.

Public Financing of Congressional
Campaigns: Overview and Analysis
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
January 25, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33814
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Summary
To critics, public campaign financing, generally in conjunction with spending limits, is the
ultimate solution to perceived problems arising from ever-growing costs of campaigns and the
accompanying need for privately donated campaign funds. Public financing supporters maintain
that replacing private funds with public money would most effectively reduce potentially
corrupting influence from “interested” money. On the other hand, opponents of public financing
question whether real or apparent corruption from private fundraising is as serious a problem as
critics claim. They also argue that public financing would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer
dollars and would compel taxpayers to fund candidates they find objectionable.
In the early 1970s, supporters succeeded in enacting public financing in presidential elections, a
system that has been available since 1976. In addition, many states and localities have provided
public financing in their elections since the 1970s (or before). Today, 16 states offer some form of
direct aid to candidates’ campaigns through fixed subsidies or matching funds. Perceptions about
the presidential and state public financing systems have shaped opinions about adding public
financing to congressional elections. Also shaping that debate was the Supreme Court’s landmark
1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down mandatory spending limits, but sanctioned
voluntary spending limits accompanying public financing.
Proposals for publicly funded congressional elections have been offered in almost every Congress
since 1956; the issue was prominently debated in the mid-1970s and the late 1980s through early
1990s. Proposals were passed twice by the Senate in the 93rd Congress and by both the House and
Senate in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Only the 102nd Congress proposal was reconciled
in conference but was vetoed by the President. In the 101st through 103rd Congresses, resistance to
public funding was sufficiently strong that the proposed role of public funds per se was reduced,
while broader public benefits (such as advertising vouchers) became more prominent. Other than
one hearing, no legislative activity occurred on five 110th Congress bills (H.R. 1614, H.R. 2817,
H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285) that would have extended public financing to congressional
elections.
Four bills introduced in the 111th Congress propose to publicly fund congressional campaigns.
Two of those bills would limit participating candidates’ spending, while two others would not.
H.R. 1826 and S. 752 (S. 751, a stand-alone financing bill, accompanies S. 752.) emphasize a mix
of base subsidies, matching funds, and broadcast vouchers. The bills would not limit participant
spending if funds were raised within proposed public financing limitations. These two bills have
been the focus of most legislative and public attention thus far during the 111th Congress. Two
other bills, H.R. 158 and H.R. 2056, propose different funding mechanisms; both would require
participating candidates to limit their spending.
This report reviews past proposals for and debate over congressional public financing. It also
discusses experiences with the presidential and state public financing systems. Finally, the report
offers potential considerations for Congress in devising a public financing system for its
elections. The report will be updated periodically, on the basis of congressional and state
activities.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of Report............................................................................................................... 1
What Has Happened Most Recently in Congress? ................................................................. 2
Underpinnings of Contemporary Congressional Debate......................................................... 2
Presidential System Since the 1970s: A Model ................................................................ 2
Linkage with Spending Limits......................................................................................... 3
Arguments Supporting and Opposing Public Financing: Brief Overview ............................... 4
Supporting ...................................................................................................................... 4
Opposing ........................................................................................................................ 5
Legislative Proposals for Public Financing of Congressional Elections ........................................ 6
Evolution During the Early 20th Century................................................................................ 7
First Public Finance Bills ................................................................................................ 9
1950s and 1960s ........................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Activity Since the Mid-1960s ....................................................................... 11
90th Congress (1967-1968) ............................................................................................ 11
92nd Congress (1971-1972)............................................................................................ 11
93rd Congress (1973-1974) ............................................................................................ 12
94th Congress (1975-1976) ............................................................................................ 13
95th Congress (1977-1978) ............................................................................................ 14
96th Congress (1979-1980) ............................................................................................ 15
97th-99th Congresses (1981-1986) .................................................................................. 15
100th Congress (1987-1988) .......................................................................................... 16
101st Congress (1989-1990)........................................................................................... 17
102nd Congress (1991-1992).......................................................................................... 18
103rd Congress (1993-1994) .......................................................................................... 19
104th-109th Congresses (1995-2007) .............................................................................. 20
110th Congress .............................................................................................................. 21
111th Congress............................................................................................................... 25
Devising a Congressional Public Finance System: Options for Policymakers....................... 26
Setting Expenditure Limits............................................................................................ 26
Coverage: General Elections Only or Primary Elections, Too?....................................... 27
Conditions for Receipt of Public Benefits...................................................................... 27
Qualifying Requirements .............................................................................................. 28
Public Funds: Matching Funds or Fixed Subsidies? ....................................................... 28
Public Benefits Other Than Direct Subsidies to Candidates ........................................... 28
Protecting Participants from Free-Spending Opponents and Outside Groups.................. 30
Other Disincentives Toward Non-Participation.............................................................. 30
Conditional Public Subsidies......................................................................................... 31
Paying for Public Financing .......................................................................................... 31
State Experiences with Public Financing ................................................................................... 32
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 32
Types of Public Financing ................................................................................................... 35
Eligibility and Conditions for Public Funding...................................................................... 36
Participation by Candidates ................................................................................................. 36
Impact of Public Financing in the States .............................................................................. 42
Money and Competition................................................................................................ 43
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Time Spent Fundraising ................................................................................................ 44
Diversity Among Candidates and Donors ...................................................................... 45
The Impact of Public Financing Efforts in Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine.................. 45
Public Opinion on Public Financing and Spending Limits ......................................................... 48
Potential Considerations for Congressional Public Financing..................................................... 50

Figures
Figure 1. States Offering Public Financing ................................................................................ 33
Figure 2. Types of Public Financing Offered in the States .......................................................... 35

Tables
Table 1. States Offering Public Financing to Statewide or Legislative Candidate
Campaigns ............................................................................................................................. 37
Table 2. Participation in Public Financing in Arizona (Legislative Candidates), 2000-2008........ 47
Table 3. Participation in Public Financing in Maine (Legislative Candidates), 2000-2008 .......... 48
Table A-1. Congressional Election Public Finance Bills Passed by House or Senate:
Summary of Provisions .......................................................................................................... 53

Appendixes
Appendix A. Public Finance Bills Passed by the House or Senate: 1973 -1993 .......................... 53
Appendix B. Public Finance Bills in the 109th Congress: Summary of Key Provisions ............... 63
Appendix C. Public Finance Bills in the 110th Congress: Summary of Key Provisions ............... 68
Appendix D. Public Finance Bills in the 111th Congress: Summary of Key Provisions ............... 77

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 84
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 84

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Introduction
Overview of Report
This first section provides the context for the debate on extending public financing to
congressional elections, beginning with a discussion of two major political realities that inform
that debate. The first is the presidential public financing system that has been in place since 1976
and has had mixed success in realizing the goals of its original sponsors. The second is the
interplay between the concepts of public financing and campaign spending limits, which are often
linked but which have very distinct characteristics; the 1976 landmark Supreme Court decision in
Buckley v. Valeo contributed to that linkage because of its allowance for only voluntary spending
limits, such as in conjunction with a public financing system. The section concludes with a
summary of arguments for and against public financing, arguments which have not changed in
essence over time but which have been shaped by the political realities noted above.
The second section provides a historical review of efforts in Congress to enact public financing of
its elections (although some attention is paid to presidential public financing as a precursor). The
section begins with a brief review of early congressional interest and activity in the 20th century,
followed by a more detailed Congress-by-Congress discussion beginning with the 90th Congress.
Special attention is paid to the two periods in which congressional activity on public financing
was the greatest: the Watergate-focused 93rd Congress and the 100th—103rd Congresses. Public
finance bills were passed by at least one chamber in those two periods, although the latter period
was marked by a move toward downplaying public funds per se in favor of the broader concept of
public benefits. The section concludes with a review of the major features of congressional
proposals, presented as policy options to choose from in devising a congressional public finance
system.
The third section examines the experience of the 16 states that provide some form of public
subsidies to candidates for state office. This section features a table (Table 1) detailing these
systems, and concludes with an analysis of the impact of public finance programs in the states.
The fourth section offers a discussion of public opinion data on support for public financing of
elections, as well as for the related idea of campaign spending limits. Public opinion is not as
extensive on these questions as in the 1970s, when the idea of public financing was particularly
prominent.
The final section reviews the experience from public finance systems at both the state and
presidential levels to offer some overarching observations for Congress possibly to consider in
devising a public finance system for its elections, should it choose to do so.
The report concludes with appendices to augment the information in the section on congressional
proposals. Appendix A is a table (Table A-1) providing details of the public finance (or benefits)
measures that have passed either chamber (from 1973 -1993); because they passed at least one
chamber, these bills are perhaps the most important for Congress to review before beginning a
fresher look at the idea. To allow a more contemporary look at how recent public finance
proposals have evolved, appendices provide detailed summaries of public financing legislation
introduced in recent congresses.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

What Has Happened Most Recently in Congress?
Four congressional public financing bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress.1 The first
bill introduced, H.R. 158 (Obey), would essentially mandate public financing during House
general elections by prohibiting candidate spending other than from a proposed public financing
fund, which would provide grants to candidates designed to cover full campaign costs. H.R. 158
is virtually identical to H.R. 2817, which Representative Obey introduced during the 110th
Congress. H.R. 2056 (Tierney), which would also require participants to limit spending, is
virtually identical to H.R. 1614 (Tierney), introduced in the 110th Congress. The Tierney bills
represent traditional “clean elections” approaches to public financing. They propose full public
financing for participating candidates, a “seed money” period in which candidates would
demonstrate viability by raising small start-up contributions, and additional funds for
participating candidates facing non-participating opponents or attacks by outside groups.
Two other bills, companion measures H.R. 1826 (Larson) and S. 752 (Durbin), have been the
focus of most public and legislative attention thus far. Both bills propose voluntary public
financing that provides a base subsidy, matching funds, and broadcast vouchers. Unlike most
public financing proposals, H.R. 1826 and S. 752 would not impose spending limits on
participants, provided that their private fundraising were limited to contributions of no more than
$100 (per election) from individuals. Additional discussion appears in the “111th Congress”
section and Appendix D of this report. On July 28, 2009, the Committee on House
Administration held a hearing on H.R. 1826. Many of the arguments supporting and opposing the
bill were typical of those that have long-shaped the debate over public financing, as discussed
throughout this report.
Underpinnings of Contemporary Congressional Debate
While public financing of congressional elections has been advocated for a century, contemporary
discussions of these proposals are informed by two basic political realities of the past 30 years.
First, the nation has had public financing in presidential elections since 1976. That system serves
both as a model for proposals to extend public financing to congressional elections and as a case
study of how a congressional system might and might not be structured. Second, in striking down
mandatory expenditure limits in 1976 while allowing voluntary limits in the context of a public
finance system, the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo2 ruling resulted in a closer linkage between
the distinct concepts of public subsidies for election campaigns and limitations on campaign
spending.
Presidential System Since the 1970s: A Model
Since 1976, public funds have helped finance presidential elections, with the level of funds
determined by a taxpayer designations on a voluntary checkoff. This system was established

1 For additional discussion of prospective issues for the 111th Congress and activity during the 110th Congress, see CRS
Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett;
and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th Congress, by
R. Sam Garrett.
2 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

initially under the Revenue Act of 19713 and augmented by the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) Amendments of 1974.4 Candidates who meet eligibility requirements and agree to
voluntary limits on campaign expenditures are eligible for matching funds in the primaries. In the
general election, major party candidates automatically qualify for full subsidies equal to the
spending limit; minor party and independent candidates may also qualify for public funds by
meeting specified criteria. Also, political parties may receive funding for their nominating
conventions. Additional discussion of the provisions and evolution of the presidential public
financing program appear in another CRS product.5
Linkage with Spending Limits
At the outset of any discussion on public financing proposals, it is important to address the
question of expenditure limits because, almost invariably, legislative proposals for public funding
are linked with candidates’ adherence to spending limits. (In fact, the absence of spending limits
in some 111th Congress public financing proposals marks a notable departure from most proposed
public financing programs.) Despite this common linkage, public financing and spending limits
are distinct concepts, with distinct potential benefits and drawbacks. Public financing of elections,
at its core, is aimed at reducing reliance by politicians on private, interested sources of money for
their elections. Expenditure limits are essentially aimed at curbing rising and, in the view of
many, excessive amounts of money spent on elections.
In fact, from the time public financing was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt in
1907 until the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1 (1976)), the impetus
for passage stemmed more from the concern over the source of campaign money than the overall
amount spent. In that landmark ruling, the Court struck down mandatory spending limits (such as
those imposed on congressional candidates by the FECA Amendments of 1974), but allowed that
in a voluntary system of public financing, it was permissible to require candidate adherence to
spending limits as a condition of a government-provided benefit (i.e., public funds).6 Hence,
spending limits in conjunction with public funding would be permissible because candidates
voluntarily accepted them. In light of the Buckley decision, the prevailing view among
policymakers has been that public financing offers the only realistic means of controlling
campaign expenditures in congressional elections, short of enacting a constitutional amendment
to allow mandatory limits (which Congress has refused to support on several occasions).
Finally, it should be noted that some of the goals sought in the public funding and spending limit
measures have been addressed in other legislation, which has been less sweeping yet often with
significant bipartisan support. Proposals to lower campaign costs, without spending limits, have
been prominent in Congress at least until enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 (BCRA). Bills to provide free or reduced-rate broadcast time and postal rates have sought to
reduce campaign costs and the need for money, without the possibly negative effects of arbitrary
limits. Bills to provide for tax credits for small individual contributions have sought to encourage

3 P.L. 92-178; 85 Stat. 573.
4 P.L. 93-443; 86 Stat. 3.
5 CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
6 Footnote 65 in Buckley stated: “Congress may engage in public financing of election campaigns and may condition
acceptance of public funds on an agreement by the candidate to abide by specified expenditure limitations. Just as a
candidate may voluntarily limit the size of the contributions he chooses to accept, he may decide to forego private
fundraising and accept public funding.”
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

a greater role for citizens vis-a-vis organized interest groups. These measures offer the potential
of realizing some of the aims of the more comprehensive measures but without some of the
perceived pitfalls.
Arguments Supporting and Opposing Public Financing: Brief
Overview
Supporting
A few major points are common arguments in favor of public financing. Supporters say that
public financing can reduce the threat of political corruption, enhance electoral competition, and
allow candidates to focus on issues rather than raising money. To many observers, the amount of
money spent in elections today is arguably corrupting the political system, forcing candidates and
officeholders to spend increasing amounts of time raising money, possibly creating pressure on
them to rely on affluent individuals and special interests for campaign assistance, conceivably
deterring candidates without personal fortunes from attempting to run for office, and leaving an
impression among some voters that elections are “bought and sold.” Accordingly, one of the most
prominent goals behind public financing is reducing the potential for corruption or the appearance
of corruption. As political scientists Donald A. Gross and Robert K. Goidel have explained,
“Public subsidies to candidates, whether in the form of direct grants or matching funds, are seen
as a way to minimize the undue influence and corruption often ascribed to contributors and
partisan fundraising.”7 Many former lawmakers, interest group representatives, political
professionals, and academic experts submitted written testimony for the McConnell v.
FEC lawsuit heard by a U.S. District Court and the Supreme Court of the United States in their
consideration of BCRA. Some of this testimony included empirical analysis of claims about
potentially corrupting influences from private money in campaign politics and related issues.8
Other public financing goals relate to electoral competition. Public financing provides
candidates—regardless of personal wealth—with financial resources to wage campaigns.9 This
allows candidates who might not otherwise run for office to do so. As is noted in the discussion of
states’ experiences with public financing, most programs require that candidates demonstrate
political viability before being eligible for funds. If more candidates have access to funds,
supporters say that electoral competition should increase.
Finally, public financing is attractive to some because it is one of the few constitutional ways to
limit campaign spending—a major concern among campaign reformers. Although the Supreme
Court’s 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling held that campaign spending generally could not be
subjected to mandatory limits, candidates could be required to limit spending in exchange for
receiving public funding. As is discussed elsewhere in this report, some public financing
systems—including the presidential one—are today in jeopardy because major candidates fear

7 Donald A. Gross and Robert K. Goidel, The States of Campaign Finance Reform (Columbus, OH: The Ohio State
University Press, 2003), p. 10.
8 For an overview of some of this testimony, representing support for and opposition to BCRA, see Anthony Corrado,
Thomas E. Mann, and Trevor Potter, eds., Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms
(Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003).
9 See, for example, Anthony Gierzynski, “A Framework for the Study of Campaign Finance,” in Joel A. Thompson and
Gary F. Moncrief, eds., Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections (Washington: CQ Press, 1998), p. 21.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

that observing spending limits associated with public financing will preclude them from spending
enough money to wage competitive campaigns.
Opposing
Objections to public financing are also varied. Many are rooted in philosophical opposition to
funding elections with taxpayer money, compelling taxpayers to support candidates whose views
are antithetical to theirs, and adding another government program in the face of some cynicism
toward government spending. Opponents also raise administrative concerns: how can a system be
devised that accounts for different natures of districts and states, with different styles of
campaigning and disparate media costs, and is fair to all candidates—incumbent, challenger, or
open-seat, major or minor party, serious or “longshot”? Similarly, opponents assert that public
financing could distort elections by imposing the same system on 50 different states with different
degrees of competitiveness in individual races and by providing even greater advantages to
incumbents than already exist, thereby decreasing the competitiveness of elections. In view of the
relatively low rate of participation in the voluntary checkoff for the existing presidential system,
they see little evidence that the public would favor such a plan.
Some public financing opponents believe that government-funded campaign subsides amount to
“welfare for politicians,”10 and are an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.11 These opponents
argue that public financing could coerce candidates into limiting their campaign spending—
viewed as a form of political speech—in exchange for funding, or that it could force taxpayers to
indirectly fund campaign messages they might find objectionable. On a related note, opponents
suggest that public financing could waste taxpayer money on “fringe” candidates who represent
political views that may be far outside the mainstream and who have little chance of winning
elections.12
In response to arguments that public funding is necessary to limit campaign expenditures, those
opposed to public financing often argue that campaign spending is not high, especially compared
with commercial advertising budgets or spending on consumer goods.13 They argue that worthy
candidates will win public support without government intervention via public financing. Some
researchers also suggest that concerns about rising campaign costs are overstated, and that most
campaign fundraising comes from individuals who give less than the legal limit.14
Finally, opponents of public financing sometimes argue that proponents fail to sufficiently
support their arguments in favor of public financing, relying instead on the “self-evidence” of its
appeal.15 For example, although the appearance of corruption or potential corruption is a common
argument in favor of public financing, political scientists Jeffrey Milyo and David Primo have

10 John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns (Washington: Cato Institute, 2005).
11 See, for example, Thomas M. Finneran, “The Case Against Taxpayer Financing: A View From Massachusetts,” in
John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? pp. 23-30.
12 See, for example, Chip Mellor, “Three Lessons from Arizona,” in John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? p. 38.
13 See, for example, Ruth Marcus, “Costliest Race Nears End; Bush, Gore Running Close; U.S. Campaigns Fuel $3
Billion In Spending,” Washington Post, November 6, 2000, p. A1.
14 See, for example, Stephen Ansolabehere, John M. de Figueiredo, and James M. Snyder Jr., “Why is There so Little
Money in U.S. Politics?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 17, no. 1 (winter 2003), pp. 105-130.
15 Jeffrey Milyo and David Primo, “Reform without Reason? The Scientific Method and Campaign Finance,” in
Welfare for Politicians? pp. 197-211.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

found that scholarly research on the topic is limited or anecdotal. The same, they say, is true for
fears about declining trust in government and declining voter turnout, which some contend could
be buoyed by public financing.16
Legislative Proposals for Public Financing of
Congressional Elections
While the idea of public financing of federal elections was first proposed in 1907, it was not until
the 1950s that bills were first introduced in Congress to implement such a plan. Since that time,
legislative proposals have been offered in nearly every Congress, while the extent of legislative
activity around the issue has varied according to the political climate and circumstances. In two
very active periods, bills to extend public financing to congressional elections have passed one or
both houses but were never enacted.
In the first period, during the 93rd Congress (1973-1974), the Senate twice passed bills for public
funding in congressional elections, widely seen as a response to the unfolding Watergate
scandal.17 In 1973, a bill was passed providing full subsidies (equal to mandatory spending limits)
to major party candidates in House and Senate general elections. In 1974, a bill was passed
providing matching funds in House and Senate primaries and full subsidies (equal to the
voluntary spending limits) to major party candidates in House and Senate general elections. Both
provisions were later deleted in conference, in view of some strong opposition in the House.
In the second period, the 100th through 103rd Congresses (1987-1993), the House and Senate
spent considerable amounts of time debating bills that featured the twin ideas of voluntary
spending limits and public financing. In the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses, both chambers
actually passed such bills; the 102nd Congress bill was vetoed by President George H.W. Bush,
but the bills in the other two Congresses were never reconciled in conference.
In contrast to the first period, when one of the Senate-passed bills covered both primary and
general elections, bills in the second period offered benefits only for general election candidates.
More broadly, efforts in the more recent period reflected a move toward paring down the level of
public treasury funds going to campaigns, in light of a less favorable political climate. The
emphasis in this second period shifted from public funds per se to public benefits. Public benefits
were those either financed with public resources—whether directly, as with public subsidies, or
indirectly, as with revenue forgone from tax incentives or postal discounts—or mandated by
government action, such as requirements for reduced broadcast rates, at no cost to the U.S.
Treasury. The common element was that they all constituted incentives to participation in a
voluntary system based on campaign spending limits.

