 116th Cong., 2nd sess., 2020, S.Rept. 116-290.
    70 See Special Counsel Robert F. Mueller, III, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016
    Presidential Election
    , U.S. Department of Justice, 2 vols., Submitted pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §600.8(c), March 2019.
    71 Health care research issues and details of the pediatric research fund are beyond the scope of this report.
    72 See CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, by R. Sam Garrett.
    Congressional Research Service

    16

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    Commission and transferred some election administration functions back to the
    FEC.
    • In addition to providing appropriations for the FEC, the language contained in
    consolidated appropriations legislation enacted during the 115th Congress (see,
    for example, P.L. 115-31; P.L. 115-141) continued the prohibition on requiring
    reporting certain political contributions or expenditures as a condition of the
    government-contracting process, and on requiring campaign finance disclosure to
    the SEC.73
    • The Senate considered two FEC nominations, both for James E. “Trey” Trainor
    III, during the 115th Congress.74 The nomination did not advance during the 115th
    Congress (but did during the 116th Congress, as noted above).75
    • The 115th Congress occasionally addressed issues related to campaign finance in
    legislative or oversight hearings. In particular, these included attention to foreign
    influence in U.S. elections and disclaimers in online communications.
    Foreign Money and Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections
    Most recent legislative attention to foreign interference in U.S. elections concerns election
    administration and voting rather than political campaigns. Foreign interference affecting
    campaigns nonetheless remains a potential risk.76 Two issues related to foreign interference in
    U.S. campaigns may be particularly relevant for campaign finance policy. First, and the focus of
    more policy attention historically, is prohibiting foreign money that could impermissibly
    influence U.S. campaigns. Second, and a more recent development, is the connection between
    foreign interference and campaign security. This section provides brief additional discussion of
    both.
    Foreign Money
    used to repay candidates for personal loans made to their campaign committees pre-election."74

    Previous versions of this report contain discussion of congressional activities during other Congresses.75

    Foreign Money and Foreign Interference in U.S. Elections

    Two issues related to foreign interference in U.S. campaigns may be particularly relevant for campaign finance policy. First, and the focus of more policy attention historically, is prohibiting foreign money that could impermissibly influence U.S. campaigns. Second, and a more recent development, is the connection between foreign interference and campaign security. This section provides brief additional discussion of both.

    Since the 2016 election cycle, some congressional hearings and proposed legislation have continued to address foreign funds. As noted in the "118th Congress" and "119th Congress" sections of this report, as of this writing, some congressional hearings, an interim staff report, and an executive order have continued to address foreign money.76 Subsequent activity is possible. As of this writing, Congress has not made any recent changes in federal campaign finance law regarding contributions from foreign nationals.

    Foreign Money
    The possibility of foreign money affecting U.S. campaigns emerged as a component of some The possibility of foreign money affecting U.S. campaigns emerged as a component of some
    congressional hearings and agency activity beginning in the congressional hearings and agency activity beginning in the summer and fall of 20162016 election cycle. FECA . FECA
    prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, or giving other things of value, or making prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, or giving other things of value, or making
    expenditures, in U.S. federal, state, or local elections.expenditures, in U.S. federal, state, or local elections.7777 Some Members of Congress and Federal Some Members of Congress and Federal
    Election Commissioners have raised questions about whether prohibited foreign funds could have Election Commissioners have raised questions about whether prohibited foreign funds could have
    influenced recent elections, whether additional legislative or regulatory safeguards are necessary influenced recent elections, whether additional legislative or regulatory safeguards are necessary
    to protect future elections, or both. Some Members of Congress also raised the issue at various to protect future elections, or both. Some Members of Congress also raised the issue at various
    oversight hearings.78

    73 See §735 and §635, respectively, P.L. 115-31.
    74 See presidential nominations (PNs) 1024 and 1425, http://www.congress.gov, using the “nominations” option.
    75 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R45160, Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking
    Quorum, In Brief
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    76 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46146, Campaign and Election Security Policy: Overview and Recent
    Developments for Congress
    , coordinated by R. Sam Garrett.
    77 52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(1). For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10697, Foreign Money and U.S. Campaign
    Finance Policy
    , by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1857, Foreign Money and U.S. Elections, by L.
    Paige Whitaker.
    78 For example, a June 26, 2018, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, hearing included
    discussions of at least two bills (S. 1989; S. 2939) that addressed potential foreign influence in U.S. elections, in
    addition to other topics.
    Congressional Research Service

    17

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    In September 2018, the FEC reported to congressional appropriators about the agency’s
    enforcement of the FECA ban on foreign funds. Congress required the report in joint explanatory
    language accompanying the FY2018 Financial Services and General Government portion of the
    omnibus appropriations law (H.R. 1625; P.L. 115-141). The report summarized commission
    processes for identifying possible foreign funds and enforcing the existing FECA ban; it did not
    propose additional action.79
    Foreign Interference and Campaign Operations
    oversight hearings.78

    In September 2018, the FEC reported to congressional appropriators about the agency's enforcement of the FECA ban on foreign funds. Congress required the report in joint explanatory language accompanying the FY2018 Financial Services and General Government portion of the omnibus appropriations law (H.R. 1625; P.L. 115-141). The report summarized commission processes for identifying possible foreign funds and enforcing the existing FECA ban; it did not propose additional action.79

    Also, as noted previously, late in the 118th Congress, the House passed H.R. 9488 (Steil), the SHIELD Act. The legislation would have prohibited political committees from accepting internet credit-card contributions without obtaining CVV numbers, or from accepting contributions via gift cards. Supporters of the legislation argued that the bill could provide additional safeguards against illegal funds, including foreign ones.80

    Foreign Interference and Campaign Operations Political committees are responsible for their own operations, including security.81
    Political committees are responsible for their own operations, including security. More generally, More generally,
    no federal agency has specific responsibility for coordinating security preparations for political no federal agency has specific responsibility for coordinating security preparations for political
    campaigns or other political committees.campaigns or other political committees.8082 Federal law enforcement agencies, particularly the Federal law enforcement agencies, particularly the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), can and do receive reports of, and investigate, suspected Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), can and do receive reports of, and investigate, suspected
    criminal activity. In preparation for the 2020 elections, the FBI criminal activity. In preparation for the 2020 elections, the FBI also established a established a "Protected Protected
    Voices”Voices" program that provides political campaigns, program that provides political campaigns,8183 private companies, and individuals with private companies, and individuals with
    information about how to guard against and respond to cyberattacks and foreign influence information about how to guard against and respond to cyberattacks and foreign influence
    campaigns. In addition, the Department of Homeland Securitycampaigns. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHSs (DHS's) Cybersecurity and s) Cybersecurity and
    Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National
    Intelligence (ODNI) jointly briefed some 2020 federal political campaigns on security threats and Intelligence (ODNI) jointly briefed some 2020 federal political campaigns on security threats and
    best practices.best practices.82
    In addition, following 2016 election-cycle interference84

    As of this writing, it appears that at least some executive branch activities aimed at combatting foreign interference during the 2020 and 2024 election cycles have been curtailed or eliminated. For example, in February 2025, Attorney General Bondi announced that the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force was being disbanded.85 The task force previously served to coordinate bureau activities to identify and counter foreign interference.86 Much of CISA's elections work also reportedly has been curtailed.87

    Selected FEC Activity on Foreign Interference and Cybersecurity
    Due partially to foreign-interference concerns, following the 2016 election cycle
    , corporations and other entities sought to , corporations and other entities sought to
    provide free or reduced-cost advisory services to campaigns on cybersecurity matters.provide free or reduced-cost advisory services to campaigns on cybersecurity matters.
    In 2018, the FEC determined that the FECA ban on corporate contributions does In 2018, the FEC determined that the FECA ban on corporate contributions does
    not prohibit campaigns from accepting certain information technology (IT) not prohibit campaigns from accepting certain information technology (IT)
    services, at least in some circumstances. In particular, in August 2018, Microsoft services, at least in some circumstances. In particular, in August 2018, Microsoft
    asked the FEC whether it could provide free enhanced security services to asked the FEC whether it could provide free enhanced security services to
    "election-sensitive userselection-sensitive users" of its Office 365 email service, and other services of its Office 365 email service, and other services
    without making a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution. In its request, without making a prohibited corporate in-kind contribution. In its request,
    Microsoft stated that these security services would be available to federal, state, Microsoft stated that these security services would be available to federal, state,
    and local campaigns, as well as parties, vendors, and and local campaigns, as well as parties, vendors, and "think-tankthink-tank" organizations organizations
    involved in campaigns. The commission determined that Microsoftinvolved in campaigns. The commission determined that Microsoft's proposal s proposal
    was permissible because the company was permissible because the company "would be providing [enhanced security] would be providing [enhanced security]

    79 See Federal Election Commission, “FEC Report to the Committees on Appropriations on Enforcing the Foreign
    National Prohibition,” September 18, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/
    Foreign_National_Report_To_Congress.pdf. Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub wrote to congressional
    appropriators offering alternative views about the report. See Letter from Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair, Federal
    Election Commission, to Congressional Appropriations Committees, September 28, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/
    documents/896/2018-09-28-ELW-Approps-Committees-reply.pdf.
    80 The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) offers assistance to campaigns on a voluntary basis.
    For additional background, see, for example, testimony of Matthew Masterson, Senior Cybersecurity Advisor,
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in U.S. Congress, House
    Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America’s Elections Part II: Oversight of Government Agencies, hearing, 116th
    Cong., 1st sess., October 22, 2019, p. 6, at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20191022/110106/HHRG-116-
    JU00-Wstate-MastersonM-20191022.pdf.
    81 The program also appears to provide services to political parties, and perhaps to other political committees (e.g.,
    political action committees).
    82 See above-cited testimony from CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor (and former EAC Commissioner) Matthew
    Masterson, at October 22, 2019, House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, Security America’s Elections Part II:
    Oversight of Government Agencies
    . As of this writing, the hearing record does not appear to have been published.
    Video and written materials are available on the committee website, https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/
    securing-america-s-elections-part-ii-oversight-government-agencies.
    Congressional Research Service