16 Ibid.
17 Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York:
Praeger, 1988), pp. 42-51; Frank J. Sorauf, Inside Campaign Finance: Myths and Realities (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1992), pp. 7-9.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Evolution During the Early 20th Century
The earliest suggestion to Congress of public subsidies for election campaigns was apparently
made by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 in his annual message to Congress. Roosevelt
saw reforms such as requiring disclosure and prohibiting corporate contributions as worthwhile
but difficult to enforce and inadequate in deterring “an unscrupulous man of unlimited means
from buying his own way into office.” He suggested an admittedly radical approach of providing
ample appropriations to the major national political parties to fund their “organization and
machinery.” Parties receiving federal monies were to be limited to a fixed amount that could be
raised from individual contributors, all of which would be disclosed to the public. It is unclear
from the text of his message (the relevant portion of which is reprinted below) whether Roosevelt
intended this plan to be limited to presidential, as opposed to all federal, campaigns. At the time,
given the political parties’ central role in financing all election campaigns, the distinction may not
have been as great as it would be today, when candidates take the lead role in financing their
campaigns. In any case, the section of the message was titled “Presidential Campaign Expenses.”
Under our form of government voting is not merely a right but a duty, and, moreover, a
fundamental and necessary duty if a man is to be a good citizen. It is well to provide that
corporations shall not contribute to Presidential or National campaigns, and furthermore to
provide for the publication of both contributions and expenditures. There is, however, always
danger in laws of this kind, which from their very nature are difficult of enforcement; the
danger being lest they be obeyed only by the honest, and disobeyed by the unscrupulous, so
as to act only as a penalty upon honest men. Moreover, no such law would hamper an
unscrupulous man of unlimited means from buying his own way into office. There is a very
radical measure which would, I believe, work a substantial improvement in our system of
conducting a campaign, although I am well aware that it will take some time for people so to
familiarize themselves with such a proposal as to be willing to consider its adoption. The
need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an
appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an
appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery,
which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no
party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount
from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and
expenditures could without difficulty be provided.18
Roosevelt was not exaggerating when he commented that it would take “some time” for people to
familiarize themselves with such a proposal.
From the mid-1920s through the 1970s, select and special committees had been established by
every Congress (predominantly on the Senate side) to investigate campaign expenditures—
presidential or congressional—in recent elections. Reports issued at the conclusion of the work of
these committees often included recommendations designed to correct shortcomings perceived in
existing campaign finance practices. In 1937, during the 75th Congress, the report of the Senate’s
Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of Presidential, Vice Presidential, and
Senatorial Candidates in 1936 was released. Included in its section of recommendations was a
proposal for public funding of all federal elections, which the committee passed along without
judgment as to its merits. All private contributions were to be prohibited under this plan. Under
recommendation no. 9, the report said,

18 Theodore Roosevelt, “Annual Message of the President of the United States,” Congressional Record, vol. 42,
December 3, 1907, p. 78.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

It has been suggested that private contributions to political campaigns be prohibited entirely
and that instead all election campaign expenses should be defrayed from public funds.19
Congress apparently took no action on this proposal.
Interest in public funding of political campaigns has often been aroused by allegations of
unethical conduct by public officials for accepting particular campaign contributions. Such was
the case on July 6, 1949, when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., introduced a resolution to
commission a study by the Committee on Rules and Administration on the mechanics of
establishing a system of public funding of presidential campaigns. In introducing his resolution,
Lodge responded to rumors government corruption.20 The resolution—S.Res. 132—read as
follows:
Resolved. That the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized and
directed to make a full and complete study and investigation for the purpose of obtaining
such information with respect to the problems involved in financing with governmental
funds presidential election campaigns in the United States as may be necessary to enable the
committee to formulate and report at the earliest practicable date a bill providing for such
method of financing presidential election campaigns. 21
Lodge’s support for this concept, the details of which he envisioned coming out of a
congressional study, was summed up in this excerpt from his floor statement:
All this talk of an “office market,” and of putting high executive and diplomatic positions on
the auction block—all this breeding of suspicion and cynicism would disappear, I believe,
overnight if the primary cause of the evil were obliterated at its root. If no private individual
or officer of a corporation were permitted by statute to contribute one cent to a presidential
campaign there would be a far cleaner atmosphere surrounding political appointments, and
this would encourage public-spirited men holding public office. If there are no bidders, there
can be no auction.22
Lodge acknowledged that the same principle could also be applied to other offices, but he was
limiting his suggestion to presidential races because of the enormous number of appointments to
public office at the President’s disposal. Apparently the type of corruption which motivated
Lodge in S.Res. 132 was the selling of government positions rather than the broader notion of
trading influence or access on policy questions for campaign contributions. A concern over the
latter possibility would be a likely prerequisite for any proposal for public financing of
congressional campaigns. No action was taken on S.Res. 132 by the Committee on Rules and
Administration.

19 U.S. Congress, Senate Special Committee to Investigate Campaign Expenditures of Presidential, Vice Presidential,
and Senatorial Candidates in 1936, Investigation of Campaign Expenditures in 1936, report pursuant to S.Res. 225 (74th
Cong.) and S.Res. 7 (75th Cong.), 75th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 75-151 (Washington: GPO, 1937).
20 Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts, p. 36.
21 Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., “Investigation of Problems Involved in Federal Financing of Presidential Election
Campaigns,” Congressional Record, vol. 95, July 6, 1949, p. 8888.
22 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

First Public Finance Bills
During the 84th Congress, the name of Theodore Roosevelt was invoked when the first public
funding bills were introduced in Congress, almost 50 years after being suggested by Roosevelt.
On February 20, 1956, Senator Richard Neuberger introduced S. 3242, to provide for direct
public subsidies for all major party campaigns for federal office, co-sponsored initially by
Senators Wayne Morse, James Murray, Paul Douglas, John Sparkman, and Mike Mansfield. The
identical bill was submitted two days later in the House as H.R. 9488 by Representative Frank
Thompson. “Sometimes I call my bill the Teddy Roosevelt bill, because of its origin,” observed
Neuberger;23 Thompson commented that the bill could “appropriately, enough, I think be called
the Theodore Roosevelt Campaign Contributions Act of 1956.”24
Neuberger, who quickly became identified as the chief congressional proponent of public
financing at the time,25 declared that S. 3242 was “the most far-reaching bill ever proposed to
strike loose the financial fetters from our democratic processes of government.”26 The final
impetus for the bill was the recent revelation of a large campaign contribution offered to a
Senator by an oil company during debate on removing federal controls from natural gas prices.
The alleged bribery attempt contributed to Neuberger’s view that,
These contributions, in my opinion, have become an unbearable yoke to many of the men
who must accept them. They even have become onerous and objectionable to the individuals
who parcel out such contributions.27
Neuberger based his proposal on the belief that the system of raising campaign funds from private
sources hampered the independence of public officials, created doubts among the public about the
integrity of the government, and created an inequality in gaining access to voters by various
candidates. He continued in his statement to articulate what would remain the major motivation
for later advocates of publicly financed elections:
An undemocratic element is introduced when one nominee can eclipse his opponent not
because of superiority of ability or of his policies, but merely through a preponderance of
coin of the realm28.... We would not dream of permitting our Presidents or our Senators and
Representatives to draw their pay from a private payroll or in the form of private
contributions; they get paid by the public for whom they act. Why, then, leave their
campaigns for these offices to be lavishly financed from private sources?29
Neuberger’s bill provided for the allotment of federal funds to the major political parties, to be
used for campaign expenditures of its candidates for federal office. (In the 1950s, election

23 Richard Neuberger, “Federal Campaign Contributions to Relieve Officeholders of Private Obligations,”
Congressional Record, vol. 102, February 20, 1956, p. 2855.
24 Frank Thompson, “Principle of Campaign Contributions by the Federal Government Supported by Theodore
Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and David Lawrence,” Extensions of Remarks, Congressional Record, vol. 102,
March 6, 1956, p. 4105.
25 Alexander Heard, The Costs of Democracy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), p. 434.
26 Richard Neuberger, “Federal Campaign Contributions to Relieve Officeholders of Private Obligations,”
Congressional Record, vol. 102, February 20, 1956, p. 2854.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., p. 2857.
29 Ibid., p. 2858.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

financing was still substantially conducted by the parties, in contrast with today, when party
support is considered ancillary to the expenditures of the candidates themselves.) A major party
was defined as one which received at least 10% of the vote in the previous national election. The
total federal contribution for a two-year period would be determined by multiplying 20 cents by
the average number of votes cast in the previous two presidential elections (for presidential
election years) and 15 cents by the average number of votes cast in the previous two House
elections (for non-presidential election years). The system would be conducted on a voluntary
basis and would allow for parties to accept donations from private sources, provided that no
individual’s contribution exceeded $100 and that the total raised from these sources did not
exceed the total federal donation. The term “matching funds” was used by Neuberger to describe
the system, but it differed from the present system of matching funds in presidential primaries in
that the federal subsidy in the latter case is determined by the amount raised privately; in the
Neuberger proposal, the amount that could be raised privately was to be determined by how much
the federal subsidy would be. The proposed system was to be administered by a Federal
Campaign Contributions Board, to include an administrator and one representative from each
major party.
1950s and 1960s
During the 1950s and 1960s, Congress turned its attention to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act,30
the law governing campaign financing since 1925, and to its perceived inadequacies both in
limiting amounts of money raised and spent in elections and in promoting transparency.
Numerous hearings were held and bills introduced aimed at improving the nation’s campaign
finance laws generally. A few bills providing direct public financing were introduced in nearly
every Congress since the 84th Congress (1955-1956), but most of these were proposed and
supported by a small minority of Members. A greater number of proposals, in this period,
however, did include indirect public financing of elections, in the form of tax credits and
deductions.
In 1962, a report was released by the President’s Commission on Campaign Costs, established the
previous year by President John F. Kennedy to make recommendations for improving campaign
finance practices and laws.31 While the report was ostensibly focused on presidential elections, its
findings were more broadly applicable to all federal elections because of the extent to which the
political parties were at that time the major financiers of all federal campaigns. Its
recommendations, which included tax incentives to encourage individual donations to political
parties, did not include the proposal urged on it by many for direct public subsidies. Rather, the
commission expressed concern for public financing’s potential to discourage citizen participation
in campaigns, to redistribute power arbitrarily within the parties, to encourage fraud, and to be
administered unfairly. However, the commission expressed interest in a “matching incentive
system,” whereby small individual donations to parties would be equally matched with U.S.
Treasury funds. Such a system found favor with the commission because the amount of subsidy
would be determined not by governmental action but by “private voluntary action.”32 The 1962
commission report thus advanced the concept of direct government subsidies of campaigns for
federal office.

30 43 Stat. 1070.
31 U.S. President’s Commission on Campaign Costs, Financing Presidential Elections; Report (Washington: GPO,
1964).
32 Ibid., p. 31-32.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

In 1966, Congress took its first step toward public subsidies in federal elections when it enacted
the Presidential Campaign Fund Act, providing public subsidies to major political parties for their
presidential campaigns. The proposal, sponsored by Senator Russell Long (and which he initially
introduced as S. 3469), was added by the Senate Finance Committee as an amendment to H.R.
13103, the Foreign Investors Tax Act. The act was signed into law November 13, 1966, by
President Johnson, as P.L. 89-809. The following year, amidst congressional pressure to repeal the
act, an amendment was added to the Investment Tax Credit bill (H.R. 6950) to make the act
inoperative until Congress provided written guidelines on how the funds were to be distributed.
With approval of the bill as P.L. 90-26, the Presidential Campaign Fund Act was effectively killed
before it was ever implemented.
Congressional Activity Since the Mid-1960s
90th Congress (1967-1968)
In the 90th Congress, the first public finance bill that covered congressional elections was reported
from committee. As reported by the Senate Finance Committee,33 H.R. 4890, the Honest
Elections Act of 1967, provided for optional public financing for general election campaigns of
presidential, vice presidential, and senatorial candidates (the committee left the extension of the
system to House elections to that body). The system was based on permanent appropriations of
the funding necessary, with the stipulation that no private funds could be raised from 60 days
before to 30 days after the general election. Funds were to be provided directly to candidates, not
through the parties, as earlier bills had done, perhaps in recognition of the onset of candidacies in
the 1960s that were more independent of the party structure. The bill was opposed by the
committee’s six Republican members, who protested its financial burden to taxpayers and its
unfairness to taxpayers who were thus forced to support candidates they opposed. The measure
never came to the Senate for a vote.
92nd Congress (1971-1972)
The 92nd Congress marked a milestone in the federal government’s evolving role in election
finance, with enactment of FECA to replace the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 as the nation’s
chief statute governing campaign finance and also the enactment of public financing in
presidential general elections. The latter was added as a floor amendment by Senator John Pastore
during Senate consideration of the Revenue Act of 1971. It set up the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund, financed through a $1 tax checkoff (as was first enacted in 1966), to fund
presidential general election campaigns. The Pastore amendment also included tax credits and
deductions for political contributions, an indirect form of public financing. The amendment
survived Senate debate and the House-Senate conference; the underlying legislation survived a
veto threat by President Nixon by delaying implementation of the public finance system to the
1976 election. The Revenue Act of 1971 was signed into law December 10, 1971 (P.L. 92-178).

33 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Honest Elections Act of 1967, etc., report to accompany H.R. 4890,
S.Rept. 90-714, 90th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1967).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

93rd Congress (1973-1974)
In the 93rd Congress, public financing of elections became a major and continuing issue before
Congress for the first time, largely in response to the Watergate scandal unfolding in 1973 and
1974. To the extent that large and unaccountable sums of campaign money seemed to be
connected to the scandal, many Members came to see the newly enacted FECA of 1971, which
essentially required uniform disclosure of campaign money, as inadequate in preventing the kinds
of abuses then being uncovered. In addition, public financing of presidential elections was not
due to begin until 1976. Those focusing on campaign finance law amendments came to center on
the ideas of limits on contributions and expenditures, and on extending public financing to
congressional elections. Some 76 bills were introduced in the House and Senate to provide direct
subsidies in congressional elections; in the House, more than 140 Members cosponsored such
bills.
In July 1973, public finance supporters, led by Senators Edward Kennedy and Hugh Scott, tried
to add congressional public funding to the 1973 FECA Amendments. The Kennedy-Scott
amendment (no. 406) to S. 372 would have provided public subsidies in House and Senate
general elections, with major party candidates eligible for a subsidy equal to the proposed
spending limit. The amendment was tabled on a 53-38 vote.34
Later in 1973, the Senate passed public financing of congressional elections, the first time either
chamber had ever done so. It took the form of amendment no. 651, offered by Senators Kennedy,
Scott, and others, to H.R. 11104, the Public Debt Ceiling bill. As added on the Senate floor by a
52-40 vote, the amendment provided for mandatory public financing in House and Senate general
elections.35 Major party House candidates were eligible to receive the greater of 15 cents per
eligible voter, or $90,000; major party Senate candidates were eligible for the greater of 15 cents
per eligible voter, or $175,000; private contributions were essentially eliminated in the general
election (minor party candidates were eligible for funding based on their parties’ vote share in the
previous election). H.R. 11104, as amended, passed the Senate that day by a 58-34 vote.36 This
provision was removed, however, when the House refused to accept the Senate amendments.37 A
leadership agreement resulted in the matter being dropped from the public debt limit bill and
killing the issue for the first session of the 93rd Congress.38 see Appendix A for details on this
measure.)
By 1974, after a year of the unfolding Watergate scandal, support for public financing of elections
was growing in Congress. In February 1974, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee
reported a new version of the FECA Amendments (in lieu of S. 372), which included public
funding in presidential and congressional primary and general elections.39 As reported with only

34 “Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1973,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol.
119, July 26, 1973, p. 26115.
35 “Temporary Increase in Public Debt Limit,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 119,
November 27, 1973, p. 38231.
36 Ibid., p. 38240.
37 “Disagreeing to Senate Amendments to H.R. 11104, Public Debt Limit,” Debate and Vote in the House,
Congressional Record, vol. 119, November 29, 1973, p. 38680.
38 Senate Twice Votes Campaign Financing Reform, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1973 (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1974), vol. 29, p. 754.
39 General election funding in presidential elections had been enacted by the Revenue Act of 1971, but the formula was
changed in this legislation.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

one dissenting vote, S. 3044 created a system for all federal elections, which is still in place in
presidential elections: a voluntary system, with matching funds in the primaries and a fixed
subsidy in the general election, all funded from the checkoff on federal tax returns.40 The
committee report expressed the view then in ascendancy about the need for public funding:
The only way in which Congress can eliminate reliance on large private contributions and
still ensure adequate presentation to the electorate of competing candidates is through
comprehensive public financing.... The election of federal officials is not a private affair. It is
the foundation of our government. As Senator Mansfield recently observed, it is now clear
that “we shall not finally come to grips with the problems except as we are prepared to pay
for the public business of elections with public funds.”41
Senate debate on S. 3044 lasted for 13 days, in which proponents were able to defeat four
amendments to drop public financing completely, two amendments to reduce the level of public
funds, one amendment to reduce funding to incumbents by 30%, and one amendment to add three
free mass mailings to general election candidates. The Senate passed S. 3044 on April 11, 1974,
by a 53-32 vote,42 following a second, and successful, vote to invoke cloture. (See Appendix A
for details on this measure.)
Public financing of congressional elections, however, was not included in the House
Administration Committee’s reported version of the 1974 FECA Amendments, H.R. 16090.
Supporters, led by Representatives John Anderson and Morris Udall, attempted to add a voluntary
matching system for House and Senate general elections, but their amendment to H.R. 16090 was
defeated by a 187-228 vote.43 Public financing of congressional elections was a particularly
contentious issue in the House-Senate conference on S. 3044, but ultimately it was dropped,
while the presidential public financing provisions were left intact. That bill did, however, leave
spending limits (without public funding) in place for congressional elections, at different levels
than in S. 3044 initially: $70,000 for House primaries and general elections, the greater of eight
cents per eligible voter, or $100,000, in Senate primaries, and the greater of 12 cents per eligible
voter, or $150,000, in Senate general elections.44 Also, limits on spending from personal and
family resources were imposed on House candidates ($25,000) and Senate candidates
($35,000).45
94th Congress (1975-1976)
Activity on behalf of public financing of congressional elections subsided considerably after the
93rd Congress, which had seen particularly strong momentum for governmental and electoral
reforms as the Watergate scandal was unfolding. Public finance supporters did, however, make
several unsuccessful attempts to revive the issue in the 94th through 96th Congresses.

40 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of
1974, report to accompany S. 3044, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 93-689 (Washington: GPO, 1974).
41 Ibid., p. 4-5.
42 “Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol.
120, April 11, 1974, p. 10952.
43 “Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974,” Debate and Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol.
120, August 8, 1974, p. 27490.
44 Those spending limits were declared unconstitutional by Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
45 P.L. 93-443.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

During consideration of the FECA Amendments of 1976 in the 94th Congress, Senate supporters
of public financing failed to get congressional public financing included in the bill reported by the
Rules and Administration Committee (S. 3065). House supporters, led by Representative Phil
Burton, offered a floor amendment to the FECA Amendments (H.R. 12406), providing for
matching funds in House and Senate general elections; the amendment failed on a 121-274 vote.46
95th Congress (1977-1978)
The 95th Congress began auspiciously for public finance supporters with the announced support
of House Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, with the
elevation of public finance supporter Frank Thompson to House Administration chairman, and
with a series of election reform measures, including public financing of congressional elections,
by President Jimmy Carter.
The Senate Rules and Administration Committee considered S. 926, which, as introduced by
Senators Kennedy, Dick Clark, Alan Cranston, Charles Mathias, and Russell Schweicker,
proposed matching funds in Senate primaries and a combination of subsidies and matching funds
in Senate general elections. The reported version of S. 926, however, deleted funding for primary
elections, as suggested by sponsors, in order to increase chances for passage in the House.47
Opposition to public financing was strong enough to force three cloture votes to limit debate on
S. 926. After the final cloture vote failed, the Senate voted 58-39 for an amendment by Senator
James Allen to delete public financing of Senate general elections.48
The new House leadership support led to six days of House Administration Committee hearings
on public financing of congressional elections, although no consensus developed over what
approach to choose.49 An attempt to report a bill for partial public funding of House general
elections failed in October 1977, after approval of two amendments offered by public finance
opponents which added to the costs of the system and were seen as making the bill more difficult
to pass (one extended funding to primaries; the other extended funding to all candidates who met
a contribution threshold). Following adoption of these amendments, Chairman Thompson
discontinued the markup, saying the votes were lacking to report a measure.50
On two occasions during the second session of the 95th Congress, the House narrowly defeated
rules to allow consideration of public finance measures. An amendment to H.R. 11315, intended
as a non-controversial set of amendments to federal campaign finance law, was offered in March
1978 by Representatives Thomas Foley and Barber Conable, proposing a matching fund system
in House general elections. The underlying bill became embroiled in controversy, however, thus
poisoning the atmosphere for House consideration of the public finance amendment as well.51

46 “Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976,” Debate and Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol.
122, April 1, 1976, p. 9096.
47 “Public Financing,” CQ Almanac: 95th Congress, 1st Session, 1977 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.,
1978), vol. 33, p. 805.
48 “Public Financing of Senate Elections,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 123, August 2,
1977, pp. 26022-26023.
49 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Public Financing of Congressional Elections, hearings,
95th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 19; June 21, 23, 28; July 12, 1977 (Washington: GPO, 1977).
50 “Public Financing,” CQ Almanac, 1977, pp. 807-808.
51 Rhodes Cook, “Bill Lowering Spending Levels Reported,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports, vol. 36, March
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

The open rule, allowing for consideration of the Foley-Conable amendment, was defeated on a
198-209 vote on March 21, 1978.52 Included in those voting against the rule were some 25
Republicans who had reportedly committed to voting for the public finance amendment.53
A second effort by public finance supporters came with a proposed amendment to the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) authorization bill for FY1979 (H.R. 11983). The amendment, similar
to the one offered in March 1978, was offered by Representatives Foley, Conable, Anderson, and
Abner Mikva. In contrast with the situation in March, the reported rule was a closed one, thus
prohibiting amendments on the floor. An effort to defeat the proposed rule was made by public
finance supporters, but it failed on a 213-196 vote on July 19, 1978.54 That vote, which observers
saw as reflecting congressional sentiment on public financing, ended consideration of the issue
for the 95th Congress.
96th Congress (1979-1980)
As the 96th Congress began, the House leadership accorded the efforts of public finance
advocates—led by Representatives Foley, Conable, Anderson, Udall, Mikva, and Tim Wirth—
priority status by designating their proposal H.R. 1. Similar to the failed amendments of the 95th
Congress, the bill provided for matching funds in House general elections, in conjunction with
voluntary spending limits. The House Administration Committee held five days of hearings in
March 1979 on this and other public finance bills.55 On May 24, 1979, despite efforts by
supporters to gain more support, the bill failed to be reported, on a 8-17 vote.56 With that vote, the
momentum for extending public financing to congressional elections that had begun in the 93rd
Congress came to an end.
97th-99th Congresses (1981-1986)
While public financing remained an objective for many in Congress and bills continued to be
introduced, the 97th through 99th Congresses saw no concerted effort in pursuit of this goal. In
part, this reflected a changed political environment, with Senate control during this period (1981-
1987) shifting to Republicans, generally less supportive of public financing than Democrats, and
with frustration over the failure to enact public financing in the 93rd through 96th Congresses.
Those advocating campaign finance reform set their sights on a less sweeping goal during the
1980s, and much of the 1990s: restricting the growing role of political action committees (PACs),
the political agents of interest groups, in the financing of congressional elections. Like public
financing, curbs on PACs were intended to lessen the importance of money, particularly