    18

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    services based on commercial and not political considerations, in the ordinary services based on commercial and not political considerations, in the ordinary
    course of its business, and not merely for promotional consideration or to course of its business, and not merely for promotional consideration or to
    generate goodwill.generate goodwill.”83
    "88 In 2019, citing the In 2019, citing the "demonstrated, currently enhanced threat of foreign demonstrated, currently enhanced threat of foreign
    cyberattacks against party and candidate committees,cyberattacks against party and candidate committees," the FEC granted the FEC granted
    permission for Defending Digital Campaigns, a 501(c)(4) organization, to offer permission for Defending Digital Campaigns, a 501(c)(4) organization, to offer
    reduced-cost cybersecurity advisory services to political committees.reduced-cost cybersecurity advisory services to political committees.8489 In a In a
    separate 2019 opinion, the FEC granted permission for reduced-fee services for separate 2019 opinion, the FEC granted permission for reduced-fee services for
    campaigns responding to phishing attacks.campaigns responding to phishing attacks.85
    FEC Activity on Funding for Certain Candidate Security and Child
    Care Expenses
    FECA prohibits “personal use” of campaign funds. In practice, this means that campaigns may
    not use funds to pay for expenses that would exist without the campaign (the “irrespective
    test”).86 Recently90
  • As discussed in the next section, the FEC also has issued advisory opinions and regulations on security spending, including, in some cases, related to cybersecurity.
  • FEC Activity on Funding for Certain Candidate Security and Child Care Expenses Beginning in 2017
    , through advisory opinions (AOs), the FEC has permitted using campaign funds , through advisory opinions (AOs), the FEC has permitted using campaign funds
    for two types of spending that might otherwise be considered prohibited personal usefor two types of spending that might otherwise be considered prohibited personal use. of campaign funds 91 These are These are
    (1) using campaign funds for certain security expenses; and (2) using campaign funds for certain (1) using campaign funds for certain security expenses; and (2) using campaign funds for certain
    child care expenses. child care expenses.
    • After the June 14, 2017, attack87The following discussion provides additional background, including about rules on security spending issued in 2024.After the June 14, 2017, attack92 on several Members of Congress, staff, and U.S. on several Members of Congress, staff, and U.S.
    Capitol Police officers in Alexandria, VA, House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving Capitol Police officers in Alexandria, VA, House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving
    wrote to the FEC requesting guidance about the permissibility of using campaign wrote to the FEC requesting guidance about the permissibility of using campaign
    funds to pay for residential security systems.funds to pay for residential security systems.8893 The FEC treated the letter as an The FEC treated the letter as an
    AO request. On July 13, 2017, citing similar previous requests and specific threat AO request. On July 13, 2017, citing similar previous requests and specific threat
    information and recommendations from the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms, information and recommendations from the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms,
    the FEC approved the request. As a result, Members of Congress may use
    campaign funds for installing, upgrading, or monitoring residential security
    systems in circumstances similar to those addressed in the AO. These systems
    must be “non-structural” and may not be primarily intended to increase the
    home’s value.89the FEC approved the request.94 Similarly, the commission Similarly, the commission also approved a December 2020 approved a December 2020
    advisory opinion request from a Member of Congress. The AO granted advisory opinion request from a Member of Congress. The AO granted
    permission to use campaign funds to install a home security system, based on

    83 The approved version is AO 2018-11, p. 3, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2018-11/2018-11.pdf. Members of
    Congress should consult with a campaign attorney, the FEC, or both regarding individual compliance guidance.
    84 See the approved version of AO 2018-12, p. 1, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2018-12/2018-12.pdf.
    85 See the approved version of AO 2019-12, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2019-12/2019-12.pdf.
    86 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46878, Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds:
    Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    87 For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN10719, Violence Against Members of Congress and Their Staff: A Brief
    Overview
    , by R. Eric Petersen (available to congressional clients upon request); and CRS Report R41609, Violence
    Against Members of Congress and Their Staff: Selected Examples and Congressional Responses
    , by R. Eric Petersen
    and Jennifer E. Manning.
    88 Letter from Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, to Steven T. Walther, Chairman,
    Federal Election Commission, June 21, 2017. The letter is attached to July 13, 2017, open-meeting Agenda Document
    No. 17-29-A, https://www.fec.gov/updates/july-13-2017-open-meeting/.
    89 The approved version is July 13, 2017, open-meeting Agenda Document No. 17-32-D, https://www.fec.gov/updates/
    july-13-2017-open-meeting/. Members of Congress should consult with a campaign attorney, the FEC, or both
    regarding individual compliance guidance.
    Congressional Research Service

    19

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    consultations with the House Sergeant at Arms.90 The commission subsequently
    granted similar requests.91
    • In May 2018, the FEC granted New York permission to use campaign funds to install a home security system, based on consultations with the House Sergeant at Arms.95 The commission subsequently granted similar requests.96 In September 2024, the FEC issued regulations codifying major aspects of the AOs noted above, and others related to payments for campaign security, including certain cybersecurity expenses.97 Under the regulations, security expense must be made to "address ongoing dangers or threats that would not exist irrespective of the individual's status or duties as a federal candidate or officeholder."98 Second, the campaign must pay the "usual and normal charge" for security goods or services. 99 Another CRS product provides additional detail.100 In May 2018, the FEC granted congressional candidate Liuba Grechen Shirley'congressional candidate Liuba Grechen
    Shirley’s request to use campaign funds to pay for certain child care expenses.s request to use campaign funds to pay for certain child care expenses.92
    101 The commission based its decision on a related 1995 AO request (1995-42) and The commission based its decision on a related 1995 AO request (1995-42) and
    the agencythe agency's determination that the child care the candidate required resulted s determination that the child care the candidate required resulted
    directly from her candidacy. Several Members of Congress urged the FEC to directly from her candidacy. Several Members of Congress urged the FEC to
    grant the request. Some legislation also has proposed expanding the personal-use grant the request. Some legislation also has proposed expanding the personal-use
    provision in FECA to include such expenses.provision in FECA to include such expenses.93102 The FEC also heard comments on The FEC also heard comments on
    the personal-use provision, particularly for child care and health care expenses, at the personal-use provision, particularly for child care and health care expenses, at
    a March 2023 hearing on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning a March 2023 hearing on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) concerning
    candidate salaries. As of this writing, it is unclear how or whether the candidate salaries. As of this writing, it is unclear how or whether the
    commission will proceed on the issue.commission will proceed on the issue.94
    According to press reports, several candidates have relied on the child-care AO.103Regulation and Enforcement by the FEC or Through Other Areas of
    Policy and Law

    • In recent Congresses, FEC enforcement and transparency issues attracted
    attention in Congress and beyond. Legislation to restructure the agency has been
    introduced in several recent Congresses. (Additional information appears in other
    CRS products.95) In recent Congresses, provisions in the House-passed For the
    People Act bill (e.g., H.R. 1 in the 116th Congress and H.R. 1 in the 117th
    Congress) would have reduced the number of commissioners from six to five and
    enhanced powers of the agency’s chairperson.
    • In recent Congresses, both chambers have expressed interest in FEC enforcement
    processes and powers. For example, in the 116th Congress, the Committee on
    House Administration received written testimony for a September 2019 hearing
    to oversee the agency, although the hearing itself was postponed.96 As of this
    writing, a September 2023 hearing is scheduled.
    • Particularly in the 118th Congress

    This section briefly discusses recent congressional or agency activity related to developing topics in other policy areas, which are generally not discussed elsewhere in this report, that could implicate campaign finance policy as well.

    Particularly in the 118th and 119th Congresses
    , some legislative attention to developments in , some legislative attention to developments in
    artificial intelligence (AI) has included campaign finance issues. artificial intelligence (AI) has included campaign finance issues. In August 2023,
    the FEC issued a Notice of Availability seeking comment on whether the
    commission should undertake a rulemaking Throughout 2023 and 2024, the FEC considered rulemaking petitions on whether a FECA prohibition on on whether a FECA prohibition on
    "fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authorityfraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority" applies to political applies to political
    advertising generated with AI. As of this writing, it appears that the extent of the

    90 See AO 2020-06. Other AOs, cited in 2020-06, provide related discussion.
    91 See, for example, AOs 2023-04 and 2022-25.
    92 AO 2018-06.
    93 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46878, Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds:
    Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    94 On the NPRM, see Federal Election Commission, “Candidate Salaries,” 87 Federal Register 237, December 12,
    2022. The March 22, 2023, hearing transcript is available on the FEC website by searching for REG 2021-01 at
    https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/.
    95 For additional discussion of the FEC, see CRS Report R44318, The Federal Election Commission: Overview and
    Selected Issues for Congress
    , by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R44319, The Federal Election Commission:
    Enforcement Process and Selected Issues for Congress
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    96 Written testimony submitted for the hearing, scheduled for September 25, 2019, is available at
    https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109983. Previous versions of this CRS report
    provide examples of other hearings dating to 2011.
    Congressional Research Service

    20

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    commission’s authority concerning AI matters, absent additional congressional
    instruction, will be a component of the debate over whether the commission
    should proceed.97
    • The FEC has civil responsibility for enforcing FECA. The Department of Justice
    (DOJ) enforces the act’s criminal provisions, and the FEC may refer suspected
    criminal violations to DOJ.98 Throughout its history, some aspects of FEC
    enforcement have been controversial, partially because the commission’s six-
    member structure as established in FECA sometimes produces stalemates in
    enforcement actions.99 Some have argued that DOJ should pursue more vigorous
    enforcement of campaign finance law, both on its own authority and in lieu of
    FEC action.
    advertising generated with AI. On September 19, 2024, the commission approved an interpretive rule, based on existing regulation and statute, confirming that the FECA fraudulent misrepresentation provision also covers communications generated using AI. The commission did not issue new rules concerning AI. Rather, it clarified that the existing fraudulent misrepresentation provisions in FECA and FEC regulations apply to communications generated using AI.104 Those actions do not affect AI or campaign finance beyond the fraudulent misrepresentation provision, nor do they require additional disclaimers on political advertising. Another CRS product provides additional detail.105 Some Members of Congress have proposed requiring companies to provide Some Members of Congress have proposed requiring companies to provide
    additional information to shareholders if the companies choose to make additional information to shareholders if the companies choose to make
    electioneering communications or independent expenditures. These proposals are electioneering communications or independent expenditures. These proposals are
    sometimes referred to as sometimes referred to as "shareholder protectionshareholder protection" measures, although the extent measures, although the extent
    to which they would benefit shareholders or companies is subject to debate. In to which they would benefit shareholders or companies is subject to debate. In
    2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dropped plans to consider 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) dropped plans to consider
    additional corporate disclosure of political spending, although some advocates additional corporate disclosure of political spending, although some advocates
    continue to urge the agency to consider the topic.continue to urge the agency to consider the topic.100106 Since then, some advocates Since then, some advocates
    of additional campaign finance regulation have continued to urge the SEC to take of additional campaign finance regulation have continued to urge the SEC to take
    regulatory action to require campaign-related disclosure. As noted previously, regulatory action to require campaign-related disclosure. As noted previously,
    Congress has prohibited requiring additional disclosure to the SEC, through some Congress has prohibited requiring additional disclosure to the SEC, through some
    recent appropriations measures, including during recent appropriations measures, including during the 116th and 117threcent Congresses. Congresses.
    Other legislation has proposed repealing the prohibition.Other legislation has proposed repealing the prohibition.
    107 In July 2010, citing In July 2010, citing Citizens United, the SEC issued new , the SEC issued new "pay-to-playpay-to-play" rules— rules—
    which are otherwise beyond the scope of this report—to prohibit investment which are otherwise beyond the scope of this report—to prohibit investment
    advisers from seeking business from municipalities if the adviser made political advisers from seeking business from municipalities if the adviser made political
    contributions to elected officials responsible for awarding contracts for advisory contributions to elected officials responsible for awarding contracts for advisory
    services.services.101108 Although the rules appeared not to be targeted to federal candidates, Although the rules appeared not to be targeted to federal candidates,

    97 For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN12222, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Campaign Finance Policy:
    Recent Developments
    , by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS In Focus IF12468, Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Federal Election
    Campaigns: Legal Background and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    98 52 U.S.C. §30109.
    99 For additional discussion of the agency’s structure and powers, see CRS Report R45160, Federal Election
    Commission: Membership and Policymaking Quorum, In Brief
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    100 In 2012, the SEC’s contribution to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) “Unified Agenda”
    (formally the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions) indicated that the agency was considering
    developing a rule requiring disclosure of certain corporate political spending. The version of the Unified Agenda
    published in the fall of 2013 explained that the SEC was “withdrawing” the proposal but that future action was
    possible. On the Unified Agenda, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain. For brief additional discussion
    of the proposed rule, see, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, “Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending Left Off SEC
    Agenda for New Regulations,” Daily Report for Executives, December 3, 2013, p. A-1. See also Yin Wilczek,
    “Proponents File More Than 100 Proposals Calling for Political Spending Transparency,” Daily Report for Executives,
    April 14, 2015, p. EE-9.
    101 See Securities and Exchange Commission, “Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers,” 75 Federal
    Register
    41018-41071, July 14, 2010. See also Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rule G-37, Political
    Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business
    , http://msrb.org/
    Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules/General/Rule-G-37.aspx.
    Congressional Research Service

    21

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    they can implicate state-level officeholders seeking federal office. This includes, they can implicate state-level officeholders seeking federal office. This includes,
    for example, governors running for President.for example, governors running for President.102
    109 During the spring of 2011, media reports indicated that the Obama During the spring of 2011, media reports indicated that the Obama
    Administration was considering a draft executive order to require additional Administration was considering a draft executive order to require additional
    disclosure of government contractorsdisclosure of government contractors' political spending. political spending.103110 Although the Although the
    executive order was never issued, the topic continued to garner attention. The executive order was never issued, the topic continued to garner attention. The
    House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Committee on House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Committee on
    Small Business held a joint hearing on the topic on May 12, 2011. Small Business held a joint hearing on the topic on May 12, 2011. Through
    subsequent appropriations bills, including those enacted during the 116th and
    117th Congresses, the House and Senate also prohibited requiring additional
    contractor disclosure.
    As noted previously, subsequent Congresses have generally adopted appropriations language prohibiting additional contractor disclosure as a condition of the government-contracting process. Politically Active Tax-Exempt Organizations and Internal Revenue
    Service Disclosure Issues
    Politically active tax-exempt organizations, regulated primarily by the IRC, have been engaged in Politically active tax-exempt organizations, regulated primarily by the IRC, have been engaged in
    campaign activity since at least the early 2000s. Some suggest that campaign activity since at least the early 2000s. Some suggest that Citizens United provided provided
    clearer permission for incorporated 501(c)(4) social welfare groups and 501(c)(6) trade clearer permission for incorporated 501(c)(4) social welfare groups and 501(c)(6) trade
    associations to make electioneering communications and independent expenditures. Unions, associations to make electioneering communications and independent expenditures. Unions,
    501(c)(5)s, have long participated in campaigns, but 501(c)(5)s, have long participated in campaigns, but Citizens United has been interpreted to has been interpreted to
    permit labor organizations to use their treasury funds, like corporations, to make ECs and IEs. permit labor organizations to use their treasury funds, like corporations, to make ECs and IEs.
    Amid increased interest in, and activity by, these 501(c) groups post-2010, controversy has
    emerged about how or whether their involvement in federal elections should be regulated.
    This section provides historical background given consistent congressional activity concerning the intersection of campaign finance and tax issues. This report does not otherwise discuss tax policy or law.111 Currently, because 501(c) organizations are not Currently, because 501(c) organizations are not political committees as defined in FECA, they do as defined in FECA, they do
    not fall under FEC or FECA requirements unless they make ECs or IEs.not fall under FEC or FECA requirements unless they make ECs or IEs.104112 Nonetheless, many Nonetheless, many
    such groups engage in activity that might influence campaigns. Various issues, briefly noted such groups engage in activity that might influence campaigns. Various issues, briefly noted
    below, concerning politically active tax-exempt organizationsbelow, concerning politically active tax-exempt organizations' influence on federal campaigns influence on federal campaigns
    remain topics of debate. Other CRS products that focus on tax law provide additional detail,
    much of which is beyond the scope of this report.105
    remain topics of debate.113 During the Obama Administration, the IRS announced but subsequently During the Obama Administration, the IRS announced but subsequently
    withdrew a rulemaking proposal to require additional disclosure about politically withdrew a rulemaking proposal to require additional disclosure about politically
    active tax-exempt organizationsactive tax-exempt organizations' political spending. political spending.106114 The issue remained The issue remained
    unresolved for the remainder of the Obama Administration.unresolved for the remainder of the Obama Administration.
    In May 2020, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury issued rules that In May 2020, the IRS and the Department of the Treasury issued rules that
    permitted certain politically active tax-exempt organizations (e.g., 501(c)(4)s) to permitted certain politically active tax-exempt organizations (e.g., 501(c)(4)s) to
    withhold information identifying donors from their annual information returns

    102 See, for example, Jake Bernstein, “How an Obscure Federal Rule Could Be Shaking Up Presidential Politics,”
    ProPublica, August 28, 2012, http://www.propublica.org/article/how-an-obscure-federal-rule-could-be-shaking-up-
    presidential-politics; and Kenneth P. Doyle, “Judges Skeptical of Challenge to SEC Rule on Political Money From
    Investment Advisers,” Daily Report for Executives, March 24, 2015, p. A-6. This report does not include a detailed
    discussion of this topic, including subsequent updates unless they appear to substantially affect federal campaign
    finance policy.
    103 See, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, “Anticipated Obama Order Would Require Disclosure of Contractors’ Political
    Money,” Daily Report for Executives, April 21, 2011, p. A-6.
    104 If the groups had an affiliated super PAC, the super PAC would report to the FEC as a political committee.
    105 See, for example, CRS In Focus IF11005, Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending, by R. Sam
    Garrett.
    106 For historical discussion, see, for example, Diane Freda, “IRS Plans for Broadening Political Activity Rules Trigger
    Stern Warning From Hatch,” Daily Report for Executives, April 14, 2015, p. G-7.
    Congressional Research Service

    22

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    withhold information identifying donors from their annual information returns (schedule B of IRS form 990).(schedule B of IRS form 990).107115 Previously, although this donor information was Previously, although this donor information was
    not made public, filers generally had to report it to the IRS. Proponents of more not made public, filers generally had to report it to the IRS. Proponents of more
    campaign finance reporting requirements generally campaign finance reporting requirements generally opposeopposed the IRS rule change, the IRS rule change,
    arguing that the information is one of the few sources of donor information for arguing that the information is one of the few sources of donor information for
    money that sometimes ultimately affects campaigns, even if the reports are not money that sometimes ultimately affects campaigns, even if the reports are not
    publicly available. Those favoring less regulation generally publicly available. Those favoring less regulation generally contendcontended that the that the
    reports were burdensome and of limited value for campaign finance disclosure reports were burdensome and of limited value for campaign finance disclosure
    and enforcement, especially since they are filed with the IRS rather than the and enforcement, especially since they are filed with the IRS rather than the
    FEC.FEC.108116 Under the 2020 rules, the organizations must maintain donor information Under the 2020 rules, the organizations must maintain donor information
    in case the IRS requests it.in case the IRS requests it.
    • As noted previously, in In August 2023, the House Ways and Means Committee August 2023, the House Ways and Means Committee
    majority released a majority released a "request for informationrequest for information" seeking public input about, among seeking public input about, among
    other topics, whether the IRS should update its guidance on what constitutes other topics, whether the IRS should update its guidance on what constitutes
    campaign intervention by certain tax-exempt organizations. Recent campaign intervention by certain tax-exempt organizations. Recent
    appropriations laws have prohibited the appropriations laws have prohibited the Treasury DepartmentDepartment of the Treasury (which houses the (which houses the
    IRS) from spending appropriated funds to issue rules or guidance concerning IRS) from spending appropriated funds to issue rules or guidance concerning
    501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.501(c)(4) tax-exempt status.109
    117Selected Recent Litigation About Donor Disclosure in Independent
    Spending
    Spending One of the most controversial elements of campaign finance disclosure concerns identifying One of the most controversial elements of campaign finance disclosure concerns identifying
    donors to organizations that make electioneering communications and independent expenditures. donors to organizations that make electioneering communications and independent expenditures.
    Amid recent litigation, donor disclosure requirements can vary depending on whether a group Amid recent litigation, donor disclosure requirements can vary depending on whether a group
    chooses to make ECs versus IEs. This section provides brief context about policy issues and chooses to make ECs versus IEs. This section provides brief context about policy issues and
    debates that took root in recent, selected litigation, but does not address the litigation in detail or debates that took root in recent, selected litigation, but does not address the litigation in detail or
    provide legal analysis. In brief, currently, it appears that greater donor disclosure is required in IE provide legal analysis. In brief, currently, it appears that greater donor disclosure is required in IE
    reports than in EC reports.reports than in EC reports.
    FECA requires that those giving more than $200 FECA requires that those giving more than $200 "for the purpose of furtheringfor the purpose of furthering
    " IEs must be identified in political committeesIEs must be identified in political committees' disclosure reports filed with the disclosure reports filed with the
    FEC.FEC.110118 By contrast, the By contrast, the "purpose of furtheringpurpose of furthering" language does not appear in the language does not appear in the
    portion of FECA covering ECs. Nonetheless, FEC regulations implementing portion of FECA covering ECs. Nonetheless, FEC regulations implementing
    FECA also use the FECA also use the "purpose of furtheringpurpose of furthering" language as a threshold for identifying language as a threshold for identifying
    donors to corporations or unions making ECs.donors to corporations or unions making ECs.111119 In practice, this meant that, In practice, this meant that,
    before recent litigationbefore developments noted below, the FEC applied similar donor disclosure noted below, the FEC applied similar donor disclosure
    requirements to both ECs and IEs.requirements to both ECs and IEs.
    Some contend that the EC regulations improperly permit those contributing to Some contend that the EC regulations improperly permit those contributing to
    ECs to avoid disclosure by making unrestricted contributions (i.e., not “for the