(...continued)
18, 1978, p. 718.
52 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 11315, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1978,” Debate and
Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 124, March 21, 1978, pp. 7879-7880.
53 “Public Financing, Campaign Spending Bills,” CQ Almanac: 95th Congress, 2nd Session, 1978 (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1979), vol. 34, p. 771.
54 “Providing for Consideration of H.R. 11983, Federal Election Commission Authorization, Fiscal Year 1979,” Debate
and Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 124, July 19, 1978, p. 21715.
55 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, Public Financing of Congressional Elections, hearings
on H.R. 1 and related legislation, 96th Cong., 1st sess., March 15, 20-22, 27, 1979 (Washington: GPO, 1979).
56 “Public Campaign Funds,” CQ Almanac: 96th Congress, 1st Session, 1979 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly,
Inc., 1980), vol. 35, pp. 553-556.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

“interested” money, in elections. Unlike public financing, restrictions on PACs did not involve the
highly controversial issue of using tax revenues to fund campaigns and the invariably associated
goal of limits on campaign spending. But, despite 19 days of hearings in the 97th through 99th
Congresses, partisan stalemate on the PAC issue kept any major campaign finance bills from floor
votes.57
100th Congress (1987-1988)
The political environment again shifted in the 100th Congress, with a Democratic majority in the
Senate following the 1986 elections. With this change, the goal of campaign reform advocates
quickly extended from curbs on PACs to their longer-standing objective of public financing and
campaign spending limits in congressional elections. The twin ideas of voluntary spending limits
and participation incentives in the form of public funds or some form of cost-saving benefits
became the cornerstone of the leading reform proposals through the 105th Congress.
On the first day of the 100th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd joined Senator David
Boren in cosponsoring S. 2, which became the focus of reform efforts and eventually gained 50
additional cosponsors. As reported by the Rules and Administration Committee, the bill featured
public funding for Senate general election candidates who agreed to spending limits (in both their
primary and general election campaigns) and aggregate PAC receipts limits for House and Senate
candidates.58 The public funding amount for major party candidates was equal to 80% of the
state’s spending limit for the general election. The measure was brought to the floor in June 1987,
in the face of strong Republican opposition and the stated intention of opponents to filibuster the
measure. After a failed vote to invoke cloture, sponsors of S. 2 offered an amendment to change
the public funding component from a full subsidy for major party candidates to a matching fund
system, thereby reducing in half the cost of the subsidy (and changing the expenditure limit
formula as well). Opponents were not mollified, and four successive cloture votes in June 1987
also failed.
Sponsors made yet another attempt to scale back the public funds component of the bill, in an
effort to gain the needed votes to overcome the filibuster. The second substitute amendment
provided subsidies only to those whose opponents exceeded the voluntary limits, as both a
disincentive to the large spender and as a means of “leveling the playing field.” In addition, the
substitute offered lower postal and broadcast rates to candidates who agreed to abide by the
voluntary spending limits, both as an incentive to participation in the system and as a means of
curbing campaign costs. This change also proved insufficient to ameliorate the opposition, and,
following three additional failed cloture votes, the measure was pulled from further consideration
in February 1988.59

57 This changed late in the 99th Congress, on August 12, 1986, when the Senate passed the Boren-Goldwater
amendment to curb PACs, although no further action was taken.
58 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senatorial Election Campaign Act of 1987, report to
accompany S. 2, 100th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 100-58 (Washington: GPO, 1987).
59 Between June 3, 1987, and February 26, 1988, eight unsuccessful cloture votes occurred on June 9, 16, 17, 18, 19,
September 10, 15, 1987, and February 26, 1988.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

101st Congress (1989-1990)
House and Senate leaders offered and enabled passage of bills featuring spending limits and
public benefits (the concept of public financing per se became broadened to public benefits as
Members sought ways to reduce the level of direct treasury funding to campaigns). The Senate
Rules and Administration Committee reported S. 137 (Boren-Mitchell), based on the final version
of S. 2 in the 100th Congress, with spending limits, public benefits, and a PAC receipts cap.60 A
substitute was offered May 11, 1990, reflecting several features aimed at increasing support for a
public benefits and spending limits system. Public funds per se, in the form of direct cash
payments to candidates, were to be triggered only on a contingency basis, to compensate
participating candidates against free-spending opponents and independent expenditures against
them (or for their opponents). The principal subsidy for all participants was to take the form of
broadcast communication vouchers, whereby broadcasters would be reimbursed with federal
funds but no funds would be transmitted directly to candidates. The other benefits were a reduced
broadcast rate, through requiring the lowest unit rate be made available only to participating
candidates (and making such time not subject to preemption), and a reduced postal rate; neither of
these benefits involved direct payments to candidates although the postal benefit did involve
revenue loss to the U.S. Postal Service. Even the spending limits, based on the same population-
based formula as was used in the 100th Congress bill, were adjusted as a means of increasing
Senate support, with the provision for an additional 25% in allowable spending from small in-
state donors.
Senate debate began July 30, 1990, and encompassed 16 roll-call votes on amendments, including
one by Senator Mitch McConnell to strike public funds entirely (defeated by 46-49)61 and another
by Senator John Kerry to greatly increase the level of public funds (defeated by 38-60).62 On
August 1, 1990, the Senate passed S. 137 on a 59-40 vote, with five Republicans for and only one
Democrat against. It featured voluntary Senate spending limits, communication vouchers, postal
and broadcast discounts, and subsidies to match independent expenditures and wealthy
opponents, plus other campaign finance provisions.63 (See Appendix A for details on this
measure.)
In the House, the Democratic leadership offered a measure which went even further than the
Senate bill in reducing the role of public funds as an incentive to adhering to spending limits. In
exchange for agreeing to spending limits, which were set at $550,000 for a two-year election
cycle (and an additional $165,000 in the case of a nominee who won a competitive primary), H.R.
5400 (Swift) offered House general election candidates three benefits, none of which involved
direct payments to candidates. These included lower rates on first- and third-class mailings in the
last 90 days of an election, one free radio or TV spot for every two purchased, and a 100% tax
credit for in-state contributors (up to $50, or $100 on joint returns). While public funding was
involved in H.R. 5400, it took a less direct form than with candidate subsidies. H.R. 5400 was

60 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senatorial Election Campaign Act of 1989, report to
accompany S. 137, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 101-253 (Washington: GPO, 1990).
61 “Senatorial Elections Campaign Act,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 136, July 30, 1990,
p. 20329.
62 Ibid., July 31, 1990, p. 20659.
63 Ibid., August 1, 1990, p. 21074; the bill also included bans on PACs, party soft money, and bundling, and curbs on
out-of-state money and tax-exempt groups.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

passed by the House on August 3, 1990, by a 255-155 vote.64 (See Appendix A for details on this
measure.)
A conference committee was appointed, but, faced with large differences between H.R. 5400 and
S. 137 and a presidential veto, it never met.
102nd Congress (1991-1992)
Public financing of congressional elections advanced further in the legislative process during the
102nd Congress than ever before or since. Bills comparable to those passed in the 101st Congress
were approved by the Senate and House and reconciled in conference, but vetoed by President
George H.W. Bush.
On March 20, 1991, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee reported S. 3 (Mitchell-
Boren), similar to S. 137 (101st Congress).65 When Senate debate began May 15, the Boren
substitute amendment was incorporated into S. 3. Debate took place over six days and
encompassed 21 roll-call amendment votes, including one by Senator McConnell to eliminate the
public funding and spending limits from the bill (defeated on a 42-56 vote)66 and one by Senator
Kerry to increase vastly the public funding level in the bill (defeated on a 39-58 vote).67 On May
23, 1991, the Senate passed S. 3 on a 56-42 vote, with all but five Republicans voting against and
all but five Democrats in favor.68 As passed, S. 3 included voluntary Senate spending limits, an
extra 25% allowance in spending from small in-state donations, broadcast communication
vouchers, broadcast and postal discounts, and conditional subsidies to match non-complying
opponents and independent expenditures.69 (See Appendix A for details on this measure.)
The House Administration Committee’s Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform led to a
Democratic bill, H.R. 3750 (Gejdenson), reported by the committee on November 12, 1991,70 and
amended by the Rules Committee on November 23.71 The bill replaced the free TV and radio time
and the tax credit in the 101st Congress bill with a matching fund system, while leaving some
form of reduced mailing rates. But concerns over perceived unpopularity of public funding led
sponsors to omit provisions to finance benefits, beyond allowing voluntary contributions to the
Make Democracy Work Fund, in the version brought to the House floor.72 The House passed H.R.

64 “Campaign Cost Reduction and Reform Act of 1990,” Debate and Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol.
136, August 3, 1990, pp. 22251-22252.
65 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Election Ethics Act of 1991, report to
accompany S. 3, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 102-37 (Washington: GPO, 1991).
66 “Senate Election Ethics Act, Debate and Vote in the Senate,” Congressional Record, vol. 137, May 22, 1991, p.
11937.
67 Ibid., p. 11979.
68 Ibid., May 23, 1991, p. 12355.
69 It also included bans on PACs, bundling (discussed below), and party soft money; tax-exempt group curbs; a
requirement that candidates appear in broadcast ads; and a ban on post-election repayments of candidate loans. S. 137
incorporated such floor amendments as an honoraria ban, earned and unearned income limits, and debate requirements
for publicly funded presidential races.
70 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and
Election Reform Act of 1991, report to accompany H.R. 3750, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., S. 3(Washington: GPO, 1991).
71 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3750, report to accompany H.Res.
299, 102nd Cong.,1st sess., H.Rept. 102-365 (Washington: GPO, 1991).
72 “Two Campaign Finance Bills Passed,” CQ Almanac: 102nd Congress, 1st Session, 1991 (Washington: Congressional
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

3750 on November 25, 1991, by a 273-156 vote.73 As passed, it featured voluntary House
spending limits, in exchange for matching funds and lower postal rates, with extra spending for
runoffs or close primaries and extra matching funds to offset non-complying opponents and
independent expenditures.74 (See Appendix A for details on this measure.)
A conference committee was appointed to reconcile the two passed bills and filed its report April
3, 1992 (amended on April 8).75 The conference bill combined features of S. 3 and H.R. 3750,
leaving House and Senate spending limits and public benefits largely intact for their own
candidates. Major changes in the conference version centered around other issues, such as PAC
contribution limits, soft money, and bundling.76 The conference also delayed implementation of
the spending limits and public funding systems pending enactment of a funding mechanism. (See
Appendix A for details on this measure.) The House passed the conference report on April 9 by a
259-165 vote.77 The Senate followed suit on April 30 with a 58-42 vote.78 President Bush, citing
his opposition to spending limits and public financing, vetoed the bill May 9.79 On May 13, a
Senate override vote failed by 57-42, thus ending debate on the issue for the 102nd Congress.80
103rd Congress (1993-1994)
At the start of the 103rd Congress, Democratic leaders introduced bills identical to those in the
102nd Congress: H.R. 3 (Gejdenson) and S. 3 (Boren). With a President of the same party in favor,
1993 reform prospects seemed improved.
On March 18, 1993, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee reported S. 3 (largely the
bill vetoed in 1992, including the House provisions).81 Prior to the Senate debate, President
William J. Clinton made his own recommendations on May 7, 1993, which added such provisions
to the vetoed 102nd Congress bill as congressional broadcast vouchers and an increased tax
checkoff financed by an end to lobbying expense deductions.82

(...continued)
Quarterly, Inc., 1992), vol. 47, p. 21.
73 “House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1991,” Debate and Vote in the
House, Congressional Record, vol. 137, November 25, 1991, pp. 34708-34709.
74 H.R. 3750 also included an aggregate cap on PAC and large donor receipts, a leadership PAC ban, curbs on party
soft money, and a ban on independent expenditures by lobbyists.
75 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992,
report to accompany S. 3, 102nd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 102-479 and H.Rept. 102-487 (Washington: GPO, 1992).
76 Bundling refers to the collection of campaign funds for a candidate by an intermediary (who is not an agent of the
campaign) in amounts beyond what he or she could legally donate to that candidate.
77 “Conference Report on S. 3, Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992,” Debate
and Vote in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 138, April 9, 1992, p. 9023.
78 “Senate Election Ethics Act—Conference Report,” Debate and Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 138,
April 30, 1992, p. 9964.
79 U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the President
of the United States: George Bush, 1992-1993, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1993), pp. 736-737.
80 “Disapproval of S. 3—The Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1992,” Debate and
Vote in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 138, May 13, 1992, p. 11146.
81 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Congressional Spending Limit and Election Reform
Act of 1993, report to accompany S. 3, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-41 (Washington: GPO, 1993).
82 U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the President
of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1993, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1994), pp. 584-589.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

On May 21, Senate began debate on a leadership substitute to the committee version of S. 3,
focused solely on Senate elections and reflecting the Clinton proposal and a federal PAC ban.
Debate lasted for three weeks, encompassing three cloture votes and 24 recorded amendment
votes. The filibuster was not broken until agreement was reached between Democratic leaders
and seven Republicans to add the Durenberger/Exon Amendment. This provision dropped the
bill’s broadcast vouchers, allowed subsidies only to offset independent spending and spending in
excess of the limits by non-complying opponents, and repealed the exempt function income
exclusion on principal campaign committees of candidates who exceeded spending limits (in
effect, subjecting them to a 34% tax on income).83 Passage of this amendment cleared the way for
a successful vote to invoke cloture and passage of S. 3 the next day on a 60-38 vote.84 (See
Appendix A for details on this measure.)
The House leadership bill, H.R. 3, was reported from the House Administration Committee on
November 10, 1993, as amended by the committee and focused only on House elections.85 The
reported bill featured voluntary House spending limits and communication vouchers (based on
matching donations); other than contingency funds to compensate for non-complying opponents
and independent expenditures, no other benefits were offered. After defeating a rule to allow
votes on more alternatives, the House, on November 22, 1993, passed H.R. 3 by 255-175.86 (See
Appendix A for details on this measure.)
House and Senate compromise efforts were impeded by differences on PAC limits and funding
sources; both bills avoided establishing a funding mechanism for the public benefits, deferring
implementation until revenue legislation could be enacted. Late in the second session, on
September 29, 1994, Democratic leaders announced a deal, but Senate Republicans led a
filibuster against appointing conferees, ending with a failed cloture vote (52-46) on September
30, 1994.87
104th-109th Congresses (1995-2007)
The shift to Republican control of the House and Senate in 1995 effectively killed the momentum
for public financing in Congress, given generally strong Republican opposition to both public
financing and spending limits. Public finance bills continued to be introduced in every Congress,
including in the 104th when Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold introduced their first
campaign finance reform bill, establishing themselves as the Senate’s leading reform advocates.
That bill (S. 1219) was the successor to the bills passed in the previous three Congresses, and it
reflected the same pre-1996 consensus among campaign finance reform advocates that prioritized
curbing the high cost of congressional elections and replacing private funds with other funding
sources.

83 “Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993,” Debate and Vote in the Senate,
Congressional Record, vol. 139, June 16, 1993, p. 12952.
84 Ibid., June 17, 1993, p. 13246.
85 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and
Election Reform Act of 1993, report to accompany H.R. 3, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 103-375 (Washington: GPO,
1993).
86 “House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993,” Debate and Vote in the
House, Congressional Record, vol. 139, November 22, 1993, pp. 31792-31793.
87 “House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1993,” Debate and Vote in the
Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 140, September 30, 1994, p. 26962.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

The election of 1996 proved to be a watershed in the campaign finance debate, as largely
unregulated campaign activity (party soft money and election-related issue advocacy) seemed to
overshadow the regulated activity. In response, the leading reform advocates in Congress made
significant changes in their proposed legislation at the start of the 105th Congress. S. 25 (McCain-
Feingold), as well as its companion H.R. 493 (Shays-Meehan), added provisions to the
comparable 104th Congress bills to allow federal regulation of election-related activity then being
conducted as “issue advocacy.” Following the most intensive congressional activity on campaign
finance reform since the 1970s, a revised S. 25 was offered in the fall of 1997, featuring
provisions on party soft money and issue advocacy. What was striking was that the provisions on
congressional spending limits and public benefits, and on PACs, the key elements of reformers’
objectives for at least the previous 10 years, were eliminated from the bill entirely. Thus, in one
year’s time, the very nature of the campaign finance debate had shifted from efforts to improve
the existing regulatory system to efforts to save it from becoming meaningless in the face of
newly emerging campaign practices. This debate, in the wake of the 1996 elections, was to last
until 2002, when BCRA, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, was enacted.
109th Congress Bills
Appendix B contains summaries of the four public finance bills introduced in the 109th Congress.
All were House bills, dealing only with House elections.
Two of the bills—H.R. 2753 (Andrews) and H.R. 4694 (Obey)—would have provided public
funding only in the general election. The Andrews bill would have provided up to $750,000
(based on media costs in the district) to candidates who met certain criteria, such as a $100 limit
on individual donations and an 80% in-state funding requirement; but, unlike others introduced,
the bill would have imposed no spending limit. The Obey bill would have established a
mandatory spending limit, based on the median household income in the district, and would have
provided public funds to equal those limits. The benefit would have been financed in part by a tax
on corporate income. The bill provided for fast-track consideration of a constitutional amendment
to allow mandatory spending limits if the limits in the bill were struck down.
The other two bills—H.R. 3099 (Tierney) and H.R. 5281 (Leach)—would have offered benefits
in both primary and general elections. The Leach bill would have provided funds to match
contributions from in-state contributors and would have imposed a $500,000 per election
spending limit. The Tierney bill was the Clean Money, Clean Elections measure, which would
have provided public subsidies equal to the spending limit in the primary and general election,
specified allotments of free broadcast time, and additional broadcast time at 50% of the lowest
unit rate. Candidates would have qualified by raising specified numbers of small donations. (The
clean money model is discussed in greater detail under the States’ Experience section of this
report.)
110th Congress
Five congressional public financing bills were introduced in the 110th Congress: H.R. 1614
(Tierney), H.R. 2817 (Obey), H.R. 7022 (Larson), S. 936 (Durbin), and S. 1285 (Durbin).
Congressional Research Service
21

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Overview of the 110th Congress Legislation
As discussed below, all five bills proposed comprehensive public financing programs, but did so
in different ways. H.R. 2817 (Obey) proposed perhaps the most direct change to the status quo
because it would have essentially made public financing mandatory in general elections. By
contrast, candidates operating under the other four bills could have chosen to participate in public
financing—and would have had to meet specific criteria to do so. H.R. 1614, H.R. 7022, S. 936,
and S. 1285 explicitly proposed public financing for primary elections. Overall, while H.R. 2817
would replaced the private campaign financing system in general elections, H.R. 1614, H.R.
7022, S. 936, and S. 1285 proposed a benefits package designed to allow publicly financed
candidates to compete within the current system.
The public financing program proposed in H.R. 2817 would only have covered general elections,
but the bill also specifies spending limits for primary elections. H.R. 2817 would have banned
independent expenditures in House elections. By contrast, H.R. 1614, H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S.
1285 proposed “fair fight funds” to counter high-spending opponents and those airing
independent expenditures against participating candidates or in favor of their opponents.
Only S. 1285 received a hearing during the 110th Congress.88 On June 20, 2007, the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration heard testimony on the bill from Senators, a former FEC
chairman, and interest group representatives. At that hearing, Senators Durbin and Specter (and
former senator Warren Rudman) testified in favor of the bill, saying that it was a “modest” step
toward reducing the role of money in elections and a means to restoring public trust in
government. In particular, Senator Durbin emphasized what he called an “unsustainable” current
system of private fundraising that potentially separates lawmakers from average voters and
distracts them from policymaking. Minority Leader McConnell testified against the bill, citing
declining public participation in the presidential public financing system and philosophical
opposition to public financing for politicians. Chairman Feinstein and Ranking Member Bennett
both expressed concerns at the hearing about the possibility of “fringe” candidates receiving
public funds. In a letter to committee members, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
expressed “great concern” about proposed LUC reductions for participating candidates and
sections of S. 1285 that would bar broadcasters from preempting candidate advertising and fund
public financing through spectrum usage fees.89
Detailed Comments on the 110th Congress Legislation
Four of the five bills were generally similar. H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285 were largely
identical, although each bill would have applied only to Senate or House campaigns, respectively.
H.R. 1614 contained many provisions also found in H.R. 7022, S. 936 and S. 1285, but also
contained unique provisions not found in the other three bills. The fifth bill, H.R. 2817, contained
some of the same characteristics as the other four, but apparently was not based on the “clean
money, clean elections” model. This section discusses the four most similar bills (H.R. 1614, H.R.
7022, S. 936, and S. 1285), and then examines H.R. 2817. Appendix C at the end of this report
reviews major provisions of each bill.