    107 See Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting
    Requirements of Exempt Organizations,” 85 Federal Register 31959, May 28, 2020. See also CRS In Focus IF11005,
    Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending, by R. Sam Garrett.
    108 See discussion of comments submitted in response to the proposed 2020 rules, and IRS responses, in Department of
    the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, “Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of
    Exempt Organizations,” 85 Federal Register 31959, May 28, 2020.
    109 See, for example, §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions in the FY2023 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660.
    110 52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C).
    111 11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9).
    Congressional Research Service

    23

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    ECs to avoid disclosure by making unrestricted contributions (i.e., not "for the purpose of furtheringpurpose of furthering" ECs). ECs).112120 On the basis of that argument and others, then- On the basis of that argument and others, then-
    Representative Van Hollen sued the FEC in 2011. A series of federal district and Representative Van Hollen sued the FEC in 2011. A series of federal district and
    appellate court rulings occurred thereafter. In January 2016, the U.S. Court of appellate court rulings occurred thereafter. In January 2016, the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FEC rules.Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FEC rules.113121 There have been no major There have been no major
    subsequent developments. As such, those making ECs may continue omitting subsequent developments. As such, those making ECs may continue omitting
    donor information from EC reports in some cases.donor information from EC reports in some cases.114
    • Another recent122 Another case, case, CREW v. FEC, considered the , considered the "purpose of furtheringpurpose of furthering
    " donor-disclosure standard for IEs rather than ECs.donor-disclosure standard for IEs rather than ECs.115123 In November 2012, Citizens In November 2012, Citizens
    for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which identifies itself as a for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which identifies itself as a
    “watchdog”"watchdog" group, filed a complaint with the FEC, alleging, among other things, group, filed a complaint with the FEC, alleging, among other things,
    that 501(c)(4) group Crossroads GPS failed to disclose its donors as required that 501(c)(4) group Crossroads GPS failed to disclose its donors as required
    under FECA and agency regulations. In November 2015, FEC commissioners under FECA and agency regulations. In November 2015, FEC commissioners
    deadlocked on whether Crossroads GPS had violated commission regulations and deadlocked on whether Crossroads GPS had violated commission regulations and
    FECA (Matter Under Review 6696). CREW then sued the commission in federal FECA (Matter Under Review 6696). CREW then sued the commission in federal
    district court for, among other things, allegedly failing to enforce disclosure district court for, among other things, allegedly failing to enforce disclosure
    requirements. In August 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of requirements. In August 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Columbia ruled in CREWColumbia ruled in CREW's favor. After the court ruling took effect on September s favor. After the court ruling took effect on September
    18, 2018, certain groups that previously did not disclose some of their donors to 18, 2018, certain groups that previously did not disclose some of their donors to
    the FEC in IE reports were required do so. In August 2020, the U.S. Circuit Court the FEC in IE reports were required do so. In August 2020, the U.S. Circuit Court
    of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the district court ruling that invalidated the of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the district court ruling that invalidated the
    relevant portion of the FECrelevant portion of the FEC's IE rules.s IE rules.116124 A future rulemaking providing A future rulemaking providing
    additional clarification is possible.additional clarification is possible.
    The policy implications from cases such as these are important primarily for ongoing debates in The policy implications from cases such as these are important primarily for ongoing debates in
    Congress and beyond about how and when donorsCongress and beyond about how and when donors' identities are reported to the FEC and, identities are reported to the FEC and,
    therefore, to the public. As noted above, those requirements have varied most recently with therefore, to the public. As noted above, those requirements have varied most recently with
    developments in litigation, rulemaking, or both. Congress has considered various legislation to developments in litigation, rulemaking, or both. Congress has considered various legislation to
    make disclosure requirements more uniform (e.g., in versions of the DISCLOSE Act) across make disclosure requirements more uniform (e.g., in versions of the DISCLOSE Act) across
    different kinds of political advertising.different kinds of political advertising.
    Federal Communications Commission Rules on Political
    Advertising Disclosure
    Campaign finance law generally addresses only advertising that mentions political candidates or Campaign finance law generally addresses only advertising that mentions political candidates or
    elections. In particular, some legislation focused on political advertising (such as the Honest Ads elections. In particular, some legislation focused on political advertising (such as the Honest Ads
    Act, discussed previously) primarily proposes amending FECA, but also draws on or proposes

    112 The same argument is made concerning IE disclosure, although the absence of the “purpose of furthering” language
    is unique to EC provisions in FECA.
    113 For additional discussion, CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions
    and Expenditures
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    114 For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF11398, Campaign Finance Law: Disclosure and Disclaimer
    Requirements for Political Campaign Advertising
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    115 For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF11005, Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending,
    by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent
    Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
    , by L. Paige Whitaker.
    116 For additional discussion, see also Zainab Smith, Appeals Court Affirms Invalidation of Disclosure Rule in
    Crossroads GPS v. CREW (18-5261)
    , Federal Election Commission, Record newsletter, Washington, DC, August 26,
    2020, https://www.fec.gov/updates/appeals-court-affirms-invalidation-disclosure-rule-crossroads-gps-v-crew-18-5261/.
    Congressional Research Service

    24

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    Act, discussed previously) primarily proposes amending FECA, but also draws on or proposes amendments to concepts addressed in telecommunications law or regulation. Another CRS report amendments to concepts addressed in telecommunications law or regulation. Another CRS report
    provides additional detail on the latter.provides additional detail on the latter.117
    125 In BCRA, Congress required broadcasters to place information about political advertising prices In BCRA, Congress required broadcasters to place information about political advertising prices
    and purchases in a and purchases in a "political filepolitical file" available for public inspection. available for public inspection.118126 Partially in response to Partially in response to
    Citizens United, in 2011 the FCC revisited rulemaking proceedings the agency began in 2007 to , in 2011 the FCC revisited rulemaking proceedings the agency began in 2007 to
    consider whether broadcasters should be required to make information from the political file consider whether broadcasters should be required to make information from the political file
    available on the internet rather than only through paper records at individual television stations. available on the internet rather than only through paper records at individual television stations.
    On April 27, 2012, the FCC approvedOn April 27, 2012, the FCC approved new rules to require television broadcasters affiliated with rules to require television broadcasters affiliated with
    the ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC networks in the top 50 designated market areas (DMAs) to post the ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC networks in the top 50 designated market areas (DMAs) to post
    political file information on the commissionpolitical file information on the commission's website.s website.119127 These rules took effect on August 2, These rules took effect on August 2,
    2012. Stations outside the top 50 DMAs or unaffiliated with the top four networks were required 2012. Stations outside the top 50 DMAs or unaffiliated with the top four networks were required
    to comply as of July 2014.to comply as of July 2014.120128 In February 2016, the FCC extended the online-disclosure In February 2016, the FCC extended the online-disclosure
    requirements to cable and satellite operators and broadcast radio.requirements to cable and satellite operators and broadcast radio.121129 In addition, in 2019 and 2020, In addition, in 2019 and 2020,
    the FCC issued clarifications to political file rules concerning availability of information about the FCC issued clarifications to political file rules concerning availability of information about
    advertising that addresses certain policy or legislative issues.advertising that addresses certain policy or legislative issues.122
    130 Revisiting Disclosure Requirements
    Historically, disclosure aimed at reducing the threat of real or apparent corruption has received Historically, disclosure aimed at reducing the threat of real or apparent corruption has received
    bipartisan support. In fact, disclosure typically has been regarded as one of the least controversial bipartisan support. In fact, disclosure typically has been regarded as one of the least controversial
    aspects of an otherwise often-contentious debate over the nationaspects of an otherwise often-contentious debate over the nation's campaign finance policy. s campaign finance policy.
    Disclosure, then, could yield opportunities for cooperation among Members of both major parties Disclosure, then, could yield opportunities for cooperation among Members of both major parties
    and across both chambers. On the other hand, some recent disclosure efforts have generated and across both chambers. On the other hand, some recent disclosure efforts have generated
    controversy. Particularly since the controversy. Particularly since the 111th111th Congress consideration of the DISCLOSE Act Congress consideration of the DISCLOSE Act
    (provisions of which were included in recent versions of H.R. 1 in the 116th and 117th
    Congresses), some lawmakers raised concerns about whether the legislation applied fairly to , some lawmakers raised concerns about whether the legislation applied fairly to
    various kinds of organizations (e.g., corporations versus unions), and how much information various kinds of organizations (e.g., corporations versus unions), and how much information
    those airing independent messages rather than making direct candidate contributions should be those airing independent messages rather than making direct candidate contributions should be
    required to report to the FEC.required to report to the FEC.
    Post-Post-Citizens United legislative activity among those who favor additional disclosure has legislative activity among those who favor additional disclosure has
    generally emphasized the DISCLOSE Act, but, as noted elsewhere in this report, some have also generally emphasized the DISCLOSE Act, but, as noted elsewhere in this report, some have also
    proposed reporting particular kinds of spending to agencies such as the IRS or the SEC. As noted

    117 See CRS Report R46516, Identifying TV Political and Issue Ad Sponsors in the Digital Age, by Dana A. Scherer.
    118 The relevant provision appears in §504 of BCRA (P.L. 107-155). Although BCRA primarily amended FECA (2
    U.S.C. §431 et seq.), the “political file” requirement amended the 1934 Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. §315.
    119 Federal Communications Commission, Second Report and Order, In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced
    Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, MM Docket No. 00-168,
    Washington, DC, April 27, 2012, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0427/FCC-12-
    44A1.pdf. See also Federal Communications Commission, “Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for
    Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations,” 77 Federal Register 27631, May 11, 2012.
    120 See Ibid., and Federal Communications Commission, “Media Bureau Reminds Television Broadcasters of July 1,
    2014 Online Political File Deadline,” press release, April 4, 2014, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
    Daily_Business/2014/db0404/DA-14-464A1.pdf.
    121 See Federal Communications Commission, “Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV
    Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees,” 81 Federal Register 10105, February 29, 2016; and Federal
    Communications Commission, “Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and
    Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees,” 80 Federal Register 8031, February 13, 2015.
    122 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46516, Identifying TV Political and Issue Ad Sponsors in the Digital
    Age
    , by Dana A. Scherer.
    Congressional Research Service

    25

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    proposed reporting particular kinds of spending to agencies such as the IRS or the SEC. As noted previously, litigation and FEC rulemakings in the past decade have also considered the previously, litigation and FEC rulemakings in the past decade have also considered the
    applicability of the applicability of the "purpose of furtheringpurpose of furthering" donor-disclosure standard for ECs and IEs. donor-disclosure standard for ECs and IEs.
    Additional disclosure poses the advantage of making it easier to track the flow of political money. Additional disclosure poses the advantage of making it easier to track the flow of political money.
    Disclosure, however, does not guarantee complete information, nor does it necessarily guard Disclosure, however, does not guarantee complete information, nor does it necessarily guard
    against all forms of potential corruption. For example, current requirements generally make it against all forms of potential corruption. For example, current requirements generally make it
    possible to identify which people or organizations were involved in a political transaction. This possible to identify which people or organizations were involved in a political transaction. This
    information promotes partial transparency, but does not, in and of itself, provide detailed information promotes partial transparency, but does not, in and of itself, provide detailed
    information about what motivates those transactions or, in some cases, where the funds in information about what motivates those transactions or, in some cases, where the funds in
    question originated.question originated.123131 Additional disclosure requirements from Congress, the FEC, or the IRS Additional disclosure requirements from Congress, the FEC, or the IRS
    could provide additional clarity.could provide additional clarity.
    Disclosure and Disclaimers in Online and Digital Communications
    Disclosure and the related topic of disclaimers (referring to statements of attribution in political Disclosure and the related topic of disclaimers (referring to statements of attribution in political
    advertising) in online advertising have been especially prominent topics in recent years. In advertising) in online advertising have been especially prominent topics in recent years. In
    particular, after the particular, after the Citizens United decision, and reports of foreign interference in the 2016 decision, and reports of foreign interference in the 2016
    elections using social media, renewed interest in online advertising appeared in Congress and at elections using social media, renewed interest in online advertising appeared in Congress and at
    the FEC.the FEC.
    In 2011, the FEC announced an In 2011, the FEC announced an ANPRMAdvanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to receive comments on whether it should update its to receive comments on whether it should update its
    rules concerning internet disclaimers, but the agency did not advance new rules. In 2016, amid rules concerning internet disclaimers, but the agency did not advance new rules. In 2016, amid
    the increased online activity surrounding the 2016 election cycle, the FEC announced that it was the increased online activity surrounding the 2016 election cycle, the FEC announced that it was
    reopening the comment period on the 2011 ANPRM. It again reopened the comment period in reopening the comment period on the 2011 ANPRM. It again reopened the comment period in
    October 2017. Several Members of Congress filed comments. On November 16, 2017, the FEC October 2017. Several Members of Congress filed comments. On November 16, 2017, the FEC
    voted to draft revised internet-disclaimer rules (a notice of proposed rulemaking) for paid voted to draft revised internet-disclaimer rules (a notice of proposed rulemaking) for paid
    advertising. The commission may consider adopting those revised rules in the future.advertising. The commission may consider adopting those revised rules in the future.124
    132 Congress has not enacted legislation focused specifically on online campaign activity, although Congress has not enacted legislation focused specifically on online campaign activity, although
    elements of existing statute and FEC rules address internet communications. As noted elsewhere elements of existing statute and FEC rules address internet communications. As noted elsewhere
    in this report, Congress has considered legislation that proposes additional disclosure and in this report, Congress has considered legislation that proposes additional disclosure and
    disclaimer requirements in online advertising. The Honest Ads Act, which originated in the disclaimer requirements in online advertising. The Honest Ads Act, which originated in the 115th
    115th Congress (2017-2018), has been the most prominent such legislation and has been introduced Congress (2017-2018), has been the most prominent such legislation and has been introduced
    both as stand-alone legislation and as a component of other bills thereafter.both as stand-alone legislation and as a component of other bills thereafter.
    In October 2017, the Honest Ads Act (H.R. 4077In October 2017, the Honest Ads Act (H.R. 4077; ; S. 1989) was introduced to amend FECA to S. 1989) was introduced to amend FECA to
    further regulate some online ads. On October 24, 2018, the House further regulate some online ads. On October 24, 2018, the House Subcommittee on Information
    Technology, Committee on Oversight and Government ReformCommittee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Information Technology, held a hearing that addressed , held a hearing that addressed
    disclaimers and disclosures surrounding online political advertising generally. Honest Ads Act disclaimers and disclosures surrounding online political advertising generally. Honest Ads Act
    language was reintroduced in the 116th Congress as a stand-alone measure (H.R. 2592 [Kilmer];
    S. 1356 [Klobuchar]) and was contained in H.R. 1 (For the People Act) and H.R. 4617 (SHIELD
    Act) text that passed the House but did not advance in the Senate.125 Honest Ads was also
    included in three measures that passed the House during the 117th Congress: H.R. 1 (For the
    People Act [Sarbanes]), H.R. 5314 (Protecting Our Democracy Act [Schiff]), and H.R. 5746
    (Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act [Beyer]). In the 118th Congress, it is included in H.R. 11

    123 Some refer to obscuring the original source of funds that eventually affect candidate campaigns as “dark money,”
    although the term is unofficial.
    124 For brief additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10758, Online Political Advertising: Disclaimers and Policy
    Issues
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    125 H.R. 1612 and S. 2669 also contained Honest Ads Act provisions in the 116th Congress. Neither bill advanced
    beyond introduction.
    Congressional Research Service

    26

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress

    (the Freedom to Vote Act) and appears as stand-alone legislation, H.R. 2599 (Kilmer) and S. 486
    (Klobuchar).
    Revisiting Contribution Limits
    language was reintroduced as stand-alone legislation, as components of broader legislation, or both, in subsequent Congresses (e.g., H.R. 2592 and S. 1356 in the 116th Congress; H.R. 11, H.R. 2599 and S. 486 in the 118th Congress). Revisiting Limits on Contributions or Coordinated Party Expenditures After After Citizens United, one potential concern is how candidates will be able to field competitive , one potential concern is how candidates will be able to field competitive
    campaigns amid unlimited expenditures from super PACs, 501(c) organizations, corporations, or campaigns amid unlimited expenditures from super PACs, 501(c) organizations, corporations, or
    unions. One option for providing additional financial resources to candidates, parties, or both, unions. One option for providing additional financial resources to candidates, parties, or both,
    would be to raise or eliminate contribution limits. Particularly if contribution limits were would be to raise or eliminate contribution limits. Particularly if contribution limits were
    eliminated, corruption concerns that motivated FECA and BCRA could reemerge. As noted eliminated, corruption concerns that motivated FECA and BCRA could reemerge. As noted
    previously, Congress raised limits for some contributions to political parties in 2014.previously, Congress raised limits for some contributions to political parties in 2014.
    Another option, which Congress has occasionally considered in recent years, would be to raise or Another option, which Congress has occasionally considered in recent years, would be to raise or
    eliminate current limits on coordinated party expenditures.eliminate current limits on coordinated party expenditures.126133 Coordinated expenditures allow Coordinated expenditures allow
    parties to buy goods or services on behalf of a campaign—in limited amounts—and to discuss parties to buy goods or services on behalf of a campaign—in limited amounts—and to discuss
    those expenditures with the campaign.those expenditures with the campaign.127134 In a post- In a post-Citizens United and post- and post-McCutcheon
    environment, additional party-coordinated expenditures could provide campaigns facing environment, additional party-coordinated expenditures could provide campaigns facing
    increased outside advertising with additional resources to respond. Permitting parties to provide increased outside advertising with additional resources to respond. Permitting parties to provide
    additional coordinated expenditures may also strengthen parties as institutions by increasing their additional coordinated expenditures may also strengthen parties as institutions by increasing their
    relevance for candidates and the electorate. A potential drawback of this approach is that some relevance for candidates and the electorate. A potential drawback of this approach is that some
    campaigns may feel compelled to adopt party strategies at odds with the campaigncampaigns may feel compelled to adopt party strategies at odds with the campaign's wishes to s wishes to
    receive the benefits of coordinated expenditures.receive the benefits of coordinated expenditures.128135 Those concerned with the influence of money Those concerned with the influence of money
    in politics may object to any attempt to increase contribution limits or coordinated party in politics may object to any attempt to increase contribution limits or coordinated party
    expenditures, even if those limits were raised in an effort to respond to labor- or corporate-funded expenditures, even if those limits were raised in an effort to respond to labor- or corporate-funded
    advertising. Additional funding in some form, however, may be attractive to those who feel that advertising. Additional funding in some form, however, may be attractive to those who feel that
    greater resources will be necessary to compete in the modern era, or perhaps to those who support greater resources will be necessary to compete in the modern era, or perhaps to those who support
    increased contribution limits as a step toward campaign deregulation. increased contribution limits as a step toward campaign deregulation. A version of the FY2016
    FSGG bill (S. 1910) reported in the Senate would have amended FECA to permit parties to make
    unlimited coordinated expenditures on behalf of their candidates if the candidate did not control
    or direct such spending. That provision, however, was not included in the FY2016 consolidated
    appropriations law (P.L. 114-113; H.R. 2029).