88 As of July 2008, the hearing record has not been published. A transcript is available on the committee website
at http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/062007correctedTranscript.pdf.
89 Letter from David K. Rehr, president and chief executive officer, National Association of Broadcasters, to Hon.
Dianne Feinstein, Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, June 20, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

H.R. 1614, H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285 all included hallmarks frequently associated with
“clean elections” programs, such as full public financing for participating candidates, a “seed
money” period in which candidates would demonstrate viability by raising small start-up
contributions, and additional funds for participating candidates facing non-participating
opponents or attacks by outside groups. The most notable difference between the House and
Senate bills was that they would have covered only one chamber. H.R. 1614 and H.R. 7022
would apply only to House campaigns; S. 936 and S. 1285 would apply only to Senate
campaigns.
H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285 proposed slightly different thresholds for qualifying contributions
that would have triggered disbursement of public funds. H.R. 1614 and H.R. 7022 proposed a
fixed number of minimum contributions for major-party candidates, while S. 936 and S. 1285
based their threshold on a formula accounting for the number of congressional districts in the
state. Similarly, the House and Senate bills propose different methods for formulating the base
public funding allocation for major candidates. For House candidates, under H.R. 1614 the base
allocation would have been the national average of expenditures by winning House candidates in
the past two election cycles, as adjusted by an index of media markets for the state in which the
candidate was running. H.R. 7022 proposed a similar allocation, but the base amount was 80%
(rather than 100%) of the national average of expenditures by winning House candidates in the
past two election cycles. For Senate candidates (per S. 936 and S. 1285), the proposed base was
$750,000 plus $150,000 for each congressional district (in excess of 1 district) in the state in
which the candidate was running. In all cases, the base amounts would have been adjusted for
media rates in the state (an index to be determined by the FEC and the Federal Communications
Commission) and adjusted biannually based on the consumer price index.
The four bills differed regarding support for broadcast communications. Although H.R. 1614
proposed free broadcast time to publicly financed candidates, H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285
would have provided political advertising vouchers to participating candidates. H.R. 7022, S. 936
and S. 1285 specified that candidates could, for cash value, transfer their right to all or portions of
their vouchers to party committees. Under all four bills, publicly financed candidates could have
purchased additional time at rates below the lowest unit charge (LUC; also called the “lowest unit
rate”). H.R. 1614 would have reduced charges to publicly financed candidates to 50% of the
LUC, while H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285 would reduce that rate to 80% of the LUC. H.R. 1614
would deny the LUC to non-participating candidates; the other three bills do not specify such a
provision.
Various other provisions in the bills also differed. S. 936, S. 1285, and H.R. 7022 included a
debate requirement for publicly funded candidates—a provision not contained in H.R. 1614.
Permissible civil penalties for excessive contributions or expenditures were higher in H.R. 1614
than those authorized in H.R. 7022, S. 936, and S. 1285. Each bill established a similarly
structured commission to review the functioning of proposed public financing programs. S. 936
and S. 1285 authorized expedited Senate review of the Fair Elections Review Commission’s
legislative recommendations, as does H.R. 7022. H.R. 1614 did not contain a similar provision.
All four bills would have limited the amount of party coordinated expenditures that may be made
on behalf of publicly financed candidates. H.R. 1614 (but not H.R. 7022, S. 936, or S. 1285)
would also establish a broad definition of “payment made in coordination with a candidate,” as
summarized in Appendix C.
All four bills proposed to fund public financing through appropriations, unspent seed money,
public financing penalty amounts, and similar resources. S. 936, S. 1285, and H.R. 7022 also
Congressional Research Service
23

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

proposed funding public financing through revenues from spectrum user fees and “proceeds from
recovered spectrum [auctions].”90 One bill also proposed tax incentives as a funding mechanism.
Section 112 of S. 936 would authorize a $500 tax credit for citizen contributions to the proposed
Senate public financing fund.
The other four 110th Congress bills (and most public financing proposals) proposed voluntary
public financing. By contrast, H.R. 2817 (Obey) would have required House candidates to
participate in public financing during the general election.91 Although H.R. 2817 did not compel
participation in public financing per se, it would have required that candidates observe spending
limits and make expenditures only from a proposed public financing fund. The only other
permissible source of candidate funding would have been state and national party contributions of
up to 5% of the candidate’s spending limit. The bill would also have banned independent
expenditures and “soft money” spending in House elections. H.R. 2817 specified expedited
procedures92 for congressional consideration of a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court
found any part of the bill unconstitutional.93
H.R. 2817, proposed general-election spending limits based on median household income in the
congressional district, with a maximum of $2 million in the wealthiest district. For major-party
candidates, actual spending limits would have been adjusted by the ratio of the vote major-party
candidates received in the three most recent general elections in that district. For example, of a $2
million maximum, if the average Republican vote share in the district in the three most recent
elections were 55%, compared with 45% for Democrats, a publicly financed Republican
candidate could spend $1.1 million (55% of $2 million), while a publicly financed Democrat
could spend the remaining $900,000 (45% of $2 million). Candidates in other districts (the non-
wealthiest) could have spent lesser amounts based on a similar formula specified in the bill.
Candidates could increase their spending limits by submitting specified numbers of petition
signatures. The FEC would have been charged with distributing public funds (from a proposed
Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund) equal to specified spending limits. The bill specified that
voluntary taxpayer contributions from refunds owed, other voluntary contributions, and a 0.1%
tax on corporate income exceeding $10 million to fund public financing. The FEC would have
been required to launch an extensive public education campaign regarding public financing; that
program would have relied at least in part on broadcasting time provided by television networks.
Finally, H.R. 2817 contained “sunset” language specifying that the bill’s provisions would expire
in 2022 without a legislative extension.

90 On spectrum auctions, CRS Report RL31764, Spectrum Management: Auctions, by Linda K. Moore.
91 H.R. 2817 set spending limits for primary elections, but only specifies a public financing system for general
elections. By contrast, H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285 propose public financing systems for both primary and general
elections.
92 On expedited procedures, see CRS Report RS20234, Expedited or “Fast-Track” Legislative Procedures, by
Christopher M. Davis, and CRS Report 98-888, “Fast-Track” or Expedited Procedures: Their Purposes, Elements,
and Implications, by Christopher M. Davis.
93 On constitutional issues surrounding campaign finance legislation, see CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality
of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

111th Congress
Four congressional public financing bills have been introduced in the 111th Congress. 94 The first
bill introduced, H.R. 158 (Obey), would essentially mandate public financing during House
general elections by prohibiting candidate spending other than from a proposed public financing
fund. In exchange, candidates would receive grants designed to cover full campaign costs. H.R.
158 is virtually identical to H.R. 2817 (discussed above), which Representative Obey introduced
during the 110th Congress.95 Second, H.R. 2056 (Tierney), like H.R. 158 would require
participants to limit spending, is virtually identical to H.R. 1614 (Tierney), introduced in the 110th
Congress. The Tierney bills are traditional “clean elections” approaches. They propose full public
financing for participating candidates, a “seed money” period in which candidates would
demonstrate viability by raising small start-up contributions, and additional funds for
participating candidates facing non-participating opponents or attacks by outside groups. Two
other bills, H.R. 1826 (Larson) and S. 752 (Durbin), propose an alternative approach: voluntary
public financing that provides a base subsidy, matching funds, and broadcast vouchers. These two
bills have been the focus of most attention thus far in the 111th Congress; the Committee on
House Administration held a hearing on H.R. 1826 during the first session. Unlike most public
financing proposals, H.R. 1826 and S. 752 would not impose spending limits on participants,
provided that their private fundraising were limited to contributions of no more than $100 (per
election) from individuals. Additional summary material appears in Appendix D at the end of this
report.
Under S. 752, Senate candidates would be eligible for base subsidies (allocations) of $750,000
plus $150,000 for each congressional district in the state. Broadcast vouchers would be equal to
$100,000 for each congressional district in the state. For House candidates, under H.R. 1826 the
base subsidy would be equal to 80% of the national average of spending by winning House
candidates in the previous two election cycles.96 Like its Senate counterpart, H.R. 1826 proposes
broadcast vouchers of $100,000, although for House candidates, that amount would not be
multiplied by the number of districts in the state. Both bills also propose matching funds for
participating candidates—a new feature in the bills compared with their 110th Congress
counterparts. Both bills would provide a 400% match97 of small contributions (no more than $100
per individual contributor, per election). H.R. 1826 and S. 752 would not limit candidates from
additional private fundraising—provided that fundraising were within the $100 per contributor,
per election limit. (The bills would not offer “rescue funds” for candidates facing high-spending
opponents or outside interests—a feature common to some recent public financing proposals.)
The bills would prohibit spending funds raised from PACs, and would limit coordinated party
spending.98 As with previous proposals, participants would qualify for public funds by raising

94 For additional discussion of prospective issues for the 111th Congress and activity during the 110th Congress, see
CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th Congress, by R. Sam
Garrett; and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th
Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
95 The only substantial differences between the two bills are the effective dates and the sunset date for the constitutional
amendment. In general, H.R. 158 proposes that various elements of the bill take effect after 2012. The sunset provision
would expire in 2026.
96 Under H.R. 1826, 60% of the base would be allocated to the general election; 40% would be allocated to the primary.
97 The match would be capped at 200% of the base subsidy.
98 Leadership PACs associated with participating candidates could continue fundraising, provided that those
contributions did not exceed $100 per contributor annually and did not benefit the participant’s campaign. On
coordinated party expenditures, see CRS Report RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

specified levels of private funds. Those funds, called “qualifying contributions,” would be limited
to $100 per individual and must come from residents of which the candidate is running.
H.R. 1826 and S. 752 propose somewhat different funding mechanisms. S. 752 contains sense of
the Senate language calling for a 0.5% tax (up to $500,000 annually) on government contracts of
more than $10 million. Those amounts would be used as a revenue source for Senate campaign
financing. Legislation to that effect—a proposed amendment to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
that reiterates the sense of the Senate language in S. 752—appears in S. 751. (Primarily a tax bill,
S. 751 as referred to the Committee on Finance. S. 752, which focuses instead on changes to the
campaign financing system, was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.) By
contrast, H.R. 1826 proposes to fund public financing through appropriations (an unspecified
amount), voluntary “checkoff” designations on federal tax returns of $10 for individuals and $20
for married couples filing jointly, with proceeds from spectrum auctions, and with public
donations. H.R. 1826 and S. 752 would both permit additional funding from fines and voluntary
contributions.
Devising a Congressional Public Finance System: Options for
Policymakers
Based on the previous discussion of proposals that advanced in the legislative process, one can
see the wide range of features that any public finance proposal might embody. This section
discusses some of the basic options facing Congress in any consideration of such proposals.
(Further potential considerations for congressional public financing are discussed in the
conclusion of this report. These considerations are based in part on experiences in the states,
which are discussed in the following section.) CRS takes no position on any of the options
presented here.
Setting Expenditure Limits
Establishing the limits on campaign expenditures is perhaps the thorniest aspect of devising a
public financing system. It has become widely accepted in the political science community that,
to the extent that high spending in elections reflects a desirable level of competitiveness, low
spending limits can inhibit real competition.99 In other words, low spending limits may reduce the
chances for lesser known candidates to defeat candidates with higher visibility and name
recognition. It was this principle that has often led public finance and spending limit proposals to
be labeled by critics as “incumbent protection” measures, because incumbents typically start
elections with much higher visibility than their challengers.
Spending limits for House campaigns have almost always been a specified across-the-board
amount ($600,000 in the last bill to pass the House, in 1993), whereas the Senate limits have
generally reflected a population-based formula. As late as 1997 when the initial McCain-Feingold
bill was offered in the 105th Congress, the formula in Senate elections was essentially the same

(...continued)
Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige Whitaker.
99 See, for example, Gary C. Jacobson, Money in Congressional Elections, pp. 183-190; Citizens Research Foundation,
New Realities, New Thinking: Report of the Task Force on Campaign Finance Reform, pp. 18-19 (Majority Views).
Congressional Research Service
26

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

one incorporated into S. 2 (the leadership substitute) in the 100th Congress (in a general
election—the lesser of: (a) $5.5 million, or (b) the greater of (i) $950,000, or (ii) $400,000, plus
30 cents times the voting age population (VAP), up to 4 million, and 25 cents times the VAP over
4 million; in a primary—67% of general election limit, up to $2.75 million; and for a runoff—
20% of the general election limit).
The challenge for policymakers is to choose a spending limit that takes into account the realities
of today’s campaigns, allowing sufficient opportunity for a genuine competition which serves the
public’s interest. One way to offset potential damage to the vibrancy of the electoral process
resulting from too stringent limits would be to increase the generosity of public funds and
benefits, to lessen the need for both raising and spending money.
As noted above, some legislation proposed in the 111th Congress would not impose spending
limits on participating candidates. This change is reportedly due, at least in part, to concern about
the viability of the spending limits and “rescue funds” following the Supreme Court’s 2008
decision in Davis v. FEC.100 Davis did not consider public financing per se, but its content
regarding additional fundraising for those facing high-spending opponents is potentially
applicable to public financing questions.
Coverage: General Elections Only or Primary Elections, Too?
While the bills that advanced in the 1970s included public funds in the primaries, most measures
in more recent Congresses have covered only general elections. This has been the case not so
much because the sponsors have not favored such coverage but more because of strategic
decisions about the reduced likelihood of enacting a more complicated and more expensive
system. Some have stated that they would settle for public funding in general elections for now
and hopefully later return to the primary issue after some experience with a general election
system. To some, however, the lack of inclusion of primaries may represent a serious flaw in
recent proposals, with the prospect of private money entering the electoral system earlier and
expenditures aimed at influencing the general election made during primaries, all to evade the
restrictions of the general election system.101 The bills debated in the 100th—103rd Congresses
incorporated the concept of providing benefits only in the general election but conditioning those
benefits on adherence to voluntary spending limits in the primary as well as the general election.
Conditions for Receipt of Public Benefits
Invariably, proposals condition receipt of benefits on adherence to voluntary spending limits,
whether solely in the election where the benefits are offered or in the primary as well as the
general election. Most also require candidates to limit spending from personal and immediate
family funds to a specified amount (generally applicable to loans as well). Some bills have added
a requirement that candidates participate in a specified number of debates, and bills that passed in

100 See, for example, Bart Jansen, “Public Campaign Financing Proposal Draws Bipartisan Backing,” CQ Today, March
31, 2009, p. 13. For additional discussion of Davis, see CRS Report RS22920, Campaign Finance Law and the
Constitutionality of the “Millionaire’s Amendment”: An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission, by L. Paige
Whitaker; and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th
Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
101 David W. Adamany and George E. Agree, Political Money: A Strategy for Campaign Financing in America
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), pp. 179-180.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

the 1990s added the requirement that broadcast ads must include closed-captioning. There is
considerable latitude in what conditions may be imposed on candidates participating in this
voluntary system.
Qualifying Requirements
In addition to requiring adherence to spending limits, proposals typically have some sort of
qualifying requirement to prove a candidate is “serious” (i.e., that he or she has some degree of
public support). Most often, the qualifying requirement is a fundraising threshold, comprising
relatively small donations from a specified number of voters in that jurisdiction. Petition
signatures is another option.
Public Funds: Matching Funds or Fixed Subsidies?
This choice may be informed by the experience the nation has had under the presidential system
for the past 30 years, in which matching funds are available in the primaries and fixed subsidies
are offered to candidates in the general election. As is discussed in the next section, the states also
use a mix of these two forms of subsidies.
Fixed subsidies offer the advantage of simplicity and providing candidates greater ability to plan
their campaigns, but, depending on the percentage of the spending limit the grant is intended to
constitute, it can result in a much greater cost (in the presidential system, for example, major
candidates in the general election get a subsidy equal to the spending limit). The matching fund
approach would generally be less expensive and would offer the advantage of linking the receipt
of public money with a demonstration of voter appeal by the candidate. Matching fund systems
may offer the advantage of avoiding complex legislative or regulatory judgments about who is
and is not a “serious” candidate, with the meeting of fundraising thresholds and the continuing
raising of small donations considered an adequate means of so doing. If a matching fund system
is preferred, there is also the consideration of whether funds should match contributions on an
equal basis or a higher percentage (some bills have proposed a two- or three-to-one match, at
least in some circumstances).
Public Benefits Other Than Direct Subsidies to Candidates
Whereas the bills that advanced in Congress during the post-Watergate 1970s were based on
either direct subsidies or matching funds, the most prominent measures of the late 1980s and
early 1990s reflected a move away from direct public funding to candidates. Instead, those bills
featured either more indirect forms of public funding or cost-reducing benefits that did not
involve public funds at all. These indirect public funding and public benefits measures, often
designed to increase chances for passage in the face of perceived public opposition to use of
public funds in elections, offer additional ideas in structuring a spending limits and public
benefits package.
Indirect Public Funding
Several ideas have gained support in Congress at various times that make use of public funds in
ways other than direct payments from the U.S. Treasury to the candidates, including the
following:
Congressional Research Service
28

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Tax credits for contributions to candidates abiding by limits—This could provide
a grassroots fundraising incentive to candidates who agree to limit their
expenditures. Most commonly, this takes the form of a 100% tax credit for
contributions to participating candidates. Such a form of public funding is
determined by citizens’ decisions at the grassroots level, rather than decisions of
a government agency, which supporters see as an important advantage.
Presumably, the prospect of raising small donations much more easily would
provide sufficient incentive for candidates to agree to limit spending. Most
observers of the political system argue that the best kind of political money is
that from individual citizens in small amounts. (It should be noted that from
1972-1986, the federal government allowed tax deductions or credits for political
contributions, but they were eliminated as part of overall tax reform; also, many
states have such incentives applicable to contributions in their elections.)
• Broadcast vouchers to candidates—The single largest component of the typical
campaign budget (at least for statewide and national offices) and the biggest
single factor in the rise of campaign costs in recent years has been broadcast
advertising. Proposals have been advanced whereby candidates would be
allocated specified amounts of broadcast vouchers, for which broadcasters would
be reimbursed from the federal treasury. Under this plan, public monies do not
get distributed directly to candidates, thus at least ostensibly avoiding some of
the objections to public financing per se while focusing on what many consider
the biggest single problem in campaign financing—the high cost of media.
However, the mechanics of implementing such a plan, particularly in districts
served by high density, high-cost media markets, pose potential concerns in terms
of fairness and the particulars of individual campaigns.
• Lower postal rates for candidates abiding by limits—Another proposal which
seeks to draw candidates into acceptance of campaign spending limits is one
which offers participating candidates lower postal rates, such as those currently
available to political party committees. This proposal involves public funds, but
only indirectly, because the U.S. Postal Service would have to be reimbursed for
revenue forgone as a result of its implementation. It is not clear to what extent a
lower postal rate may serve as an inducement to candidates to limit spending,
since postage is not a large component in a typical campaign budget, although it
may well be more important in House than Senate races (especially in high-
density media markets where media costs are seen as often prohibitively
expensive). Lower postal rates do offer the advantage of acting to reduce
campaign costs, generally seen as a worthwhile goal, regardless of one’s position
on spending limits or public financing.
Public Benefits Without Public Funds
Proposals that passed in the 101st—103rd Congresses (and the Senate-passed version of the BCRA
(McCain-Feingold) in the 107th Congress) looked to broadcasters to offer some of the incentive
toward candidate participation. Because of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as part of
their license agreements, sponsors sought to require broadcasters to offer lower rates to
candidates participating in public funding, as a condition of their licenses and at no cost to the
U.S. treasury. (On the basis of this principle, the federal government has since 1972 required
broadcasters to charge political candidates at the lowest unit rate (LUR) available to commercial
advertisers for the same time and class of advertising time.) Some proposals have gone beyond
Congressional Research Service
29

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

requiring still-lower rates to requiring broadcasters to provide specified amounts of free time to
participating candidates. To the extent that these costs are removed from candidates, the overall
cost of elections could be significantly curbed, which, as with lower postal rates, would appeal to
many observers regardless of their views on spending limits and public financing. Yet such
proposals invariably invite strong opposition from the broadcast industry. While the Senate
version of BCRA in the 107th Congress offered substantial reductions in broadcast rates to
candidates, this provision was removed in the House on a floor amendment.
Protecting Participants from Free-Spending Opponents and Outside Groups
One concept present in most bills offered since the 100th Congress but absent from the
presidential system is protection offered to candidates who participate in public financing but are
faced with large expenditures by non-participating opponents or are targeted in independent
expenditures from outside groups. Most commonly, provisions designed to remedy such
situations would:
• increase spending limits on participants to match expenditures by opponents in
excess of the spending limits and by independent expenditures in amounts above
a specified level; and/or
• provide participants with additional public funds to match excessive spending
from non-participating opponents or for opposing independent expenditures,
perhaps with a cap on overall funds provided in this circumstance.
Providing additional funds, or allowing for supplementary private funding, to participating
candidates facing non-participating opponents offers protection against being greatly outspent and
presumably would deter candidates considering forgoing public financing. A potential problem
with these disincentives is the increased costs they would add to a public funding system, costs
not easily predictable. What has not been reflected in recent proposals but may have to be
addressed in future ones is the activity by outside groups (such as 527 political organizations) that
spend money outside the purview of federal election law (i.e., soft money).
Other Disincentives Toward Non-Participation
While public finance bills have typically focused on offering benefits as an inducement toward
agreeing to expenditure limits, more recent proposals have also looked to add disincentives as
well, to impose some sort of penalty on candidates not participating in the system (beyond
providing benefits to the participating opponent). These proposals appeal to those who would like
to lessen the role of public funds but still wish to achieve meaningful levels of participation in the
system. Critics see these proposals as heavy-handed measures designed to bludgeon candidates
into participating, thus casting doubts on whether participation can fairly be deemed to be
voluntary. Some of the disincentives advanced in recent years include the following:
• requiring a disclaimer on campaign advertisements of a candidate’s non-
participation—This provision, requiring non-participants to state in their ads that
they do not abide by spending limits, was included in Senate bills passed in the
101st -103rd Congresses;
• disallowing lowest unit rate requirement for non-participants—This provision,
included in the 101st Congress Senate bill, as passed, would have removed the
lowest unit rate requirement for candidates not participating in the system; and
Congressional Research Service
30

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• tax campaigns of non-participating candidates—Political campaigns are
generally exempt from paying taxes on money raised.102 The Senate bill passed in
the 103rd Congress removed the exempt function income exclusion on principal
campaign committees of candidates who exceeded spending limits, thus in effect
subjecting those campaigns to a 34% tax.
Conditional Public Subsidies
One idea closely related to the proposals in the prior two sections is to provide public funds only
as a last resort, when a participant is faced by an opponent who exceeded spending limits or by
opposing independent expenditures. As is explained in the “State Experiences” section that
follows, some states feature such a provision, aimed at curbing arguably excessive campaign
spending without incurring the expense to the taxpayers that most public finance systems would
incur. It would be applied on a very selective basis and would presumably act as a strong inhibitor
against only the most excessive campaign spending. The Senate bill passed in the 103rd Congress
contained this feature, in addition to the direct incentives of lower postal and broadcast rates.
Paying for Public Financing
Clearly, the decisions made about the aforementioned variables will determine the cost of any
public finance system. Estimates of costs of public finance systems vary considerably, according
to the details of the systems envisioned. For bills considered in the 101st—103rd Congresses, one
can look to the required Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimates, bearing in mind that
the bills passed were often changed substantially from those reported and for which estimates
were provided. At the start of the 103rd Congress, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee
reported S. 3, which was essentially the bill vetoed during the 102nd Congress and thus contained
provisions affecting both House and Senate elections. Benefits for House elections consisted of
matching funds (accounting for up to one-third of the spending limit) and reduced mailing rates;
Senate election benefits consisted of voter communication vouchers (of up to 20% of the general
election limit), reduced mailing rates, and contingent public grants to compensate candidates
opposed by free-spending opponents and by independent expenditures. CBO estimated that this
rather modest system (in terms of level of public funds) would range in cost from $90 million to
$175 million in the 1996 election cycle and from $95 million to $190 million in the 1998 election
cycle.103
At the other extreme, the most generous proposal currently being advanced at both federal and
state levels is the “Clean Money, Clean Elections” measure, advocated by interest group Public
Campaign. H.R. 1614 (Tierney, 110th Congress), S. 936 (Durbin, 110th Congress), S. 1285
(Durbin 110th Congress), H.R. 3099 (Tierney, 109th Congress), and S. 719 (Wellstone, 107th
Congress) are variations on the clean elections model and would (or would have) provide public
funds in the primary and general elections; such funds are intended to lower all candidate
spending in those elections. Public Campaign’s website states,