    126 This option would not provide campaigns with additional funding per se, but it could ease the financial burden on
    campaigns for those purchases that parties make on the campaign’s behalf.
    127 Coordinated party expenditures are subject to limits based on office sought, state, and voting-age population (VAP).
    Exact amounts are determined by formula and updated annually by the FEC. For additional discussion, see CRS Report
    RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige
    Whitaker; and CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:
    Issues and Options for Congress
    , by R. Sam Garrett.
    128 The long-running debate about relationships between parties and candidates is well documented. For a brief
    overview, see, for example, Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America, 12th ed., pp. 65-83; and Paul S.
    Herrnson, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 4th ed., pp. 86-128.
    Congressional Research Service

    27

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress
    On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a First Amendment challenge to the coordinated party expenditure limits during its term beginning in October 2025.136
    Revisiting Coordination Requirements
    Both before and after Both before and after Citizens United, questions have persisted about whether unlimited , questions have persisted about whether unlimited
    independent expenditures permit parties, PACs, and other groups to subsidize candidate independent expenditures permit parties, PACs, and other groups to subsidize candidate
    campaigns despite FECAcampaigns despite FECA's contribution limits. Such concerns first emerged in the 1980s with s contribution limits. Such concerns first emerged in the 1980s with
    PAC spending. After PAC spending. After Citizens United, the emergence of super PACs and increased activity by , the emergence of super PACs and increased activity by
    501(c) organizations increased attention to a concept known as 501(c) organizations increased attention to a concept known as coordination. A product of FEC . A product of FEC
    regulations, coordination restrictions are designed to ensure that valuable goods or services—such regulations, coordination restrictions are designed to ensure that valuable goods or services—such
    as polling or staff expertise—are not provided to campaigns in excess of federal contribution as polling or staff expertise—are not provided to campaigns in excess of federal contribution
    limits. In practice, establishing coordination is difficult. Existing regulations require satisfying a limits. In practice, establishing coordination is difficult. Existing regulations require satisfying a
    complex three-part test examining conduct, communications, and payment.complex three-part test examining conduct, communications, and payment.129137 Some Members of Some Members of
    Congress and advocacy groups have proposed that Congress specify a more precise coordination Congress and advocacy groups have proposed that Congress specify a more precise coordination
    standard by enacting legislation.standard by enacting legislation.
    Conclusion
    Depending on the outcome of the litigation, the Supreme Court litigation discussed in the previous section also could have implications for reconsidering coordination requirements. Conclusion Some elements of federal campaign finance policy have substantially changed Some elements of federal campaign finance policy have substantially changed in recent years;
    since 2010; others have remained unchanged. Enactment of BCRA in 2002 marked the culmination of efforts others have remained unchanged. Enactment of BCRA in 2002 marked the culmination of efforts
    to limit soft money in federal elections and place additional regulations on political advertising to limit soft money in federal elections and place additional regulations on political advertising
    airing before elections. BCRA was an extension of efforts begun in the 1970s, with enactment of airing before elections. BCRA was an extension of efforts begun in the 1970s, with enactment of
    FECA, to regulate and document the flow of money in federal elections. BCRAFECA, to regulate and document the flow of money in federal elections. BCRA's soft-money ban s soft-money ban
    and some other provisions remain in effect; but and some other provisions remain in effect; but Citizens United, , SpeechNow, and other litigation , and other litigation
    since BCRA have reversed major elements of modern campaign finance law.since BCRA have reversed major elements of modern campaign finance law.
    The changes discussed in this report suggest that the nationThe changes discussed in this report suggest that the nation's campaign finance policy may be a s campaign finance policy may be a
    continuing issue for Congress. Disclosure requirements, a hallmark of federal campaign finance continuing issue for Congress. Disclosure requirements, a hallmark of federal campaign finance
    policy, remain unchanged, but the topic has taken on new controversy. Additional information policy, remain unchanged, but the topic has taken on new controversy. Additional information
    would be required to fully document the sources and rationales behind all political expenditures. would be required to fully document the sources and rationales behind all political expenditures.
    For some, such disclosure would improve transparency and discourage corruption. For others, For some, such disclosure would improve transparency and discourage corruption. For others,
    additional disclosure might be viewed with suspicion and as a potential sign of government additional disclosure might be viewed with suspicion and as a potential sign of government
    intrusion. Particularly in recent years, tension has also developed between competing perspectives intrusion. Particularly in recent years, tension has also developed between competing perspectives
    about whether disclosure limits potential corruption or stigmatizes those who might choose to about whether disclosure limits potential corruption or stigmatizes those who might choose to
    support unpopular candidates or groups.support unpopular candidates or groups.
    Fundraising, spending, and reporting questions have been at the forefront of recent debates in Fundraising, spending, and reporting questions have been at the forefront of recent debates in
    campaign finance policy, but they are not the only issues that may warrant attention. Even if no campaign finance policy, but they are not the only issues that may warrant attention. Even if no
    legislative changes are made, additional regulation and litigation are likely, as is the constant legislative changes are made, additional regulation and litigation are likely, as is the constant
    debate over the role of money in politics. Although some of the specifics are new, these themes debate over the role of money in politics. Although some of the specifics are new, these themes
    discussed throughout this report have been present in campaign finance policy for decades.discussed throughout this report have been present in campaign finance policy for decades.

    129 On coordination and the three-part regulatory test for coordination, see, respectively 52 U.S.C. §30116 (previously
    codified at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)) and 11 C.F.R. §109.21. See also

    Footnotes

    1.

    The 1907 Tillman Act (34 Stat. 864), which prohibited federal contributions from nationally chartered banks and corporations, is generally regarded as the first major federal campaign finance law. Congress extended those restrictions to unions temporarily in 1943 and, permanently, in 1947, with the Smith-Connolly (57 Stat. 163; 57 Stat. 167) and Taft-Hartley Acts (61 Stat. 136; 61 Stat. 159) respectively. The 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices Act (43 Stat. 1070) was arguably the first federal statute combining multiple campaign finance provisions, particularly disclosure requirements first enacted in 1910 and 1911 (36 Stat. 822 and 37 Stat. 25). An 1867 statute barred requiring political contributions from naval yard workers (14 Stat. 489 (March 2, 1867)). This appears to be the first federal law concerning campaign finance. The Pendleton Act (22 Stat. 403), which created the civil service system is also sometimes cited as an early campaign finance measure because it banned receiving a public office in exchange for a political contributions (see 22 Stat. 404). For additional historical discussion of the evolution of campaign finance law and policy, see Anthony Corrado et al., The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Brookings Institution Press, 2005), pp. 7-47. See also, for example, Kurt Hohenstein, Coining Corruption: The Making of the American Campaign Finance System (Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (Praeger, 1988), Robert E. Mutch, Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform (Oxford University Press, 2014), Raymond J. La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform (University of Michigan Press, 2008), pp. 43-80, and Money and Politic$, ed. Paula Baker (The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002). On the federal role in campaigns versus elections, see CRS Report R45302, Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.

    2.

    Soft money is a term of art referring to funds generally believed to influence federal elections but not regulated under federal election law. Soft money stands in contrast to hard money. The latter is a term of art referring to funds that are generally subject to regulation under federal election law, such as restrictions on funding sources and contribution amounts. These terms are not defined in federal election law. For an overview, see, for example, David B. Magleby, "Outside Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections," in The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2002 Congressional Elections, ed. David B. Magleby and J. Quin Monson (Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pp. 10-13.

    3.

    For additional discussion of activity during the 111th Congress, see CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder.

    4.

    As explained in the text, this report does not address constitutional or legal issues except to provide policy context. For additional discussion, see, in particular, CRS Report R46521, Political Campaign Contributions and Congress: A Legal Primer, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    5.

    Congressional requesters may contact the author for additional information.

    6.

    Unless otherwise noted, the report does not discuss executive orders.

    7.

    Political committees include candidate committees, party committees, and PACs. See 52 U.S.C. §30101 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §431(4), as explained later in this report).

    8.

    FECA is 52 U.S.C. §30101 et seq. (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.). Congress first addressed modern campaign finance issues in the 1970s through the 1971 Revenue Act, which established the presidential public financing program. The 1970s are primarily remembered, however, for enactment of and amendments to FECA. See CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.

    9.

    On the 1971 FECA, see P.L. 92-225. On the 1974, 1976, and 1979 amendments, see P.L. 93-443, P.L. 94-283, and P.L. 96-187 respectively.

    10.

    The Corrupt Practices Act, which FECA generally supersedes, is 43 Stat. 1070.

    11.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    12.

    See P.L. 99-514 §112. Congress repealed a tax deduction for political contributions in 1978. See P.L. 95-600 §113.

    13.

    See, for example, Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (Praeger, 1988); and Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections, ed. Robert Biersack, Clyde S. Wilcox, and Paul S. Herrnson (M.E. Sharpe, 1994).

    14.

    BCRA is P.L. 107-155; 116 Stat. 81. BCRA amended FECA, which appears at 52 U.S.C. §30101 et seq. (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.) BCRA is also known as McCain-Feingold.

    15.

    On the definition of electioneering communications, see 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434 (f)(3)).

    16.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    17.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.

    18.

    For example, rulemakings on various BCRA provisions resulted in a series of at least three lawsuits covering six years. These are the Shays and Meehan v. Federal Election Commission cases.

    19.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. HLOGA is primarily an ethics and lobbying statute. For additional discussion, see, for example, CRS Report R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Before and After the Enactment of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, by Jacob R. Straus.

    20. 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010). For additional discussion, see, for example,
    CRS Report R45320, CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law:
    An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation
    , by L. Paige , by L. Paige
    Whitaker.
    Congressional Research Service

    28

    The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress


    Author Information

    R. Sam Garrett

    Specialist in American National Government



    Disclaimer
    This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
    shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
    under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
    than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
    connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
    subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
    material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
    copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

    Congressional Research Service
    R41542 · VERSION 67 · UPDATED
    29
    Whitaker. 21.

    Independent expenditures explicitly call for election or defeat of political candidates (known as express advocacy), may occur at any time, and are usually (but not always) broadcast advertisements. They must also be uncoordinated with the campaign in question. On the definition of independent expenditures, see 52 U.S.C. §30101 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. 431 §17). As noted previously, electioneering communications refer to clearly identified candidates during pre-election periods but do not contain express advocacy.

    22.

    "DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed," Senate vote 220, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (July 27, 2010), p. S6285.

    23.

    "DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed—Resumed," Senate vote 240, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (September 23, 2010), p. S7388.

    24.

    See, in the 118th Congress, H.R. 11; H.R. 1118; S. 1; S. 512; and S. 2344.

    25.

    599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

    26.

    Civ. No. 11-259-RMC (D.D.C. 2011).

    27.

    Federal Election Commission, "FEC Statement on Carey v. FEC: Reporting Guidance for Political Committees that Maintain a Non-Contribution Account," press release, October 5, 2011, http://www.fec.gov/press/Press2011/20111006postcarey.shtml.

    28.

    In particular, the exemption only applies to nonconnected PACs (i.e., those that exist independently as PACs and are not affiliated with a parent organization, such as an interest group or labor union).

    29.

    See generally, for example, Diana Dwyer and Robin Kolodny, The Fundamentals of Campaign Finance in the U.S.: Why we Have the System we Have (University of Michigan Press, 2024), pp. 171-172.

    30.

    Perhaps most notably, the FEC issued AOs 2010-09 (Club for Growth) and 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten), recognizing corporate independent expenditures and super PACs. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42042, Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. AOs provide an opportunity to pose questions about how the commission interprets the applicability of FECA or FEC regulations to a specific situation (e.g., a planned campaign expenditure). AOs apply only to the requester and within specific circumstances, but can provide general guidance for those in similar situations. See 52 U.S.C. §30108 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §437f).

    31.

    Federal Election Commission, "Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations," 248 Federal Register 80803, December 27, 2011.

    32.

    Federal Election Commission, "Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications by Corporations and Labor Organizations," 79 Federal Register 62797, October 21, 2014.

    33. Some Senators filed comments calling for additional donor disclosure. See Letter from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen et al. to Commissioner Caroline Hunter, Chair, FEC, February 21, 2012. The document may be obtained from the FEC rulemaking comments search function at http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/. 34.

    For additional policy discussion, as well as citations to other CRS products that cover legal issues, see CRS Report R43334, Campaign Contribution Limits: Selected Questions About McCutcheon and Policy Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.

    35.

    See P.L. 113-235; 128 Stat. 2130; and, especially, 128 Stat. 2772.

    36.

    As noted elsewhere in this report, only the "headquarters" committees (e.g., the DNC or RNC) could collect additional funds for conventions.

    37.

    CRS calculated this figure from individual-account adjustments that appear in Federal Election Commission, "Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold," 90 Federal Register 8526, January 30, 2025; see especially p. 8528.

    38.

    For historical discussion of the provisions' enactment, see CRS Report R43825, Increased Campaign Contribution Limits in the FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently Asked Questions, by R. Sam Garrett.

    39.

    128 Stat. 1085.

    40.

    See CRS Report R43976, Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn Reese; CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn Reese; and CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, by R. Sam Garrett. On appropriated security funding, which is separate from campaign finance policy, see also CRS In Focus IF11555, Presidential Candidate and Nominating Convention Security, by Shawn Reese.

    41.

    131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011). The slip opinion is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-238.pdf.

    42.

    For additional discussion of state-level public financing, see the "State Experiences with Public Financing" section of CRS Report RL33814, Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.

    43.

    For historical discussion, see CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, by R. Sam Garrett.

    44.

    52 U.S.C. §30118 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §441b).

    45.

    On the definition of contribution, see, in particular, 52 U.S.C. §30101 and 52 U.S.C. §30118 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A) and 2 U.S.C. §441(b)(b)(2)).

    46.

    For the codified text, see 52 U.S.C. §30116(a)(9).

    47.

    Statutory inflation adjustments as administered by the FEC, based on Department of Labor data, did not increase the individual contribution limit, which was $2,700 per candidate, per election during 2016-2018 as well. The inflation adjustments are codified at 52 U.S.C. §30116(c).

    48.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43334, Campaign Contribution Limits: Selected Questions About McCutcheon and Policy Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    49.

    This excludes requirements that were subsequently invalidated, such as reporting associated with the now-defunct Millionaire's Amendment (which required additional reporting for self-funding above certain levels and for receipt of contributions in response to such funding).

    50.

    Reporting typically occurs quarterly. Pre- and post-election reports must also be filed. Noncandidate committees may also file monthly reports. See, for example, 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434) and the FEC's Campaign Guide series for additional discussion of reporting requirements.

    51.

    See, for example, 52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434(g)).

    52.

    52 U.S.C. §30104 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §434(f)).

    53.

    Higher thresholds apply if the expenditures are made from a designated account. For additional summary information, see Table 1 in CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder. Donor information is reported in regularly filed financial reports rather than in independent expenditure reports.

    54.

    As the term is commonly used, 527 refers to groups registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political organizations that seemingly intend to influence federal elections. By contrast, political committees (which include candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees) are regulated by the FEC and federal election law. There is a debate regarding which 527s are required to register with the FEC as political committees.

    55.

    See CRS Report R45160, Federal Election Commission: Membership and Policymaking Quorum, In Brief, by R. Sam Garrett.

    56. See U.S. Congress, Committees on House Administration, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform, Fraud on ActBlue: How the Democrats' Top Fundraising Platform Opens the Door for Illegal Election Contributions, interim staff report, April 2, 2025, https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-04/04.02.25_FRAUD_ON_ACTBLUE_HOW_THE_DEMOCRATS_TOP_FUNDRAISING_PLATFORM_OPENS_THE_DOOR_FOR_ILLEGAL_ELECTION_CONTRIBUTIONS_w_appendix.pdf; and U.S. Congress, Committee on House Administration, Ranking Member Joseph D. Morelle, Staff Report on the Federal Election Commission at 50: The Deregulators are Winning, minority staff report, May 2025, https://democrats-cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/Report-The-Deregulators-Are-Winning.pdf. 57.

    See Executive Order 14215, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies," 90 Federal Register 10447, February 24, 2025. On inclusion of the FEC, see p. 10448.

    58.

    See Executive Order 14215, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies," pp. 10448-10449. For additional discussion of OIRA, which is generally beyond the scope of this report, see CRS Report R48546, The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Overview and Major Responsibilities, coordinated by Meghan M. Stuessy and Taylor N. Riccard.

    59.

    Letter from Hon. Alex Padilla and Hon. Joseph D. Morelle, Ranking Members, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and Committee on House Administration, to James E. "Trey" Trainor III, Shana M. Broussard, Allen Dickerson, and Dara Lindenbaum, Commissioners, Federal Election Commission, February 26, 2025, https://www.padilla.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/02.26.25_Padilla-Morelle-FEC-Independent-Agency-EO.pdf.

    60. Executive Order 14248, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," 90 Federal Register 14005, March 25, 2025. See also H.R. 2499, which proposes to codify the E.O. 61.

    See Executive Order 14248, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," p. 14009. On the FECA foreign-national prohibition, see 52 U.S.C. §30121.

    62.

    See Supreme Court of the United States, Order List, June 30, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063025zor_7647.pdf. The case is NRSC et al. v. FEC et al.

    63.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN12198, Federal Election Commission Administrative Fine Program, by R. Sam Garrett.

    64.

    See Title V, §546(e), and Title §VII, 735, respectively.

    65.

    For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF12451, H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act, coordinated by Karen L. Shanton; and CRS In Focus IF12453, H.R. 4563, the American Confidence in Elections Act (ACE Act): Legal Background, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    66.

    Letter from Rep. Jason Smith, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, and Rep. David Schweikert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, Request for Information: Understanding and Examining the Political Activities of Tax-Exempt Organizations under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, August 14, 2023, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/RFI-on-501c3-and-c4-Activities-FINAL.pdf. For additional discussion, see, for example, Samantha Handler, "GOP Concerns About Tax-Exempt Groups May Prompt Probes, Guidance," Bloomberg, September 6, 2023.

    67.

    See, for example, §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions in the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660.

    68.

    See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Dollars and Degrees: Investigating Fossil Fuel Dark Money's Systemic Threats to Climate and the Federal Budget, 118th Cong., 1st sess., June 21, 2023. As of this writing, the hearing has not been published. See https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/dollars-and-degrees-investigating-fossil-fuel-dark-moneys-systemic-threats-to-climate-and-the-federal-budget.

    69.

    For a brief summary of legislative activity related to campaign finance, elections, and voting issues during the 117th Congress, see CRS In Focus IF12291, Elections and Voting: Policy and Legal Issues for the 118th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker.

    70.

    For an overview, see CRS In Focus IF11097, H.R. 1 and S. 1: Overview and Related CRS Products, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett. A CRS congressional distribution memorandum, Major Provisions in S. 1 and H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, coordinated by R. Sam Garrett and Sarah J. Eckman, is available to congressional readers upon request.

    71.

    The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act combined elements of other election administration and voting legislation, including parts of H.R. 1 and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (Sewell).

    72.

    H.Rept. 117-393, p. 67. The 2010 GAO report is U.S. Government Accountability Office, Campaign Finance Reform: Experiences of Two States That Offered Full Public Funding for Political Candidates, 10-390, May 28, 2010, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-390. For the subsequent report, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Campaign Finance: Observations on Public Financing Programs in Selected States and Localities, 25-106650, December 19, 2024, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106650.

    73.

    See §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions, and §633 of general provisions, in the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660, 4703.

    74.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10796, Supreme Court Invalidates Cap on Repayment of Candidate Loans Under the First Amendment: Considerations for Congress, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    75.

    Congressional requesters may contact the author of this report for additional information.

    76.

    In addition, in April 2025, President Trump directed the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, "to investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees" and to take appropriate enforcement action. See White House, Memorandum to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, and the Counsel to the President, Investigation into Unlawful "Straw Donor" and Foreign Contributions in American Elections, April 24, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/investigation-into-unlawful-straw-donor-and-foreign-contributions-in-american-elections/.

    77.

    52 U.S.C. §30121(a)(1). For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10697, Foreign Money and U.S. Campaign Finance Policy, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Legal Sidebar WSLG1857, Foreign Money and U.S. Elections, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    78.

    For example, a June 26, 2018, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, hearing included discussions of at least two bills (S. 1989; S. 2939) that addressed potential foreign influence in U.S. elections, in addition to other topics.

    79.

    See Federal Election Commission, "FEC Report to the Committees on Appropriations on Enforcing the Foreign National Prohibition," September 18, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Foreign_National_Report_To_Congress.pdf. Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub wrote to congressional appropriators offering alternative views about the report. See Letter from Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair, Federal Election Commission, to Congressional Appropriations Committees, September 28, 2018, https://www.fec.gov/documents/896/2018-09-28-ELW-Approps-Committees-reply.pdf.

    80.

    See, for example, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on House Administration (majority), "Chairman Steil, Senator Johnson Demand Classified Briefings on Potential Foreign Influence in U.S. Elections," press release, October 22, 2024, https://cha.house.gov/2024/10/chairman-steil-senator-johnson-demand-classified-briefings-on-potential-foreign-influence-in-u-s-elections. See also discussion in U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations Act, report to accompany H.R. 9488, 118th Cong., 2nd sess., September 20, 2024, H.Rept. 118-696 (GPO, 2024).