102 See CRS Report RS21716, Political Organizations Under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, by Erika K.
Lunder, Political Organizations Under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, by Erika Lunder.
103 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Congressional Spending Limit and Election Reform
Act of 1993, report to accompany S. 3, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 103-41 (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 40.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

The cost of implementing such a system for Congressional elections is estimated to be less
than a billion dollars per year out of a federal budget of close to two trillion dollars (that’s
about a half of a 10th of a percent of the federal budget: 0.05%). That amounts to less than
$10 per-taxpayer, per-year. 104
Thus, by Public Campaign’s estimates, congressional elections would cost somewhat less than $2
billion every election cycle.
Most proposals since the mid-1970s have relied upon a tax checkoff, based on the presidential
model, whereby taxpayers could designate a certain number of tax dollars to go into the fund to
pay for congressional elections. This idea is intended to mitigate negative images that might arise
from “taxpayer funding” of elections, because of the direct role provided citizens in the
distribution of tax revenues. Because of those perceptions, however, the 101st—103rd Congresses
sought creative ways to offset any losses to the U.S. Treasury, or remained silent on funding
sources, leaving those decisions to subsequent “enacting legislation.” Proposals since that time
have looked to such things as broadcast licensing fees, a tax on lobbyists, and a tax on corporate
income to offset treasury losses.105
State Experiences with Public Financing
Introduction
State public financing programs emerged primarily in the 1970s, although a few states provided
limited assistance to campaigns early in the 20th century.106 Prior to the 1970s, many programs
that did exist provided funding to political parties rather than directly to candidate campaigns. (As
noted previously, political parties were historically the major funders of congressional campaigns,
especially before the 1960s.) States vary considerably in whether they offer public financing, how
they do so, and why.107
Sixteen states offer some form of direct public financing to candidates’ campaigns (see Figure
1).108 Of those, seven states fund only statewide races (Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New

104 Public Campaign, “Annotated Model Legislation for Clean Money/Clean Elections Reform” at
http://www.publicampaign.org/modelbill.
105 According to Public Campaign, in the previously cited material, “Revenue for the Clean Money/Clean Elections
Fund could come from some combination of these and other sources: the qualifying contributions collected by
participating candidates, an income tax check-off system (similar to the one in place for presidential elections), a highly
publicized program of voluntary contributions, and direct government appropriations to make up the balance of what is
needed. The Clean Money/Clean Elections program could be offset (thus requiring no tax increase) by the elimination
of unnecessary tax exemptions and other subsidies previously granted to major campaign contributors. It is estimated
that such subsidies currently cost taxpayers far more than what it would cost to provide full public financing under a
Clean Money/Clean Elections system.”
106 Donald A. Gross and Robert K. Goidel, The States of Campaign Finance Reform, p. 5.
107 David Schultz, ed., Money, Politics, and Campaign Finance Reform Law in the States (Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press, 2002), p. 19.
108 CRS obtained information about states’ public financing programs from various academic publications, publications
from independent research organizations, interest groups, and consultations with individual scholars and researchers.
Jennifer Drage Bowser at the National Conference of State Legislatures, and Steven M. Levin at the Center for
Governmental Studies provided helpful background information for the original version of this report. Several
academic researchers also provided extensive consultations about public financing and potential data sources. Sources
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Nine states fund legislative and statewide
races (Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
and Wisconsin; see Figure 2), although which statewide campaigns are eligible for funding
varies. Some state public financing programs have been, or are, subject to litigation—a topic that
is beyond the scope of this report.
Figure 1. States Offering Public Financing

Source: CRS research on state public financing programs as discussed elsewhere in this report.

(...continued)
appear in notes accompanying Table 1. In some cases, consulted sources included organizations or scholars who have
publicly supported or opposed public financing. Also, sources sometimes provided different accounts of public
financing in each state. CRS contacted campaign finance officials in the states listed in Table 1 to clarify cases of
incomplete or contradictory information found in other sources. Notes accompanying Table 1 provide additional
information about alternative interpretations from other sources. The number of states offering “public financing”
depends on how the term is defined, and whether assistance to candidates or candidates and parties is included. For
example, according to a 2006 media account, seven states offer public financing, although the definition of “public
financing” or source for this information was not provided. See Elana Schor, “GOP Senator eyes public financing bill,”
The Hill, February 22, 2006, p. 3. A 2006 report by the Center for Governmental Studies noted that “different forms” of
public financing exist in “25 states and 13 local jurisdictions.” See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public
Financing in American Elections (Los Angeles: Center for Governmental Studies, 2006), p. x. See also Steven M.
Levin, State Public Financing Charts 2007 (Los Angeles: Center for Governmental Studies) at http://www.cgs.org/
images/publications/pub_fin_state_2007.pdf, p. 2, which refers to “23 states that have public financing programs.” A
2005 Common Cause analysis identified 14 states that “provide direct public financing to candidates,” and 10 others
that “provide minimal public financing to candidates and/or political parties.” See “Public Financing in the States” at
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

States have chosen two major public-financing frameworks. First, the “clean money, clean
elections” model (hereafter, clean money) is a national initiative developed by an interest group
and is designed to cover full campaign costs.109 Clean money programs generally offer fixed
subsidies to candidates once they meet basic qualifying requirements. All qualifying candidates
receive the same amount of funding, which is, at least in theory, sufficient to cover all campaign
costs.110 Clean money programs also typically make additional funding available on a
contingency basis to counter spending by non-participating opponents.111 All clean money
programs are similar, with adaptations in each state (e.g., which offices are covered).
Second, and in contrast to the clean money model, other state public financing mechanisms vary
considerably. These programs are typically older, and developed more individually. Through
matching funds and other benefits, these programs are designed to reduce the need for and impact
from private fundraising, but are less likely than clean money programs to offer full public
financing to participating candidates. States fund both approaches through a combination of tax
checkoffs, direct appropriations from state legislatures, revenues from various fines and fees, and
other sources. Additional details are discussed below.

109 This report uses the terms “clean money” and “clean elections” in reference to the interest group Public Campaign’s
title for its public financing model. The terms are also widely used in state public financing laws and in general
campaign finance parlance. The U.S. General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) has
taken a similar approach in using the term “clean elections” in its research. See U.S. General Accounting Office,
Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates,
GAO-03-453, May 2003, p. 79, footnote 4. This CRS report takes no position on whether such labels are appropriate.
110 Exceptions vary by state. In some cases, third-party or independent candidates are not eligible for as much funding
as are major-party candidates.
111 The constitutionality of rescue funds has become a recent topic of debate following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling
in Davis v. Federal Election Commission. In that case, which considered the constitutionality of the so-called
“Millionaire’s Amendment,” the Court held that the amendment’s “asymmetrical” disclosure requirements and
contribution limits violate the First Amendment. Some observers have suggested that the Davis opinion could also
preclude providing rescue funds to only certain candidates in a public-financing setting. In July 2008, a North Carolina
judicial candidate and a PAC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a Fourth Circuit opinion (Duke v. Leake)
upholding the legality of North Carolina’s rescue-funds provisions. Davis is 554 U.S. ___ (2008). The slip opinion is
available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-320.pdf. For an overview of the case, CRS Report
RS22920, Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the “Millionaire’s Amendment”: An Analysis of Davis
v. Federal Election Commission, by L. Paige Whitaker. On the Court’s comments on public financing, see pp. 3-4 of
the report.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Figure 2. Types of Public Financing Offered in the States

Source: CRS research on state public financing program as discussed elsewhere in this report.
Types of Public Financing
As Table 1 and Figure 2 show, seven states offer some form of the clean money model of public
financing. The clean money model offers full public financing to candidates who agree to certain
restrictions, particularly spending limits. Candidates who agree to those restrictions, which vary
by state, receive public funds via fixed subsidies. Specific amounts are determined by each state.
The plan originated with the interest group Public Campaign, which describes itself as “a non-
profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping reform that aims to dramatically reduce
the role of big special interest money in American politics.”112 The group advocates the clean
money program at the local, state, and federal levels around the country. Currently, clean money
programs in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey (a pilot legislative program), New Mexico,
North Carolina, and Vermont offer public financing to the candidates for the offices noted in
Table 1. Although all clean money programs are adapted to states’ individual needs (e.g.,
different offices are covered in each state), the major components of the program are similar
nationwide. All programs were approved by voters or state legislatures between 1997 and 2005
(some have since been amended).
By contrast, 10 states offer public financing through programs other than the clean money model:
Hawaii, Florida, Nebraska, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey
(gubernatorial campaigns), Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.113 While the clean money system

112Public Campaign, “About Us” at http://www.publiccampaign.org/about/index.htm.
113 New Jersey falls into both categories—clean money and other—because the state offers non-Clean Money funding
for gubernatorial campaigns, and Clean Money funding to legislative candidates participating in a pilot public financing
program.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

features a uniform model for public financing and is a relatively recent initiative, other public
financing programs in the states vary widely. Many of the latter programs were initiated in the
1970s, in the Watergate aftermath. Some of the most notable differences between clean money
models and other programs are how candidates receive public funding and how much money is
available to those candidates. Although clean money funds are generally distributed through
subsidies that allocate fixed amounts to candidates, states that employ other programs rely
primarily on matching funds. The amount of matching funds candidates receive depends on the
amount of private contributions raised. States generally match 100%, and sometimes more, of the
amount a candidate raises through private contributions.
Whether clean money models or other systems, public financing programs do not guarantee
unlimited funds. States generally limit the percentage of contributions that may be matched, or
cap the total amount of funds that may be disbursed.114 Available revenues often influence these
decisions. For example, in Michigan, a tax checkoff system funds public financing for qualifying
gubernatorial candidates. Just as in the presidential public-financing system, general-election
funding in Michigan takes priority. Funding is first reserved for general-election subsidies. If
additional funds are available, primary candidates may qualify for matching funds, which are
distributed on a pro-rated basis.115
Eligibility and Conditions for Public Funding
Proponents of public financing generally argue that unlimited private funding encourages
corruption, or at least forces candidates to spend too much time raising money. Therefore, states
often require that recipients of public funding observe certain conditions on campaign conduct,
which are designed to increase public confidence in campaigns and limit or eliminate large
amounts of time spent raising private funds. Publicly financed candidates must agree to limits on
spending and fundraising. Some states also require publicly financed candidates to participate in
debates. Public funding recipients must demonstrate that they are politically viable by raising a
minimum level of private contributions before becoming eligible for public funding. Some states’
individual contributions are limited to as little as $5. Once candidates meet that threshold and
other qualifying requirements, they become eligible for public financing. In most cases,
campaigns qualifying for public financing may spend their privately raised contributions directly.
In others, privately raised “seed money” is transferred to a central state fund for redistribution
among all publicly financed candidates.
Participation by Candidates
How widely candidates take advantage of public financing depends largely on whether opponents
choose to participate in public financing, how various states structure their public financing
programs, or both. Public financing programs often become dormant because potential
participants believe that spending limits are too low. In Maryland, for example, although public
financing is available for gubernatorial tickets, no major candidate has accepted that funding

114 For an overview of the maximum public funding allowed in the states, see Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean:
Public Financing in American Elections, “State Table 3.”
115 This information is based on consultations with staff at Michigan’s Campaign Finance Division (telephone
conversation with R. Sam Garrett, August 2, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
36

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

since 1994. Since that time, major candidates have reportedly viewed the 30-cent-per-voter
spending limit as too low to enable effective campaigning.116
Low participation by candidates in public financing does not necessarily mean that the program
fails to influence campaigns. At least one state’s program appears to have the most impact when
public financing is not utilized at all. Nebraska’s public financing program has offered matching
funds to a variety of statewide and legislative candidates since 1992, although it is rarely
accepted. According to Frank Daley, Executive Director of the state’s Accountability and
Disclosure Commission, public financing in Nebraska becomes available only if one candidate
adheres to spending limits while the other does not. If both candidates exceed spending limits, or
if neither candidate exceeds spending limits, neither is eligible for public financing. Essentially,
public financing in the state offers “extra” money for those facing high-spending opponents.
Given the threat of opponents receiving public funds, most candidates have chosen to limit
spending voluntarily. As a result, public financing’s greatest impact in Nebraska appears to be
keeping private spending down, rather than infusing greater amounts of public money into
elections.117
Table 1. States Offering Public Financing to Statewide or Legislative Candidate
Campaigns
How Candidates
How Public
State
Candidates Eligible for
Financing
Funding
Receive Public
Notes
Funding
System is
Funded
Arizona Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Tax checkoff
Clean moneyb model
(Governor, Secretary of
State, Attorney General,
Matching funds
Various fines/fees
Treasurer, Supt. of Public
(contingency
Qualifying private
Instruction, Corporation
mechanism, e.g., for
contributions
Commissioner, Mine
those facing non-
raised by
Inspector)
publicly financed
opponents who
candidates
State Legislature
exceed spending
limits)a
Connecticut Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Revenues from
Clean moneyb model
(Governor, Lt. Governor,
unclaimed
Attorney General,
Matching funds
propertyb
Comptroller, Secretary of
(contingency
State, Treasurer)
mechanism, e.g., for
Public donations
those facing non-
State Legislature
publicly financed
opponents who
exceed spending
limits)
Florida Statewide
Matching funds
Appropriations
See table notes.d
(Governor, Chief Financial
from legislature

116 Telephone conversations between R. Sam Garrett and Jared DeMarinis, Maryland Director of Candidacy and
Campaign Finance, June 30, 2006, and August 24, 2006. The amount is subject to annual adjustments.
117 Telephone conversation between R. Sam Garrett and Frank Daley, Executive Director of the Nebraska
Accountability and Disclosure Commission, July 31, 2006. For a brief discussion of Nebraska’s program, see also
Michael J. Malbin and Thomas L. Gais, eds., The Day After Reform: Sobering Campaign Finance Lessons from the
American States (Albany, NY: The Rockefeller Institute Press, 1998), p. 60.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

How Public
How Candidates
State
Candidates Eligible for
Financing
Funding
Receive Public
Notes
Funding
System is
Funded
Officer, Attorney General,
Agriculture
Commissionerd)
Hawaii Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoff

(Governor, Lt. Governor,
Office of Hawaiian Affairs)
Elections-related
fines and fees
State Legislature
Other
miscellaneous
feese
Maine Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Tax checkoff
Clean moneyb model
(Governor)f
Matching funds
Various fines/fees
State Legislature
(contingency
mechanism, e.g., for
Appropriations
those facing non-
from legislature
publicly financed
Excess qualifying
opponents who
contributions
exceed spending
raised by
limits)
candidates
Maryland Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoffg
No major candidate has
(Governor, Lt. Governor)
participated since 1994,
reportedly due to
spending limits.
Massachusetts Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoff
Availability of public
(Governor, Lt. Governor,
funding depends on the
Attorney General,
amount designated by
Secretary of the
tax checkoffs. Funding is
Commonwealth,
al ocated first to
Treasurer, Auditor)
gubernatorial candidates,
then lower offices, if
State Legislature
available.h
Michigan Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoff
General election is
(Governor)h
(primary election)
funded first. Public
financing for primary, if
Fixed subsidy
available, is then
(general election)
al ocated on a pro-rated
basis.i
Minnesota Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Tax checkoff

(Governor, Lt. Governor,
Attorney General,
Appropriations
Secretary of State,
from legislature
Auditor)k
“Public Subsidy”
State Legislature
fundsl
Nebraska Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoff

(Governor, Secretary of
State, Attorney General,
Various fines/fees
Auditor of Public
Initial
Accounts, Public Service
appropriation
Commission, Univ. of
from legislaturel
Nebraska Board of
Congressional Research Service
38

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

How Public
How Candidates
State
Candidates Eligible for
Financing
Funding
Receive Public
Notes
Funding
System is
Funded
Regents, Board of
Education)
State Legislature
New Jersey
Statewide
Matching funds
Appropriations

(Governor)
from legislature
Tax checkoff
State Legislature
Direct subsidy
Appropriations
Clean moneyb model
(pilot program)n
from legislature
New Mexico
Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Appropriations
Clean moneyb model
(Public Regulation
from legislature
Commission; Judges for
Matching funds
State Court of Appeals,
(contingency
Various fines/fees
State Supreme Court
mechanism, e.g., for
Unspent previous
justices)
those facing non-
publicly financed
public financing
opponents who
moniesn
exceed spending
limits)
North
Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Tax checkoff
Public financing available
Carolina
(Judges for State Court of
only to judicial
Appeals, State Supreme
Campaign-related
candidates. Clean
Court justices; State
fees
moneyb model.p
Auditor; Insurance
Attorney renewal
Commissioner;
fees
Superintendent of Public
Instruction)
Donations
Rhode Island
Statewide
Matching funds
Tax checkoff

(Governor, Lt. Governor,
Secretary of State,
Appropriations
Attorney General, General
from legislature
Treasurer)
(secondary
source)q
Vermont Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Corporate
Clean moneyb model
(Governor, Lt. Governor)
reporting fees
(primary source)
Unspent previous
public financing
monies
Tax checkoff
Appropriations
from legislature
Public donationsr
Wisconsin Statewide
Fixed subsidy
Tax checkoff
Availability of public
(Governor, Lt. Governor,
funding depends on the
Matching funds for
amount designated by
Attorney General,
Supreme Court
tax checkoffs.s
Secretary of State,
candidates
Treasurer, Supt. of Public
(contingency
Instruction, State Supreme mechanism, e.g., for
Congressional Research Service
39

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

How Public
How Candidates
State
Candidates Eligible for
Financing
Funding
Receive Public
Notes
Funding
System is
Funded
Court justices)
those facing non-
publicly financed
State Legislature
opponents who
exceed spending
limits)
Source: CRS research as described in the text above and the following notes.
Notes: Unless otherwise noted, al public financing programs reflected in the table apply to primary and general
elections. The table does not include information on public funding for local candidates.
a. This information came from Michael Becker, Voter Education Manager at the Citizens Clean Elections
Commission (telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 16, 2006).
b. The clean money model (often also cal ed clean elections) offers full public financing to candidates who
agree to certain restrictions, particularly spending limits. Public financing programs in Arizona and Maine are
the most prominent statewide examples of this program, advocated by the interest group Public Campaign.
Throughout the table, those programs noted as clean money reflect information on the Public Campaign
website at http://www.publicampaign.org/where, although this does not necessarily mean that there is a
formal connection between Public Campaign and the public financing programs in those states. See also
Janice Thompson, Clean Money Comparisons: Summaries of Full Public Financing Programs (Washington: Public
Campaign, Summer 2006), at http://library.publicampaign.org/sites/default/files/
Clean%20Money%20Comparisons.pdf.
c. If property proceeds do not meet public financing needs, the state may appropriate funds from corporate
tax revenues to compensate for the shortfall. See also Janice Thompson, Clean Money Comparisons:
Summaries of Ful Public Financing Programs, pp. 25-31.
d. The 2006 Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) report also refers to “qualifying candidates” for
Lieutenant Governor and Corporations Commissioner as being eligible for public financing. See Steven M.
Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 93. The CGS report also references various
fines and fees to fund the state’s Campaign Financing Trust fund. According to Kristi Reid Bronson, Election
Records Bureau Chief at the Florida Division of Elections, the trust fund no longer exists, although it was
funded by fines and fees. Bronson also reported that public financing—essential y funded by appropriations
from the legislature—is available only to statewide candidates (telephone conversations with R. Sam
Garrett, Aug. 24, 2006; Aug. 1, 2008).
e. According to public financing information on the Common Cause website at http://www.commoncause.org/
site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399, Hawaii’s program is also funded by appropriations. The 2006
Center for Governmental Studies report also refers to “appropriated funds” when summarizing Hawaii’s
public financing system. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 93.
Based on consultations with staff at Hawaii’s Campaign Spending Commission, only those methods reflected
in Table 1 currently fund the program (telephone conversation between R. Sam Garrett and a staff
member, Hawai Campaign Spending Commission, July 12, 2006). As the commission’s Public Funding
Guidebook: Candidate Committees explains, the legislature created the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund in
1979. See State of Hawaii, Campaign Spending Commission, Public Funding Guidebook: Candidate
Committees, Jan. 2006, p. i, at http://www.hawaii.gov/campaign/Forms/Publications/CCPublications/
PFGuidebook/Public%20Funding%20Guidebook%20Candidate%20Committees.pdf. This might explain other
references to “appropriations.”
f.
According to Sandy Thompson, a candidate registrar at the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and
Election Practices, the Governor is the only statewide elected officeholder (other than federal
officeholders); telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 17, 2006.
g. The 2006 Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) report also refers to direct appropriations and fines
when summarizing Maryland’s public financing system. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing
in American Elections, p. 93. Jared DeMarinis, Maryland’s director of candidacy and campaign finance,
reported that a tax checkoff system financed the program when it was last utilized (telephone conversation
with R. Sam Garrett, June 30, 2006). He also noted, however, that public financing legislation that failed in
Congressional Research Service
40

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

2006 would have authorized additional funding sources and extended public financing to legislative
candidates. According to DeMarinis, the same legislation, modeled on the Clean Money framework, is
expected to be re-introduced during a future legislative session (telephone conversation with R. Sam
Garrett, Aug. 24, 2006).
h. This information is based on consultations with staff at the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political
Finance (telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, July 12, 2006). The 2006 CGS report also refers to
direct appropriations and monies from a previous public financing fund when summarizing funding for
Massachusetts’s public financing system. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American
Elections, p. 93. In 1998, Massachusetts voters, though a bal ot initiative, approved a broad public financing
program for the state. That program was based on the Clean Money model. However, the legislature did
not appropriate funds for the program. The law was reportedly repealed in 2003, and replaced with the
current system. See Thomas M. Finneran, “The Case Against Taxpayer Financing: A View From
Massachusetts; and the “Massachusetts” entry on the Common Cause website’s description of state public-
financing programs at http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399.
i.
The 2006 CGS report notes that public financing is available to candidates for Governor and Lieutenant
Governor. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 93. Based on
consultations with staff at Michigan’s Campaign Finance Division, public financing is only available for
gubernatorial candidates (telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 16, 2006). Information posted
on the Common Cause website also suggests that funding is limited to gubernatorial candidates; see
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399.
j.
This information is based on consultations with staff at Michigan’s Campaign Finance Division (telephone
conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 2, 2006).
k. According to Jeanne Olson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure
Board, the state’s public financing system provides funding to the gubernatorial ticket, which would include
the Lt. Governor candidate. The latter office, however, is not allocated separate public financing (telephone
conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 18, 2006).
l.
Public financing monies are distributed from the state’s General Fund, as al ocated through the tax check-
off, and an additional appropriation from the state legislature. In addition, candidates agreeing to certain
conditions (e.g., spending limits) may participate in the Public Subsidy program, which provides refunds from
the state for private campaign contributions from individuals (telephone conversation between R. Sam
Garrett and Jeanne Olson, Executive Director, Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board,
Aug. 18, 2006). For a brief overview of the Public Subsidy program, see “Public Subsidy Issues,” document
posted on the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board website, Nov. 2005, at
http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/issues/public_subsidy.pdf.
m. The 2006 CGS report refers to direct appropriations, taxpayer contributions of income tax refunds,
“amounts repaid to campaign finance limitation cash fund by candidates,” civil penalties, and late filing fees
when summarizing how Nebraska’s public financing system is funded. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean:
Public Financing in American Elections, p. 94. Common Cause also lists “appropriations” as a funding source;
see http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399. In a telephone consultation
with one of the CRS authors, Frank Daley, Executive Director of the Nebraska Accountability and
Disclosure Commission, reported that the legislature provided an initial appropriation of $50,000 in 1992,
but has not done so since. Currently, according to Daley, the tax checkoff and various fines and fees are the
only funding sources for public financing (telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, July 31, 2006).
n. During the 2005 election cycle, an experimental public financing program was implemented in two General
Assembly districts. The pilot was expanded to three total legislative districts (covering Assembly and Senate
candidates) in the 2007 election cycle. See New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, 2007 Fair
and Clean Elections Report, March 28, 2008, available at http://www.njcleanelections.com/downloads/
ce_report2007.pdf.
o. Some of the summary information about New Mexico’s public financing program came from the 2006 CGS
report. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 95. Clean Money
programs general y rely on a grant system to distribute funding. Janice Thompson, a consultant for Public
Campaign, reported that her research suggests that the New Mexico program is funded primarily by utility
fees and taxes (telephone conversations with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 2006), which is consistent with the CGS
findings. The preceding applies to the Public Regulation Commission component of the program, which
became effective for the 2006 election cycle. In April 2007, Governor Bill Richardson signed legislation
extending public financing to elections for state appeals court judges and Supreme Court justices. See Gov.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Bill Richardson, “Gov. Richardson Signs Landmark Public Financing Bill,” press release; April 13, 2007;
accessed April 27, 2007, by CRS Information Professional Zina Watkins via LexisNexis.
p. Some of the information about North Carolina’s public financing program reflected in the table came from
Jason Schrader, Audit Specialist in the Campaign Finance Division at the North Carolina State Board of
Elections (telephone conversations with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 2006). See also North Carolina State Board of
Elections, 2008-2009 Campaign Finance Manual at http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/content.aspx?id=7. For an
early assessment of North Carolina’s first cycle of public financing for judicial candidates, see Doug Bend,
“North Carolina’s Public Financing of Judicial Campaigns: A Preliminary Analysis,” The Georgetown Journal of
Legal Ethics, vol. 18, no. 3 (summer 2005), pp. 597-609.
q. The 2006 CGS report lists only a checkoff as the funding mechanism for Rhode Island’s public financing
system. See Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 97. Rhode Island law
authorizes the state treasury to provide monies from the state’s general fund if “funds generated by the tax
credit ... fail to produce sufficient money to meet the requirements of the public financing of the electoral
system.” See R.I. G.L. § 17-25-29 at http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE17/17-25/17-25-29.HTM. “Tax
credit” in the preceding sentence appears to be a reference to the tax checkoff system. Hank Johnson, a
staff member in the Campaign Finance Division at the Rhode Island Board of Elections, confirmed that the
program is financed by the checkoff system and general fund revenues distributed by the state treasury
(telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, August 2006).
r. According to information from staff at the Vermont Secretary of State’s office, corporate reporting fees are
the major source of funding for the state’s public financing program, and that not al other sources of
funding authorized by statute have been utilized (telephone conversation with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 2006).
s. Some of this information came from Dennis Morvak, an auditor in the Campaign Finance Division at the
Wisconsin Elections Board (telephone conversations with R. Sam Garrett, Aug. 22, 2006). Common Cause
reports that “In recent years, the system has been damaged by a decline in the amount of funds generated
by the check-off and growing spending on independent expenditures and sham ‘issue ads.’” This report
takes no position on Common Cause’s statement regarding issue advertising. The text of this report
provides additional information on the Wisconsin program, including citations to other critiques.
Impact of Public Financing in the States
Despite recent scholarly research, there is little certainty about how changes in American
campaign finance law affect electoral outcomes.118 Research on the impact of public financing is
particularly limited, dated, or both. Public financing programs in the states vary widely and were
implemented at different times. Even basic terminology can vary across states. All these factors
limit opportunities for comparing data.119 In answering whether public financing has achieved the
various goals proponents ascribe, one group of scholars wrote in 2006:
The short answer is that nobody knows because there has been no comprehensive evaluation
of public finance systems to identify what conditions and program elements lead to
successful outcomes. The conventional wisdom is based on either a limited amount of data
or anecdotal impression.120

118 Donald A. Gross, Robert K. Goidel, and Todd G. Shields, “State Campaign Finance Regulations and Electoral
Competition,” American Politics Research, vol. 30, no. 2 (March 2002), pp. 143-145; see also Michael J. Malbin and
Thomas L. Gais, eds., The Day After Reform.
119 For an example of the difficulty in standardizing measures of public financing in campaign finance research, see
Christopher Witko, “Measuring the Stringency of State Campaign Finance Regulation,” State Politics and Policy
Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3 (fall 2005), pp. 297-298. See also Michael J. Malbin and Thomas L. Gais, eds., The Day After
Reform, chapter 4.
120 Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams, “Public Funding Programs and Competition,” in
Michael P. McDonald and John Samples, eds., The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American
Politics (Washington: Cato Institute and Brookings Institution Press, 2006), p. 246.
Congressional Research Service
42

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Similarly, much of what is known about public financing is based on relatively narrow
evaluations of particular states or races.
Money and Competition
One of the major questions surrounding public financing is whether publicly funded campaigns
are more or less competitive than those that are privately financed. Research often considers at
least two different measures of “competition” surrounding public financing: (1) the amount of
money at each campaign’s disposal; and (2) the margin of victory on election day. In theory,
public financing should foster lower-cost campaigns because public financing generally requires
observing spending limits and reduces fundraising costs. If more candidates have access to
funding through public financing, races might also be closer on election day.121 Evidence on both
fronts is mixed. In general, research suggests that public financing can foster more competitive
elections. However, research on competition and public financing commonly emphasizes that
most public financing programs are in their infancy, and that more time and cases are needed to
draw definitive conclusions.
Public financing does appear to reduce financial disparities among candidates, provided that all
candidates participate in public financing. For example, research on state legislative elections has
found that public financing in Minnesota and Wisconsin decreased financial disparities between
challengers and incumbents.122 More access to money via public funding does not always foster
closer races,123 although it can provide ballot access for candidates who might not otherwise be
able to run.124 From this perspective, public financing provides an avenue to consistent
competition in elections, but not necessarily closer elections. On the other hand, in a comparative
analysis of legislative elections in five states that offer public financing—Arizona, Hawaii,
Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin—political scientists Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and
Amanda Williams found that competition generally increased after public financing was enacted,
both in terms of the number of incumbents facing challengers, and the number of “competitive”
races.125 These findings, however, were contingent upon sufficient funding to make the programs
attractive to candidates. There is some anecdotal evidence of public financing favoring
challengers or Democrats, although these findings are not systematic, and other research disputes

121 On its own, however, public financing limits only candidate spending—not spending by outside groups such as
parties, interest groups, and 527 organizations.
122 Joel A. Thompson and Gary F. Moncrief, eds., Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, p. 112. These
findings are based on evidence from only two states—Minnesota and Wisconsin—because they were “the only states
that allowed significant public financing of state legislative elections at the time of this study,” which was published in
1998. See Joel A. Thompson and Gary F. Moncrief, eds., Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections, p. 112.
123 For example, Kenneth Mayer and John Wood found that public financing reduced campaign costs in Wisconsin, but
generally did not foster closer elections. See Kenneth R. Mayer and John M. Wood, “The Impact of Public Financing
on Electoral Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 1
(February 1995), pp. 69-88. A study of gubernatorial elections from 1978-1998 found that although public financing
provided to political parties led to higher gubernatorial campaign costs, public financing provided directly to candidate
campaigns led to lower-cost gubernatorial races. Neither result was statistically significant, however, and the authors
cautioned that their findings on this point were “not definitive.” See Donald A. Gross and Robert K. Goidel, The States
of Campaign Finance Reform, p. 49.
124 Ibid, p. 111.
125 As the authors noted, however, their definition of “competitiveness” is “not a universally accepted threshold.” They
used a vote-margin between candidates of no more than 20% to mark “competitive” elections. See Kenneth R. Mayer,
Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams, “Public Funding Programs and Competition,” in Michael P. McDonald and
John Samples, eds. The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American Politics, p. 259.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

such findings.126 Finally, preliminary evidence from Arizona and Maine suggests that female
candidates are more likely to accept public funds in state house races, but availability of those
funds has not made women more likely to seek office.127
Regardless of candidates eligible for funding or the particulars of individual campaigns, public
financing becomes less popular, and therefore has less impact, if not all major candidates have
incentives to participate. Recent experience with Wisconsin’s program, for example, suggests that
publicly financed elections in that state have not become more competitive. Some observers
suggest that Wisconsin’s program provides too little funding to be a major component of
candidate’s overall expenditures. Hawaii has reportedly experienced similar problems.128
Time Spent Fundraising
Some who support public financing suggest that it can lead to more substantive campaigns by
freeing candidates from the burdens of raising large private contributions, providing more time to
connect with voters and discuss policy issues.129 Research indicates that public financing does
decrease the amount of time state legislative candidates spend raising money, but the finding
holds only for full public financing. A national survey of candidates who ran for state legislatures
in 2000 revealed that “[f]ull public funding can free candidates from spending large amounts of
time ‘dialing for dollars’ or making personal appeals to prospective donors. By comparison,
candidates who accepted partial public funds devoted about the same time to fundraising as did
candidates in states that did not provide public funding.”130 If this finding holds in other kinds of
races, it suggests that partial public financing might do little to alleviate what has been called
“the money chase” of continual fundraising.131 By contrast, existing models of full public
financing can reduce candidates’ fundraising duties for individual campaigns. Nonetheless,
despite the assertion that full public funding “can free candidates to spend less time with wealthy
donors raising money and more time on other aspects of campaigning,”132 it is unclear whether
public financing makes campaigns more “substantive,” or how such concepts would be measured.
In addition, public financing would not necessarily free candidates from fundraising for
leadership PACs or other entities that may serve to benefit their elections indirectly.133

126 See, for example, Donald A. Gross and Robert K. Goidel, The States of Campaign Finance Reform, p. 73; and
Patrick D. Donnay and Graham P. Ramsden, “Public Financing of Legislative Elections: Lessons from Minnesota,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3 (August 1995), pp. 351-364. On arguments that public financing favors
Democrats and incumbents, see Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. 16.
127 Timothy Werner and Kenneth R. Mayer, “Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender,” PS:
Political Science in Politics (October 2007), pp. 661-667.
128 Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams, “Public Funding Programs and Competition,” pp. 263-
265. On Wisconsin, see also Kenneth R. Mayer and John M. Wood, “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral
Competitiveness: Evidence from Wisconsin, 1964-1990,” pp. 69-88.
129 Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. xi.
130 Peter L. Francia and Paul S. Herrnson, “The Impact of Public Finance Laws on Fundraising in State Legislative
Election,” American Politics Research, vol. 31, no. 5 (September 2003), p. 535.
131 David B. Magleby and Candice J. Nelson, The Money Chase: Congressional Campaign Finance Reform
(Washington: Brookings Institution, 1990).
132 Ibid.
133 “Leadership PACs” are committees that are technically independent from legislators, but are generally established
by and at least unofficially linked with those legislators. These committees are legally distinct from a legislator’s
personal campaign committee. At the federal level, “Leadership PACs traditionally have been used by legislative
leaders to contribute to the campaigns of other members of Congress as a way of gaining a party majority and earning
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
44

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Diversity Among Candidates and Donors
Those favoring public financing suggest that it democratizes campaigns by providing more
“average” people with the resources to run, and enhances the role of small donations from
ordinary citizens. There is some evidence that public financing allows candidates who would not
otherwise do so, including minorities and women, to run for office.134 Clean Money programs
requiring candidates to collect small private contributions (e.g., $5 in Maine) also potentially
expand the donor universe by creating an important financial role for ordinary citizens who might
be unable to make large private contributions.135
The Impact of Public Financing Efforts in Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine
Much of the recent attention to public financing has occurred because of notable ballot initiatives
in two states. In 1996 and 1998, respectively, Maine and Arizona became the first states to
provide full public financing for qualified candidates for statewide and legislative offices. These
two states are often considered test cases for public financing because their programs are so
comprehensive. In both states, the first disbursements under these programs were made in the
2000 election cycle.136 Both states adopted public financing modeled on the clean money
program, advocated by Public Campaign. Arizona and Maine offer similar full public financing to
statewide and legislative candidates. Connecticut’s public financing program, which is similar to
the Arizona and Maine programs, was fully implemented for the 2008 election cycle. Although
the program appears to have been popular with candidates, it is too early to fully assess the
impact of public financing in that state.
Various accounts about the Arizona and Maine programs are available, although research
(especially from secondary sources) tends to be limited or is produced by groups that support or
oppose public financing. The Government Accountability Office (GAO, then the General
Accounting Office) issued one of the first governmental assessments of the Arizona and Maine
programs. The GAO report, issued in May 2003 and based on public financing offered in the
2000 and 2002 election cycles, found “inconclusive” and “mixed” results.137 According to GAO,
“In sum, with only two elections from which to observe legislative races and only one election
from which to observe most statewide races, it is too early to draw causal linkages to changes, if
any, that resulted from the public financing programs in the two states.”138 GAO also found
“inconclusive” and “mixed” results when examining whether the states met program goals in five

(...continued)
the gratitude of their colleagues or as a way of financing nationwide political activity by party leaders.” See Trevor
Potter, “The Current State of Campaign Finance Law,” in Anthony Corrado, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R. Ortiz, and
Trevor Potter, The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2005), p. 52.
134 Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. xi.
135 Ibid.
136 U.S. General Accounting Office, Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full
Public Funding for Political Candidates, p. 83.
137 U.S. General Accounting Office, Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full
Public Funding for Political Candidates, “Highlights” page. Regarding outside critiques of the GAO report, see
Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams, “Public Funding Programs and Competition,” pp. 252-
255.
138 U.S. General Accounting Office, Campaign Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full
Public Funding for Political Candidates, “Highlights” page.
Congressional Research Service
45

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

areas: (1) voter choice (measured in candidate emergence and participation in public financing);
(2) electoral competition (measured in percentage of competitive elections, decreases in
incumbent reelection rates, or smaller victory margins for reelected incumbents); (3) interest
group influence (measured by candidate and interest group reports through interviews and
surveys); (4) campaign spending (measured in candidate spending and independent expenditures);
and (5) voter participation (measured in turnout and awareness in surveys of public financing).139
GAO found that despite program goals of increasing the number of candidates running for office
and making elections more competitive, “the average numbers of state legislature candidates per
district race in Maine or Arizona in the 2000 and 2002 elections were not notably different than
the averages for the two previous elections, 1996 and 1998” (which did not have public
financing). GAO also found “inconclusive” results with respect to changes in competition in the
two states under public financing.140
Research conducted more recently generally suggests that public financing has enhanced
competition and diversity among candidates and donors in Arizona and Maine. One group of
scholars found that the number of contested races in Arizona legislative elections increased by
more than 10% from 2002 to 2004.141 A 2008 report issued by the advocacy group Public
Campaign found that small donors to publicly financed candidates in Arizona were more racially,
economically, and geographically diverse than traditional donors to privately financed
candidates.142
After reviewing Maine’s public financing program between 2000 and 2006 the state’s Ethics
Commission determined that public financing had tightened competition between incumbents and
challengers, and between winning and losing candidates. The Ethics Commission report also
found (among other points) that public financing had: “sharply reduc[ed]” total private
contributions to legislative candidates, increased the amount of time candidates had to spend
communicating with voters, and encouraged more first-time candidates (including more women)
to run for office. A 2009 report released by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University, which advocates public financing, also found evidence of increased competition in
states with public financing. In the Maine case, the Brennan Center study found that accepting
public financing slightly increased vote share among challengers (3 percentage points) and
incumbents (2 percentage points).143

139 For a summary of findings in each of these five research areas, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Campaign
Finance Reform: Early Experiences of Two States That Offer Full Public Funding for Political Candidates, pp. 4-6.
140 Ibid., p. 4.
141 Kenneth R. Mayer, Timothy Werner, and Amanda Williams, “Public Funding Programs and Competition,” in
Michael P. McDonald and John Samples, eds., The Marketplace of Democracy: Electoral Competition and American
Politics (Washington: Cato Institute and Brookings Institution Press, 2006), p. 257. In discussing this increase, the
authors noted, “While we cannot attribute this shift entirely to public funding... it is likely to have played a key role.”
142 Nancy Watzman, All Over the Map: Small Donors Bring Diversity to Arizona’s Elections, Public Campaign, May
2008, http://www.publicampaign.org/alloverthemap. Public Campaign advocates the clean elections model.
143 Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Kahlil Williams, and Thomas Stratmann, Electoral Competition and Low Contribution
Limits, Brennan Center for Justice, May 2009, pp. 10-11. The Brennan Center report relies on small samples, which can
affect statistical reliability. It is unclear whether the results discussed in the text were statistically significant. Findings
of at least 95% statistical significance are standard in the social sciences. Other aspects of the report cite findings
significant at the 90%, 95%, and 99% levels. Sampling obstacles are not unique to the Brennan Center report. Because
so few states have substantially similar public financing programs, drawing comparisons can be statistically difficult.
Congressional Research Service
46

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Some observers, however, have questioned the Arizona and Maine programs on ideological or
legal grounds.144 Fundamental to those arguments is that citizens could be indirectly forced to
provide financial support to politicians with whom they disagree, since Arizona’s program is
financed through various fines and fees.145 Some critics of Arizona’s program also contend that
increased competition in the state’s elections could be due to other factors, such as the impact of
term limits.146 In addition, Maine’s program is, according to one report favoring public financing,
“plagued by private contributions to candidate leadership PACs.”147 Political scientists Ray La
Raja and Matthew Saradjian have raised the possibility that public financing could increase
independent expenditures by interest groups and other organizations.148 An increase in
independent expenditures is one of the drawbacks to public financing identified in the 2007
Ethics Commission review of Maine’s public financing program.149
Despite contradictory data on effectiveness, candidate participation in both states’ public
financing programs has steadily increased over time. As Table 2 and Table 3 below show, about
one-quarter of legislative candidates participated in Arizona’s inaugural public financing effort in
2000, compared with about one-third of legislative candidates in Maine. By 2002, however,
participation in both states reached at least 50%, and has increased during subsequent election
cycles. By 2008, large majorities of legislative candidates in each state chose to participate in
public financing.
Table 2. Participation in Public Financing in Arizona (Legislative Candidates), 2000-
2008
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Primary
25% 54% 58% 60% 66%
Election
General
28% 50% 55% 59% 67%
Election
Source: Data for 2008 appear in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, 2008 Annual Report, Phoenix,
AZ, February 29, 2009, p. 8, http://www.azcleanelections.gov/Libraries/2007-2008-docs/Annual_Report.sflb.ashx.
Data for 2000-2006 appear in Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Demographics, n.d.,
http://www.azcleanelections.gov/Libraries/2005-2006-docs/Election_Demographics.sflb.ashx.