    81.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN12581, Campaign Finance Policy and Campaign Security, by R. Sam Garrett.

    82.

    The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) offers assistance to campaigns on a voluntary basis. For additional background, see, for example, testimony of Matthew Masterson, Senior Cybersecurity Advisor, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Securing America's Elections Part II: Oversight of Government Agencies, hearing, 116th Cong., 1st sess., October 22, 2019, p. 6, at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20191022/110106/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-MastersonM-20191022.pdf.

    83.

    The program also appears to provide services to political parties, and perhaps to other political committees (e.g., political action committees).

    84.

    See above-cited testimony from CISA Senior Cybersecurity Advisor (and former EAC Commissioner) Matthew Masterson, at October 22, 2019, House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, Security America's Elections Part II: Oversight of Government Agencies. As of this writing, the hearing record does not appear to have been published. Video and written materials are available on the committee website, https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/securing-america-s-elections-part-ii-oversight-government-agencies.

    85.

    See U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum from the Attorney General (Bondi) for all departmental employees, "General Policy Regarding Charging, Plea Negotiations, and Sentencing," February 5, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388541/dl.

    86.

    See, for example, Derek B. Johnson, "DOJ Disbands Foreign Influence Task Force, Limits Scope of FARA Prosecutions," Cyberscoop, February 6, 2025, https://cyberscoop.com/doj-disbands-foreign-influence-task-force/.

    87.

    See, for example, Jen Fifield, "U.S. Agency Has Stopped Supporting States on Election Security, Official Confirms," Votebeat, March 11, 2025, https://www.votebeat.org/2025/03/11/cisa-ends-support-election-security-nass-nased/.

    88.

    The approved version is AO 2018-11, p. 3, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2018-11/2018-11.pdf. Members of Congress should consult with a campaign attorney, the FEC, or both regarding individual compliance guidance.

    89.

    See the approved version of AO 2018-12, p. 1, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2018-12/2018-12.pdf.

    90.

    See the approved version of AO 2019-12, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2019-12/2019-12.pdf.

    91.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46878, Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds: Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.

    92.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Insight IN10719, Violence Against Members of Congress and Their Staff: A Brief Overview, by R. Eric Petersen (available to congressional clients upon request); and CRS Report R41609, Violence Against Members of Congress and Their Staff: Selected Examples and Congressional Responses, by R. Eric Petersen and Jennifer E. Manning.

    93. Letter from Paul D. Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of Representatives, to Steven T. Walther, Chairman, Federal Election Commission, June 21, 2017. The letter is attached to July 13, 2017, open-meeting Agenda Document No. 17-29-A, https://www.fec.gov/updates/july-13-2017-open-meeting/. 94. The approved version is July 13, 2017, open-meeting Agenda Document No. 17-32-D, https://www.fec.gov/updates/july-13-2017-open-meeting/. Members of Congress should consult with a campaign attorney, the FEC, or both regarding individual compliance guidance. 95.

    See AO 2020-06. Other AOs, cited in 2020-06, provide related discussion.

    96.

    See, for example, AOs 2023-04 and 2022-25.

    97.

    Federal Election Commission, "Use of Campaign Funds for Candidate and Officeholder Security," 89 Federal Register 78201, September 25, 2024; and 11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(10).

    98.

    11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(10).

    99.

    11 C.F.R. §113.1(g)(10).

    100.

    See CRS Insight IN12581, Campaign Finance Policy and Campaign Security, by R. Sam Garrett.

    101.

    AO 2018-06.

    102.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46878, Permissible and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Funds: Frequently Asked Questions and Policy Overview, by R. Sam Garrett.

    103.

    See, for example, Stephanie Akin, "Campaign Spending on Child Care Growing Steadily Since FEC Allowed It," Roll Call, May 18, 2021, https://rollcall.com/2021/05/18/campaign-spending-on-child-care-growing-steadily-since-fec-allowed-it/.

    104.

    11 C.F.R. §110.16(a).

    105.

    See CRS Insight IN12222, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS In Focus IF12468, Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Federal Election Campaigns: Legal Background and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    106.

    In 2012, the SEC's contribution to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) "Unified Agenda" (formally the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions) indicated that the agency was considering developing a rule requiring disclosure of certain corporate political spending. The version of the Unified Agenda published in the fall of 2013 explained that the SEC was "withdrawing" the proposal but that future action was possible. On the Unified Agenda, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain. For brief additional discussion of the proposed rule, see, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, "Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending Left Off SEC Agenda for New Regulations," Daily Report for Executives, December 3, 2013, p. A-1. See also Yin Wilczek, "Proponents File More Than 100 Proposals Calling for Political Spending Transparency," Daily Report for Executives, April 14, 2015, p. EE-9.

    107.

    For examples of contrasting legislative approaches, see, for example, for example, H.R. 376 (115th Congress) and §635 of the FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31), respectively, and H.R. 4863 (118th Congress).

    108.

    See Securities and Exchange Commission, "Political Contributions by Certain Investment Advisers," 75 Federal Register 41018-41071, July 14, 2010. See also Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rule G-37, Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business and Municipal Advisory Business, http://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules/General/Rule-G-37.aspx.

    109.

    See, for example, Jake Bernstein, "How an Obscure Federal Rule Could Be Shaking Up Presidential Politics," ProPublica, August 28, 2012, http://www.propublica.org/article/how-an-obscure-federal-rule-could-be-shaking-up-presidential-politics; and Kenneth P. Doyle, "Judges Skeptical of Challenge to SEC Rule on Political Money From Investment Advisers," Daily Report for Executives, March 24, 2015, p. A-6. This report does not include a detailed discussion of this topic, including subsequent updates unless they appear to substantially affect federal campaign finance policy.

    110.

    See, for example, Kenneth P. Doyle, "Anticipated Obama Order Would Require Disclosure of Contractors' Political Money," Daily Report for Executives, April 21, 2011, p. A-6.

    111.

    For additional discussion, see, for example, CRS Report RL33377, Tax-Exempt Organizations Under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c): Political Activity Restrictions, by Justin C. Chung.

    112.

    If the groups had an affiliated super PAC, the super PAC would report to the FEC as a political committee.

    113.

    See, for example, CRS In Focus IF11005, Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending, by R. Sam Garrett.

    114.

    For historical discussion, see, for example, Diane Freda, "IRS Plans for Broadening Political Activity Rules Trigger Stern Warning From Hatch," Daily Report for Executives, April 14, 2015, p. G-7.

    115.

    See Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, "Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations," 85 Federal Register 31959, May 28, 2020. See also CRS In Focus IF11005, Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending, by R. Sam Garrett.

    116.

    See discussion of comments submitted in response to the proposed 2020 rules, and IRS responses, in Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, "Guidance Under Section 6033 Regarding the Reporting Requirements of Exempt Organizations," 85 Federal Register 31959, May 28, 2020.

    117.

    See, for example, §123 of the Department of the Treasury administrative provisions in the FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-328, 136 Stat. 4659-4660.

    118.

    52 U.S.C. §30104(c)(2)(C).

    119.

    11 C.F.R. §104.20(c)(9).

    120.

    The same argument is made concerning IE disclosure, although the absence of the "purpose of furthering" language is unique to EC provisions in FECA.

    121.

    For additional discussion, CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    122.

    For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF11398, Campaign Finance Law: Disclosure and Disclaimer Requirements for Political Campaign Advertising, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    123.

    For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF11005, Donor Disclosure: 501(c) Groups and Campaign Spending, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation, by L. Paige Whitaker.

    124. For additional discussion, see also Zainab Smith, Appeals Court Affirms Invalidation of Disclosure Rule in Crossroads GPS v. CREW (18-5261), Federal Election Commission, Record newsletter, August 26, 2020, https://www.fec.gov/updates/appeals-court-affirms-invalidation-disclosure-rule-crossroads-gps-v-crew-18-5261/. 125.

    See CRS Report R46516, Identifying TV Political and Issue Ad Sponsors in the Digital Age, by Dana A. Scherer.

    126.

    The relevant provision appears in §504 of BCRA (P.L. 107-155). Although BCRA primarily amended FECA (2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.), the "political file" requirement amended the 1934 Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C. §315.

    127.

    Federal Communications Commission, Second Report and Order, In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations, MM Docket No. 00-168, April 27, 2012, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0427/FCC-12-44A1.pdf. See also Federal Communications Commission, "Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee Public Interest Obligations," 77 Federal Register 27631, May 11, 2012.

    128.

    See Federal Communications Commission, "Media Bureau Reminds Television Broadcasters of July 1, 2014 Online Political File Deadline," press release, April 4, 2014, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0404/DA-14-464A1.pdf.

    129.

    See Federal Communications Commission, "Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees," 81 Federal Register 10105, February 29, 2016; and Federal Communications Commission, "Expansion of Online Public File Obligations to Cable and Satellite TV Operators and Broadcast and Satellite Radio Licensees," 80 Federal Register 8031, February 13, 2015.

    130.

    For additional discussion, see CRS Report R46516, Identifying TV Political and Issue Ad Sponsors in the Digital Age, by Dana A. Scherer.

    131.

    Some refer to obscuring the original source of funds that eventually affect candidate campaigns as "dark money," although the term is unofficial.

    132.

    For brief additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10758, Online Political Advertising: Disclaimers and Policy Issues, by R. Sam Garrett.

    133.

    This option would not provide campaigns with additional funding per se, but it could ease the financial burden on campaigns for those purchases that parties make on the campaign's behalf.

    134.

    Coordinated party expenditures are subject to limits based on office sought, state, and voting-age population (VAP). Exact amounts are determined by formula and updated annually by the FEC. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.

    135.

    The long-running debate about relationships between parties and candidates is well documented. For a brief overview, see, for example, Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America, 12th ed., pp. 65-83; and Paul S. Herrnson, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 4th ed., pp. 86-128.

    136.

    See Supreme Court of the United States, Order List, June 30, 2025, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063025zor_7647.pdf. The case is NRSC et al. v. FEC et al.

    137.

    On coordination and the three-part regulatory test for coordination, see, respectively 52 U.S.C. §30116 (previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)) and 11 C.F.R. §109.21. See also CRS Report R45320, Campaign Finance Law: An Analysis of Key Issues, Recent Developments, and Constitutional Considerations for Legislation, by L. Paige Whitaker.