144 For an overview of these arguments, see, for example, Chip Mellor, “Three Lessons from Arizona,” in John
Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? pp. 31-47.
145 Ibid., p. 32-33.
146 Robert J. Franciosi, “Elections in Arizona, Clean and Unclean,” in John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? p. 58.
147 Steven M. Levin, Keeping It Clean: Public Financing in American Elections, p. xiii.
148 Ray J. La Raja and Matthew Saradjian, “Clean Elections: An Evaluation of Public Funding for Maine Legislative
Contests,” Center for Public Policy and Administration, University of Massachusetts, n.d., at
http://www.masspolicy.org/pdf/working/WP2004_2.pdf.
149 Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 2007 Study Report: Has Public Funding
Improved Maine Elections?, Augusta, ME, 2007, p. 2, http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/publications/
2007_study_report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
47

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Table 3. Participation in Public Financing in Maine (Legislative Candidates), 2000-
2008
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Primary
32% 52% 72% 74% 74%
Election
General
33% 62% 79% 81% 82%
Election
Source: CRS analysis of data provided by the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics, May 2009 (e-mail
correspondence between R. Sam Garrett and Gavin O’Brien, Candidate Registrar, May 14, 2009).
Notes: Figures in the table are rounded. General-election data for 2000-2006 also appear in Maine Commission
on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 2007 Study Report: Has Public Funding Improved Maine Elections?,
Augusta, ME, 2007, p. 13, http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/publications/2007_study_report.pdf. General-election
data for 2008 also appear in Maine Clean Elections Act, Overview of Participation Rates and Payments, 2000-2008,
Document attributed to the Maine Legislature Joint Committee on Legal and Veterans Affairs, posted to the
Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices website , January 14, 2009,
http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/publications/2008_mcea_overview.pdf. Some of the general-election
percentages calculated by CRS (based on the raw data provided by the Maine Commission on Governmental
Ethics) differ by approximately 1% from the Maine Clean Elections Act document. The differences appear to be due
to small variations in the number of cases in each data source.
Data on differences between Democrats and Republicans (or members of third parties or
independents) are not uniformly available. The same is true for House versus Senate candidates.
A review of data that are available, however, suggests that House and Senate candidates have
embraced public financing in roughly equal numbers. More Democrats than Republicans
typically participate in public financing, but majorities of candidates from both parties have done
so in states with comprehensive programs. In Maine in 2008, for example, 94% of Democratic
House candidates received public funds, compared with 70% of their Republican counterparts. In
the Senate, 81% of Democratic candidates accepted public funds in 2008, compared with 75% of
Republicans.150
Connecticut’s program for legislative public financing was fully implemented for the 2008
election cycle. The Connecticut program appears not to have been fully evaluated thus far.
Although it is too early to tell how consistent participation in Connecticut’s program will be,
approximately 75% of all candidates reportedly participated in public funding during the 2008
election cycle.151
Public Opinion on Public Financing and Spending
Limits
Surveys indicate that Americans generally support campaign finance “reform” (generally
meaning more regulation of money in politics) and are concerned about the amount of money in

150 Maine Clean Elections Act, Overview of Participation Rates and Payments, 2000-2008, Document attributed to the
Maine Legislature Joint Committee on Legal and Veterans Affairs posted to the Maine Commission on Governmental
Ethics and Election Practices website, January 14, 2009, http://www.maine.gov/ethics/pdf/publications/
2008_mcea_overview.pdf.
151 Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, The Status of the Citizens’ Election Fund as of December
31, 2008, May 2009, p. 4, http://www.ct.gov/seec/lib/seec/publications/cef_2009_annual_report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
48

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

campaigns. Nonetheless, public opinion about campaign finance can be contradictory.152 These
patterns are evident in the relatively limited available data about attitudes on public financing.
Historically, surveys reveal that large pluralities or even majorities of Americans support public
financing in principle, but are hesitant to invest tax dollars to facilitate public financing. These
findings indicate that the wording, source, and timing of individual questions vary greatly and can
affect campaign finance polling results, as is always the case with survey research, regardless of
topic.
Majorities tend to support public financing when asked questions suggesting favorable
information about public financing, or in surveys conducted for pro-reform clients.153 On the
other hand, majorities tend to respond negatively to questions focusing on costs of public
financing or taxation.154 Survey respondents say that they are neutral or positive toward public
financing if question wording suggests that public financing can limit the influence of “special
interests” or campaign costs.155 On the other hand, survey questions that emphasize spending
“taxpayer dollars” to support public financing often yield disapproval from respondents.
Americans have been more willing in polls to support public financing after perceived scandals,
such as during the 1970s and 1990s.156
In Gallup polling conducted between 1972 and 1996, between 50% and 65% of respondents
favored “provid[ing] a fixed amount of money” for presidential and congressional campaigns,
while banning private contributions.157 Similarly, in a 1997 Washington Post poll, 49% of
campaign contributors answered favorably when asked if they would “favor or oppose having all
federal elections financed out of public funds, with strict limits on how much each candidate for
president, US Senator or Congressman could spend”; 48% were opposed.158 In the same poll, but
with spending limits omitted from question wording, only 26% responded favorably when asked
whether they would “favor or oppose the federal government financing presidential and
congressional elections out of tax money.”159
The polling data reviewed above illustrate that Americans have more consistently supported
containing campaign spending—a hallmark of public financing programs—than public funding
per se. For example, in a 1997 New York Times/CBS News poll, 60% of respondents said that
“limit[ing] the amount of money that campaigns can spend” should be a “top” or “high” priority
within campaign finance reform efforts.160 In a Gallup poll from the same year, 79% of
respondents favored “putting a limit on the amount of money” congressional candidates could
“raise and spend on their political campaigns.”161 However, like all survey questions, answers to

152 Anthony Gierznski, Money Rules: Financing Elections in America (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), pp. 50-51.
153 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
154 Ibid., p. 9; and John Samples, ed., Welfare for Politicians? pp. 8-9.
155 Stephen R. Weissman and Ruth A. Hassan, “Public Opinion Polls Concerning Public Financing of Federal Elections
1972-2000: A Critical Analysis and Proposed Future Directions,” (Washington: Campaign Finance Institute, 2005), pp.
2-3, at http://www.cfinst.org/president/pdf/PublicFunding_Surveys.pdf.
156 Ibid., p. 4.
157 Ibid., pp. 3-4. The poll reportedly varied in how often each office was mentioned.
158 Survey information gathered from Polling the Nations Survey Database at http://poll.orspub.com/. Search conducted
by CRS Information Professional Zina Watkins, May 2006.
159 Ibid.
160 Ibid.
161 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
49

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

spending questions are also affected by wording. For example, in a 1999 NBC News poll, only
17% of respondents (but the second-most-common answer) presented with a list of potential
campaign finance concerns said that “unlimited contributions” concerned them most, compared
with 37% who were most concerned about “special interests.”162 More generally, in a 2002 ABC
News/Washington Post poll, 66% of respondents favored “stricter laws controlling the way
political campaigns raise and spend money.”163 It appears that regular, national polling about
public financing has been uncommon since the mid-1990s.
Potential Considerations for Congressional Public
Financing
Public financing has been debated in Congress and the states for decades. This suggests that
interest in the topic will continue. As Congress considers how, or whether, to change the status
quo, state experiences with public financing, as well as the nation’s presidential public financing
system, offer several potential lessons. However, the great diversity among state programs makes
interpreting those lessons challenging. At the federal level, the presidential public financing
system provides partial matching funds to qualifying candidates in primaries, but far more
substantial fixed subsidies to candidates in the general election. At the state level, which
campaigns are eligible for public funding, how much funding is available, what requirements are
placed on candidates accepting public funding, and when programs were implemented vary. The
presidential public financing system and those in the states all rely on either fixed subsidies (in
the states, especially clean money models) or matching funds to distribute public financing.
Despite similar ways of delivering funds to candidates, details about each program can vary
greatly. These differences have produced research that describes individual components of public
financing programs, but rarely draws systematic comparisons across states. In addition, only two
states—Arizona and Maine—currently provide full public financing for legislative elections.
(Others provide partial public financing for legislative elections, but, again, vary widely.)
Consequently, there are few certainties about how public financing might apply to congressional
campaigns. Nonetheless, several potential considerations remain.
State models suggest two approaches164 to national public financing if Congress decides to pursue
subsidized congressional campaigns. First, most public financing programs infuse public money
into campaigns in hopes of limiting the impact of private money. This approach essentially
provides candidates with money so that they do not have to raise their own—or can at least raise
less. Second, some models, such as Nebraska’s public funding program, have reportedly
encouraged the vast majority of candidates to limit spending on their own. Rather than providing
public funding to candidates based on the assumption that they will spend those funds, the
Nebraska program reserves public financing for candidates whose opponents refuse to abide by

162 Ibid.
163 Ibid.
164 The models discussed here are not the only potential avenues for delivering public financing, although they are the
mechanisms the states and the presidential system currently use. Other options, such as the “Patriot dollars” program of
partial public financing, in which voters would receive small amounts of funds to be distributed to their favored
candidates via a blind trust, or subsidies for political parties or to purchase broadcast time, are also possibilities. Yale
University law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposed the “Patriot dollars” approach in their book Voting
with Dollars. See Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).
Congressional Research Service
50

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

relatively low spending limits. These two approaches suggest a choice for Congress between
public funding that concentrates primarily on distributing money in anticipation of campaign
needs versus creating incentives for candidates to need less money by observing spending
limits.165
In addition, creating a public financing system requires a choice between funding primary
elections or general elections, or both. Most existing state programs have funded both types of
elections, although general elections sometimes take priority over primary elections and might be
funded differently from primary elections. While early congressional proposals generally covered
primaries as well as general elections, most prominent proposals since the 100th Congress have
dealt only with general election financing to reduce both costs and program complexity, and to
enhance chances for enactment.
Regardless of the chosen approach, public financing does not altogether eliminate private money
in politics. Even clean money programs require some private fundraising to establish viability,
albeit far less than under private financing. In addition, some observers fear that public financing
creates opportunities for more financial influence from less accountable non-candidate sources—
such as independent expenditures and election-related “issue advocacy” by interest groups—
compared with the current system of private financing. Public financing systems generally do not
regulate fundraising or spending outside candidate campaigns, although legislation could address
such issues.
Congress might also wish to consider why some public financing programs have been curtailed.
In a few states, decisions by voters and candidates—not state governments—appear to be most
responsible for public financing programs falling into disfavor. Experiences in the states suggest
that in order to be viable, public financing must have sufficient funding to make participation
attractive to candidates. As with public funds for presidential candidates, if public financing
provides too little money—or sets accompanying spending limits too low—to convince
candidates that they can wage effective campaigns, major candidates are likely to opt out of the
system, ultimately making it relevant only for minor candidates. (In 2004, for example, both of
the eventual major-party nominees for President opted out of matching funds in the primaries.)
Public support can also be important to enact and maintain public financing. Despite regular
congressional interest in public financing since at least the 1950s, disagreements over many of the
issues noted in this report have thus far thwarted efforts to adopt public financing in legislative
elections.
On a related note, effective public financing166 requires resources not only adequate to make
participation attractive to candidates, but also sufficient to administer and enforce public
financing. As law professor Richard Briffault has explained,
Public [campaign] funding requires administrators to determine who qualifies for public
funds, to disburse the funds, and to enforce whatever restrictions accompany the funds. Can
public administrators handle the job? In fact, administrators have successfully handled the
qualification of candidates and disbursement of public funds in presidential elections. The

165 Some combination of these two approaches might also be possible. However, most programs offering contingency
funds for those facing high spending by opponents assume that those opponents do not participate in public financing.
166 This assumes that “effectiveness” is signaled by high levels of candidate participation.
Congressional Research Service
51

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

real question is whether they can enforce the rules—particularly the spending limits—that
are likely to accompany public funding.167
Comprehensive congressional public financing would, therefore, almost certainly require
substantial administrative and enforcement resources for the Federal Election Commission.
Finally, public financing regulates only one area of campaign conduct. If Congress were to adopt
public financing for its elections, other regulations—including those currently in place—would
still be required to shape other areas of campaign politics, such as political advertising and party
activities. Public financing would also not necessarily affect other factors that shape individual
races. As one pair of scholars wrote in 1995,
public financing of congressional elections, by itself, will not eliminate the problem of
uncompetitive elections. As in Wisconsin, public subsidies may increase or prevent further
deterioration in the competitiveness of contested congressional races by giving challengers
more of a level playing field. They might not, however, encourage challengers to emerge in
districts where the incumbent is perceived as unbeatable.168
Public financing could have diverse impacts on congressional elections. Data from the states
show some evidence that public financing decreases financial disparities between candidates and
fosters closer margins of victory. However, these findings are generally preliminary and are based
on specific conditions in specific states. Because public financing limits the amount of private
financing of campaigns, it is likely that public financing in congressional elections would reduce
the amount of time candidates spend raising money—at least for their own or others’ candidate
campaigns. On its own, however, public financing of candidate campaigns would not affect
activities by 527s, political parties, or other organizations. The same is true for leadership PACs,
unless they were prohibited by public financing legislation.
Evidence from the states also suggests that if Congress chooses to fund congressional elections
publicly, faith in the system and patience will be required. As is discussed throughout this report,
much about the impact of public financing is simply unknown. Relatively few states offer public
financing for legislative elections. Individual components of those programs, such as funding
levels, conditions on candidates, and other factors, can vary substantially, making it difficult to
compare public financing across states or to draw firm inferences about how state lessons might
translate to congressional elections. It is clear from the presidential public financing program, and
state programs, that assessing the impact of public financing takes multiple election cycles. As
more states experiment with legislative public financing, and do so for longer periods of time,
potential lessons for adopting congressional public financing will become clearer. It is also clear
that in order to be effective, public financing programs require levels of funding sufficient to
make them attractive to serious candidates, and to maintain those levels of funding over time.
Similarly, spending limits associated with public financing must be high enough to convince
candidates that they can compete in modern campaigns, including in expensive broadcast media
markets.


167 Richard Briffault, “Public Funding and Democratic Elections,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 148
(1999-2000), p. 585. The quotation above omits Briffault’s footnote 70.
168 See Kenneth R. Mayer and John M. Wood, “The Impact of Public Financing on Electoral Competitiveness,” p. 86.
Congressional Research Service
52

---

.

Appendix A. Public Finance Bills Passed by the House or Senate: 1973 -1993
Table A-1. Congressional Election Public Finance Bills Passed by House or Senate: Summary of Provisions
Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


93rd Congress
House General Major-party
candidates:

Greater of 15¢ per eligible
Mandatory system
H.R. 11104,
voter, or $90,000
Fixed subsidy equal to
S. Amt. 651
Financed by negative tax
spending limit
Parties may spend additional
checkoff (i.e., one must
Passed by Senate
amounts
opt not to have tax
Minor-party candidates:
Nov. 27, 1973
revenues used)
Fixed subsidy based on
Later dropped after House
prior vote history
refused to accept Senate
additions
Senate General
Major-party
candidates:

Greater of 15¢ per eligible
voter, or $175,000
Fixed subsidy equal to
spending limit
Parties may spend additional
amounts
Minor-party candidates:
Fixed subsidy based on
prior vote history
CRS-53

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


93rd Cong.
House
Primary Matches
$100
donations,

$90,000
Voluntary system
S. 3044
up to ½ spending limit

Financed by negative tax
Passed by Senate
General Major-party
candidates: $90,000 checkoff (i.e., one must
Apr. 11, 1974
opt not to have tax
Fixed subsidy equal to
Parties may spend additional
revenues used)
spending limit
amounts

Minor party candidates:
Fixed subsidy based on
prior vote history
Senate
Primary Matches
$100
donations,

Greater of 10¢ per eligible
up to ½ spending limit
voter, or $125,000

General Major-party
candidates:
Greater of 15¢ per eligible
voter, or $175,000
Fixed subsidy equal to
spending limit
Parties may spend additional
amounts
Minor party candidates:
Fixed subsidy based on
prior vote history
CRS-54

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


101st Cong.
Senate General
—
Broadcast
Contributions or loans from
Candidates who do not
S. 137
communication
candidate or family:
participate are ineligible
Contingent subsidies to
vouchers of up to $250,000
for lowest unit rate and
Passed Senate
compensate participant
20% of general
are required to include in
Aug. 1, 1990
for:
election spending
General election—
their advertisements a
The lesser of:
(A) independent
limit
statement that they do
(A) $5.5 million, or
expenditures against
not abide by spending
Lowest unit rate
(B) the greater of
participant or for
limits
for non-pre-
(i) $950,000, or
opponent; and
emptible
(i ) $400,000, plus 30¢ times
Total spending range:
(B) expenditures by
broadcast time
the voting age population
$1.6 -$8.3 million
opponent in excess of
(VAP), up to 4 million, and
Reduced mail
spending limit
25¢ times VAP over 4
rates, valued up
million (may be exceeded by
to 5% of the
25%, in small in-state
general election
donations)
limit
Primary election—
(First-class mail at 67% of the general election
1/4 existing rate;
limit, up to $2.75 million
third-class mail at
2¢ less than
Runoff—
existing rate)
20% of the general election
limit
Limits raised to equal
independent expenditures
against participants in
primary and removed if
opponent spends more than
133 1/3% of limit
CRS-55

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


101st Congress
House
General
—
One free radio or Candidate personal funds—

H.R. 5400
TV spot for every $75,000
two purchased
Passed House
Election cycle—
Aug. 3, 1990
First-class postage $550,000 (up to $300,000 in
at ½ current rate
primary), plus:
and third-class
$165,000 if primary is won
postage at
with less than 2/3 of vote
nonprofit rate, in
the last 90 days of Runoff—
the election
$100,000
campaign
Contingency provision:
100% tax credit
Limits removed if non-
for in-state
participant raises or spends
contributors, up
more than $200,000
to $50 ($100 on
joint returns)
CRS-56

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


102nd Cong.
Senate General
—
Broadcast
Contributions or loans from
Candidates who do not
S. 3
communication
candidate or family:
participate are required to
Contingent subsidies to
vouchers of up to $25,000
include in their
Passed Senate
compensate participant for:
20% of general
advertisements a
May 23, 1991
(A) independent
election spending
General election—
statement that they do
expenditures against
The lesser of:

limit
not abide by spending
participant or for opponent,
(A) $5.5 million, or
limits.
once over $10,000; and
50% lowest unit
rate for non-pre-
(B) the greater of
(Total spending range:
(B) expenditures by
emptible
(i) $950,000, or
$1.6 million to $8.3
opponent in excess of
broadcast time
(i ) $400,000, plus 30¢ times
million)
spending limit
VAP, up to 4 million, and 25¢
Reduced mail
times VAP over 4 million
rates, valued up
to 5% of general
Primary election—
election limit
67% of general election limit,
up to $2.75 million
(first-class mail at
1/4 existing rate;
Runoff—
third-class mail at
20% of general election limit
2¢ less than
Contingency provision:
reduced first-class Limits raised to equal
rate)
independent expenditures
against participants in primary
or general, once over $10,000,
and removed if opponent
spends more than 133 1/3%
of limit
CRS-57

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


102nd Congress
House
General
Matching funds, up to
Up to three
Candidate personal funds—

H.R. 3750
$200,000, with first $200
mailings per
$60,000
from individuals matched
eligible voter, at
Passed House
same reduced
Election cycle—
Nov. 25, 1991
Contingent subsidies to
third-class
$600,000 (up to $500,000 in
compensate participant:
general election), plus

postage rate as
(A) for independent
available to
$150,000 if primary is won
expenditures against
national parties
by 10% or less of vote
participant or for opponent;
Runoff—
(B) for expenditures by
$100,000
opponent once in excess of
50% of general election
Contingency provision:
spending limit, on a
Limits are removed if opponent
matching basis; and
raises or spends more than
50% of general election limit or
(C) if opponent makes
when $60,000 in independent
personal contributions in
expenditures are made against
excess of 50% of general
the candidate or for opponent
election limit, on 3-to-1
matching basis
CRS-58

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


102nd Congress
Senate General
—
Broadcast
Candidate/family
Non-participants required
S. 3
communication
contributions/loans—
to run disclaimer on ads
Conference version
Contingent subsidies to
vouchers of up to
that they do not abide by
compensate participant for:
20% of gen.
lesser of $250,000, or 10%
spending limits
Vetoed
election spending
of general election limit
May 9, 1992
(A) independent
(Total spending range:
expenditures against
limit
General election—
$1.6 million to $8.3

participant or for opponent;
50% lowest unit
the lesser of:
million)
and
rate for non-pre-
(A) $5.5 million, or
(B) expenditures by
emptible
(B) the greater of
opponent in excess of
broadcast time
spending limit
(i) $950,000, or
Up to 1 mailing
per eligible voter,
(i ) $400,000, plus 30¢ times
at lowest 3rd class VAP, up to $4 million, and
non-profit rate
25¢ times VAP over $4
million
Primary election—
67% of general election limit,
up to $2.75 million
Runoff—
20% of general election limit
Contingency provision:
Limits raised to equal
independent expenditures
against participants in general
election, once over $10,000,
and raised if opponent spends
more than 133 1/3% of limit
CRS-59

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


102nd Congress
House
General
Matching funds, up to
Up to 1 mailing
Candidate personal funds—

S. 3
$200,000, with first $200
per eligible voter,
lesser of $250,000, or 10%
Conference version
from individuals matched
at lowest third-
of general election limit
class, non-profit
Vetoed
Contingent subsidies to
rate
Election cycle—
May 9, 1992
compensate participant:
$600,000 (up to $500,000 in
general election), plus:
(A) for independent
$150,000 if contested
expenditures against
primary is won by 10% or
participant or for opponent,
less of vote
once over $10,000; and
Runoff—
(B) if opponent makes
$100,000
personal contributions in
excess of 50% of general
Contingency provision:
election limit, on a 3-to-1
Limits removed if opponent
matching basis
spends more than 80% of
general election limit or to
extent of independent
expenditures made against
candidate or for opponent,
once over $10,000
CRS-60

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


103rd Congress
Senate General
—
50% lowest unit
Candidate/family
Non-participants required
S. 3
rate for non-pre-
contributions/loans—
to run disclaimer on ads
Contingent subsidies to
emptible
$25,000
that they do not abide by
Passed Senate
compensate participant for:
broadcast time, in
spending limits
June 17, 1993
General election—
(A) independent
last 60 days of
the lesser of:
Repeals exempt function
expenditures against
general election

(A) $5.5 million, or
income exclusion on
participant or for opponent,
Up to 2 mailings
principal campaign
once over $10,000 from a
per eligible voter,
(B) the greater of
committees of candidates
single source; and
at lowest third-
(i) $950,000, or
who exceed spending
(i ) $400,000, plus 30¢ times
(B) expenditures by
class, non-profit
limits
VAP, up to 4 million, and
opponent in excess of
rate
25¢ times VAP over 4
(Total spending range:
spending limit
million
$1.6 million to $8.9
million)
Primary election—
67% of general limit, up to
$2.75 million
Runoff—
20% of general limit
Contingency provision:
Limits are raised to equal
independent expenditures
against participants in general
election, once over $10,000,
and raised if opponent exceeds
limit by 100% of limit (but
spending not to exceed 200%
of limit)
CRS-61

---

.

Congress, Bill, & Action
Applicability
Public Benefits
Spending limits
Notes

Chamber
Election
Direct Payments
Other Benefits


103rd Congress
House General
—
Voter
Candidate personal funds—

H.R. 3
communication
$50,000
Contingent subsidies to
vouchers, based
Passed House
compensate participant for:
on matching first
Election cycle—
Nov. 22, 1993
(A) independent
$200 from
$600,000, plus:
expenditures against
$200,000 if contested

individuals, up to
participant or for opponent,
$200,000
primary is won by 20% or
once over $10,000; and
less of vote
(B) close-primary winners
Runoff—
(up to $66,600 in additional
$200,000
vouchers)
Contingency provision:
Limits removed if non-
participating opponent raises
or spends more than 25% of
general election limit or to
extent of independent
expenditures made against
candidate or for opponent,
once over $10,000
Notes: Provisions in italics represent contingency provisions, which would have taken effect only under certain specified circumstances.
VAP = voting age population

CRS-62

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Appendix B. Public Finance Bills in the 109th
Congress: Summary of Key Provisions
H.R. 2753 (Andrews)—Public Campaign Financing Act of 2005
(Introduced June 7, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have provided public funding in House general elections in amounts based
on media costs in the area, up to $750,000 (with indexing for future inflation), for
specified campaign purposes (but not a salary for candidate), within four months
of general election, for candidates who: (a) gather petitions signed by at least 3%
of registered voters or whose party received at least 25% of the vote in prior
general election; (b) limit individual donations to $100; (c) raise at least 80% of
funds in-state; and (d) participate in at least two debates; would have required
broadcasters to accept participating candidate ads, until they constituted 40% of
station’s total advertising time.
Other provisions:
• Would have required FEC to allow state parties to file copies of reports filed
under state law if they contain substantially the same information as required
under federal law;
• Would have required prompt disclosure by non-party entities for spending on
“federal election activities” (as defined by BCRA), once $2,000 threshold level is
reached;
• Would have required candidate reports to be broken down by primary, general, or
runoff election;
• Would have prohibited bundling by PACs, parties, lobbyists, unions,
corporations, or national banks, or employees or agents acting on their behalf.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)—Clean Money, Clean Elections Act
(Introduced June 28, 2005; jointly referred to Committees on House Administration, Energy and
Commerce, and Government Reform)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have applied to House candidates voluntarily participating in public
financing;
• Would have provided full public subsidies, 30 minutes of free broadcast time in
primary and 75 minutes in general election, and additional broadcast time at 50%
of lowest unit rate for House candidates who participate in “clean money” system
and spend no private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Would have allowed candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money
($35,000, in contributions of $100 or less) for specified uses by raising $5
donations from 1,500 state residents; others would have qualified by raising
150% of amount raised by major party candidates;
Congressional Research Service
63

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (60% for general election,
40% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates)
of 80% of base amount per election (base amount would have been national
average of winning House candidate expenditures in three most recent general
elections), but amount was never to be less than amount provided in previous
election cycle;
• Would have reduced subsidy to 40% of amount otherwise determined for
unopposed candidates;
• Additional subsidies would have been provided to candidates targeted in
opposing independent expenditures and by non-complying opponents once such
spending exceeded 125% of spending limit (maximum additional funds equals
200% of limit);
• Would have denied lowest unit rate to non-participating House candidates;
• Would have financed benefits from House of Representatives Election Fund
using appropriated funds, qualifying contributions, and unused seed money.
Other provisions:
• In House races with at least one “clean money” candidate, would have limited
party spending on behalf of a candidate to 10% of general election candidate’s
subsidy;
• Regarding “clean money” candidates: would have required 48-hour notice of
independent expenditures above $1,000 up to 20 days before election and 24-
hour notice of amounts above $500 in last 20 days;
• Would have amended “contribution” to include anything of value for purpose of
influencing a federal election and that was coordinated with candidate;
• Would have defined “payment made in coordination with a candidate” to include
payments (1) in cooperation or consultation with, or at request or suggestion of, a
candidate or agent; (2) using candidate-prepared materials; (3) based on
information about campaign plans provided by candidate’s campaign for purpose
of expenditure; (4) by a spender who during that election cycle had acted in an
official position for a candidate, in an executive, policymaking, or advisory
capacity; and (5) by a spender who had used the same consultants as an affected
candidate during election cycle; would have deemed payments made in
coordination with a candidate as a “contribution” or “expenditure” (but exempted
a payment by a party in coordination with a “clean money” candidate);
• Would have added one FEC commissioner, recommended by other members;
• Would have allowed random audits of campaigns;
• Would have given FEC authority to seek injunctions;
• Would have changed standard to begin enforcement proceedings to “reason to
investigate”;
• Would have allowed FEC to petition Supreme Court;
Congressional Research Service
64

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would have expedited enforcement in last 60 days of election, with clear and
convincing evidence that violation had occurred, was occurring, or was about to
occur;
• Would have allowed subpoenas without chair’s signature;
• Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would have required 24-hour notice of all contributions received in last 90 days
of election;
• Would have prohibited preemption of House campaign broadcast ads, unless
beyond broadcasters’ control;
• Would have prohibited franked mass mailings from start of primary election
period through general election, unless Member was not a candidate or mailing
promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Included statement of findings and declarations;
• If any provision of act or this statute were held unconstitutional, the remainder of
act and statute would have been unaffected.
H.R. 4694 (Obey)—Let the Public Decide Campaign Finance Reform Act (Introduced
February 1, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on House Administration, Ways and Means, and
Rules)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have set mandatory limits on House general election spending based on
median household income per district, with maximum of $1.5 million for all
major party candidates in highest level district;
• Other districts’ limits would have been determined by subtracting from $1.5
million: two-thirds of percentage difference between the median household
income in the district involved and the highest-median-household-income
district, multiplied by $1.5 million;
• Maximum expenditure by a major party candidate would have been in the same
ratio to the district-wide limit as the votes for that candidate’s party in the last
two House general elections in the district were to the votes for all major party
candidates in those two elections;
• For purposes of establishing major party limit, only elections in which there were
at least two major party candidates were to have been counted, and, if no such
elections occurred, votes for Senate elections during the same period were to be
used as the basis;
• Maximum expenditure for minor party or independent candidates would have
been based on comparable ratios concerning that party’s (or all independent
candidates’) votes in House general elections in the district, all federal offices in
the state, or for presidential elections in the state (whichever amount was
highest);
Congressional Research Service
65

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would have established mechanism for candidates to increase their spending
limits based on submission of petition signatures (not applicable to candidate
with highest limit in the race);
• Payments were to have been made to candidates for election expenses in amounts
equal to the expenditure limits calculated above from a Grassroots Good
Citizenship Fund, established within the Treasury;
• Fund would have been financed by voluntary taxpayer designations of any
refunds owed them of at least $1, plus any additional contributions they wished
to make, and by a tax on corporations of 0.1% on taxable income above $10
million;
• Would have directed FEC to make extensive public service announcements from
January 15 to April 15 to promote the fund;
• Would have allowed only one other source for campaign expenditures—
contributions from national and state political parties, of up to 5% of the
applicable spending limit;
• Would have limited spending in non-general House elections (e.g., primaries) to
one-third of the general-election spending limit;
• If any part of the act or these amendments were held unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court of the United States, would have provided for expedited (fast-
track) consideration by Congress of a constitutional amendment to allow
reasonable restrictions on contributions, expenditures, and disbursements in
federal campaigns; any legislation enacted to enforce such an amendment would
have expired four presidential elections after enactment, unless extended by
Congress;
• Unless otherwise specified, legislation would have taken effect in 2007 and
expired in 2020.
Other provisions:
• Would have banned independent expenditures in connection with House elections
(but would have provided for fast-track consideration of a constitutional
amendment to allow reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional);
• Would have banned soft money spending in connection with House elections (but
would have provided for fast-track consideration of a constitutional amendment
to allow reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional).
H.R. 5281 (Leach)—Campaign Reform Act of 2004
(Introduced May 3, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have created House of Representatives Election Campaign Account,
within the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, to provide matching payments
to eligible House candidates;
• Eligibility would have been established by (1) raising at least $10,000 from
individuals in that election cycle; (2) qualifying for the primary or general
Congressional Research Service
66

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

election ballot; (3) having an opponent in the primary or general election; and (4)
limiting receipts and expenditures in election to $500,000 or the aggregate
matching payment limit, whichever was greater;
• Would have provided for an equal match of contributions from in-state
individuals whose aggregate contributions to that candidate for that election did
not exceed $500;
• Aggregate matching payments were not to exceed $175,000 in an election, unless
(1) a non-eligible opponent raised more than $500,000 for that election, in which
case the matching fund payment could have equaled the opponent’s receipts; (2)
any opponent in a contested primary raised more than $50,000, in which case the
payments could have been increased by up to $75,000; or (3) a runoff occurred,
in which case the payments could have been increased by up to $50,000;
• Payments for House candidates were to have come from House of
Representatives Election Campaign Account, once Secretary of Treasury
determined that there were adequate funds for presidential campaigns, and from
supplemental authorizations by Congress.
Congressional Research Service
67

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Appendix C. Public Finance Bills in the 110th
Congress: Summary of Key Provisions
H.R. 1614 (Tierney)—Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2007
(Introduced March 20, 2007; jointly referred to Committees on House Administration, Energy
and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have established voluntary public financing system for House candidates;
• Would have provided full public subsidies, 30 minutes of free broadcast time in
primary and 75 minutes in general election, and additional broadcast time at 50%
of lowest unit rate for House candidates who participate in public financing
system and spend no private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Would have allowed candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money (up to
$50,000, in contributions of $100 or less);
• Major party candidates would have qualified for public financing by raising
1,500 $5 contributions from state residents;
• Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (60% for general election,
40% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates)
of 80% of base amount per election;
• Base amount would have been national average of winning House candidate
expenditures in two most recent general elections, but not less than amount
provided in previous election cycle (and would include annual adjustments based
on media costs in the state in which the participating candidate is running);
• Would have reduced subsidy to 40% of amount otherwise determined for
unopposed candidates;
• Would have provided additional subsidies to compensate for spending by
opponents, opposing independent expenditures, and electioneering
communications above specified thresholds;
• Would have denied lowest unit rate to non-participating House candidates;
• Would have created Clean Elections Review Commission to monitor functioning
of House public financing program and make legislative recommendations;
• Would have authorized tax credits for contributions to the House Clean Elections
Fund, subject to restrictions specified in the bill;
• Would have financed benefits from House of Representatives Election Fund
using appropriated funds, qualifying contributions, unused seed money, and
voluntary donations.
Other provisions:
• In House races with at least one publicly financed candidate, would have limited
party spending on behalf of a candidate to the lesser of 10% of general election
Congressional Research Service
68

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

candidate’s subsidy or the coordinated party expenditure limit established in
FECA169;
• Would have amended “contribution” to include anything of value for purpose of
influencing a federal election and that was coordinated with candidate;
• Would have set specific reporting requirements for participating and non-
participating candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified
financial thresholds are met;
• Would have limited the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of
publicly financed candidates;
• Would have defined “payment made in coordination with a candidate” to include
payments (1) in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at request or
suggestion of a candidate or agent; (2) using candidate-prepared materials; (3)
based on information about campaign plans provided by candidate’s campaign
for purpose of expenditure; (4) by a spender who during that election cycle had
acted in an official position for a candidate, in an executive, policymaking, or
advisory capacity; and (5) by a spender who had used the same consultants as an
affected candidate during election cycle; would have deemed payments made in
coordination with a candidate as a “contribution” or “expenditure” (but exempted
a payment by a party in coordination with a “clean money” candidate);
• Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would have prohibited preemption of House campaign broadcast ads, unless
beyond broadcasters’ control;
• Would have prohibited franked mass mailings from 90 days before a primary
election period through general election, unless Member was not a candidate or
mailing promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Would have authorized imposition of civil penalties for excessive contributions
or expenditures (penalty may not exceed 10 times amount of excessive
contribution or expenditure);
• Would have set specific reporting requirements for participating and non-
participating candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified
financial thresholds are met;
• Included statement of findings and declarations;
• Would have allowed FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision or act of this statute were held unconstitutional, the remainder of
act and statute would have been unaffected; would have provided for direct
appeals to the Supreme Court.

169 2 U.S.C §441a(d)(3)(B). This limit is adjusted based on the consumer price index.
Congressional Research Service
69

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

H.R. 2817 (Obey)—Let the Public Decide Clean Campaign Act
(Introduced June 21, 2007; referred to Committees on House Administration, Ways and Means,
and Rules)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have set mandatory limits on House general election spending based on
median household income per district, with a maximum of $2 million for all
major party candidates in the wealthiest district; actual amount would be
distributed according to the ratio of district-wide votes the nominees of each
major-party received in the district during the three most recent general elections;
• In other (non-wealthiest) districts, the “maximum combined expenditures” for
major-party candidates would have been $2 million minus two-thirds of the
percentage difference between the median household incomes in the wealthiest
district and the district in question, multiplied by $2 million; actual amount
would have been distributed according to the ratio of district-wide votes the
nominees of each major-party candidate received in the district during the three
most recent general elections
• If no elections occurred with two major-party candidates, the vote-ratio for
Senate elections during the same period would have been used to determine
House spending limits noted above;
• Maximum expenditure for minor party or independent candidates would have
been based on comparable ratios concerning that party’s (or all independent
candidates’) votes in House general elections in the district, all federal offices in
the state, or for presidential elections in the state (whichever amount were
highest);
• Would have established a mechanism for candidates to increase their spending
limits based on submission of specified number of petition signatures (not
applicable to candidate with highest limit in the race);
• Would have limited House candidates’ spending to funds from a proposed
Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund, to be established within the U.S. Treasury,
and to specified amounts from state and national party committees
• Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund would have been financed by voluntary
taxpayer contributions (of at least $1) from any refunds owed, plus any additional
contributions they wished to make, and by a tax on corporations of 0.1% on
taxable income of more than $10 million;
• Would have directed FEC to make extensive public service announcements,
through time made available by television networks, from January 15 to April 15
to promote the public financing fund;
• Would have allowed only one other source of campaign expenditures:
contributions from national and state political parties, of up to 5% of the
candidate’s applicable spending limit;
• Would have limited spending in non-general House elections (i.e., primaries) to
one-third of the general-election spending limit;
Congressional Research Service
70

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• If any part of the act or these amendments were held unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court, would have provided for expedited consideration by Congress of
a constitutional amendment to allow reasonable restrictions on contributions,
expenditures, and disbursements in federal campaigns; any legislation enacted to
enforce such an amendment would have expired four presidential elections after
enactment, unless extended by Congress;
• Unless otherwise specified, legislation would have taken effect in 2009 and
expired in 2022 (without legislative extension).
Other provisions:
• Would have banned independent expenditures in connection with House elections
(but would have provided for expedited consideration of a constitutional
amendment to allow reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional);
• Would have banned “soft money” spending in connection with House elections
(but specified expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment to allow
reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional).
H.R. 7022 (Larson)—Fair Elections Now Act
(Introduced September 23, 2008; referred to the Committees on House Administration, Energy
and Commerce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Rules)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have established voluntary public financing system for House candidates;
• Would have provided full public subsidies, political advertising vouchers up to
$100,000 (authority to use vouchers could be transferred to political parties for
cash value), and additional broadcast time at 80% of lowest unit rate for House
candidates who participate in public financing system and spend no private funds
beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Would have allowed candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money (up to
$75,000 in contributions of $100 or less) by raising $5 donations from at least
1,500 state residents; others would qualify by raising 150% of amount raised by
major party candidates;
• Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (60% for general election,
40% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates)
of base amount per election;
• Base amount would have been 80 percent of the national average spending for
the cycle by winning candidates in the last two election cycles; base would have
been adjusted based on state media-market index to be determined by the FEC
and FCC; additional indexing would have been based on the consumer price
index;
• Would have reduced subsidy to 40% of amount otherwise determined for
unopposed general election candidates;
• Would have allowed leadership PACs associated with participating candidates to
accept contributions from individuals if those contributions did not exceed $100
annually, and disbursements did not benefit the participant’s campaign;
Congressional Research Service
71

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would have created House Fair Elections Review Commission to monitor
functioning of House public financing program (including debate functioning
compared with similar state requirements for publicly funded candidates) and
make legislative recommendations (bill includes provisions for expedited Senate
consideration of such recommendations);
• Would have provided additional subsidies to compensate for spending by
opponents, opposing independent expenditures, and electioneering
communications above specified thresholds;
• Would have financed benefits from House Fair Elections fund using proceeds
from “recovered spectrum” auctions, spectrum user fees, voluntary contributions,
qualifying contributions, unused seed money, and voluntary donations.
Other provisions:
• In House races with at least one publicly financed candidate, would have limited
party spending on behalf of a candidate to the lesser of 10% of general election
candidate’s subsidy or the coordinated party expenditure limit established in
FECA;170
• Included statement of findings and declarations;
• Would have required publicly financed candidates to participate in debates;
• Would have extended the lowest unit rate (also known as the “lowest unit
charge”) to national political party committees;
• Would have prohibited preemption of House campaign broadcast ads, unless
beyond broadcasters’ control;
• Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would have prohibited franked mass mailings from 90 days before a primary
election period through general election, unless Member is not a candidate or
mailing promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Would have authorized imposition of civil penalties for excessive contributions
or expenditures (penalty may not exceed three times amount of excessive
contribution or expenditure);
• Would have limited the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of
publicly financed candidates;
• Would set have specified reporting requirements for participating and non-
participating candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified
financial thresholds are met;
• Would have allowed FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• Appeals related to the act’s constitutionality could have been taken directly to the
Supreme Court of the United States.

170 2 U.S.C §441a(d)(3)(B). This limit is adjusted based on the consumer price index.
Congressional Research Service
72

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

S. 936 (Durbin)—Fair Elections Now Act
(Introduced March 20, 2007; referred to the Committee on Finance)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have established voluntary public financing system for Senate candidates;
• Would have provided full public subsidies, political advertising vouchers up to
$100,000 multiplied by the number of congressional districts in the state in which
the candidate is running (authority to use vouchers could be transferred to
political parties for cash value), and additional broadcast time at 80% of lowest
unit rate for Senate candidates who participate in public financing system and
spend no private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Would have allowed candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money (up to
$75,000 plus $7,500 for each congressional district in the state in excess of one
district, in contributions of $100 or less) by raising $5 donations from state
residents (number of contributions must be at least equal to the sum of 2,000 plus
500 for each congressional district in the state in excess of one district) others
would qualify by raising 150% of amount raised by major party candidates;
• Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (100% for general election,
67% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates)
of base amount per election;
• Base amount would have been $750,000 plus $150,000 for each congressional
district in the state in excess of one congressional district; base would have been
adjusted based on state media-market index to be determined by the FEC and
FCC; additional indexing would have been based on the consumer price index;
• Would have reduced subsidy to 25% of amount otherwise determined for
unopposed general election candidates;
• Would have allowed leadership PACs associated with participating candidates to
accept contributions from individuals if those contributions did not exceed $100
annually, and disbursements did not benefit the participant’s campaign;
• Would have created Senate Fair Elections Commission to monitor functioning of
House public financing program (including debate functioning compared with
similar state requirements for publicly funded candidates) and make legislative
recommendations (bill includes provisions for expedited Senate consideration of
such recommendations);
• Would have authorized tax credits for contributions to the Senate Fair Elections
Fund, subject to restrictions specified in the bill;
• Would have provided additional subsidies to compensate for spending by
opponents, opposing independent expenditures, and electioneering
communications above specified thresholds;
• Would have financed benefits from Senate Fair Elections fund using proceeds
from “recovered spectrum” auctions, spectrum user fees, voluntary contributions,
qualifying contributions, unused seed money, and voluntary donations.
Congressional Research Service
73

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Other provisions:
• In Senate races with at least one publicly financed candidate, would have limited
party spending on behalf of a candidate to the lesser of 10% of general election
candidate’s subsidy or the coordinated party expenditure limit established in
FECA;171
• Included statement of findings and declarations;
• Would have required publicly financed candidates to participate in debates;
• Would have extended the lowest unit rate (also known as the “lowest unit
charge”) to national political party committees;
• Would have prohibited preemption of Senate campaign broadcast ads, unless
beyond broadcasters’ control;
• Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would have prohibited franked mass mailings from 90 days before a primary
election period through general election, unless Member was not a candidate or
mailing promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Would have authorized imposition of civil penalties for excessive contributions
or expenditures (penalty may not exceed three times amount of excessive
contribution or expenditure);
• Would have limited the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of
publicly financed candidates;
• Would have set specific reporting requirements for participating and non-
participating candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified
financial thresholds were met;
• Would have allow FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision of the act were held unconstitutional, the remainder of act and
statute would have been unaffected;
• Appeals related to the act’s constitutionality could have been taken directly to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
S. 1285 (Durbin)—Fair Elections Now Act
(Introduced May 3, 2007; referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration)
Public finance provisions:
• Would have established voluntary public financing system for Senate candidates;
• Would have provided full public subsidies, political advertising vouchers up to
$100,000 multiplied by the number of congressional districts in the state in which
the candidate is running (authority to use vouchers could be transferred to
political parties for cash value), and additional broadcast time at 80% of lowest

171 2 U.S.C §441a(d)(3)(B). This limit is adjusted based on the consumer price index.
Congressional Research Service
74

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

unit rate for Senate candidates who participate in public financing system and
spend no private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Would have allowed candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money (up to
$75,000 plus $7,500 for each congressional district in the state in excess of one
district, in contributions of $100 or less) by raising $5 donations from state
residents (number of contributions must be at least equal to the sum of 2,000 plus
500 for each congressional district in the state in excess of one district) others
would have qualified by raising 150% of amount raised by major party
candidates;
• Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (100% for general election,
67% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates)
of base amount per election;
• Base amount would have been $750,000 plus $150,000 for each congressional
district in the state in excess of one congressional district; base would have been
adjusted based on state media-market index to be determined by the FEC and
FCC; additional indexing would be based on the consumer price index;
• Would have reduced subsidy to 25% of amount otherwise determined for
unopposed general election candidates;
• Would have allowed leadership PACs associated with participating candidates to
accept contributions from individuals if those contributions did not exceed $100
annually, and disbursements did not benefit the participant’s campaign;
• Would have created Senate Fair Elections Review Commission to monitor
functioning of House public financing program (including debate functioning
compared with similar state requirements for publicly funded candidates) and
make legislative recommendations (bill includes provisions for expedited Senate
consideration of such recommendations);
• Would have provided additional subsidies to compensate for spending by
opponents, opposing independent expenditures, and electioneering
communications above specified thresholds;
• Would have financed benefits from Senate Fair Elections fund using proceeds
from “recovered spectrum” auctions, spectrum user fees, voluntary contributions,
qualifying contributions, unused seed money, and voluntary donations.
Other provisions:
• In Senate races with at least one publicly financed candidate, would have limited
party spending on behalf of a candidate to the lesser of 10% of general election
candidate’s subsidy or the coordinated party expenditure limit established in
FECA;172
• Included statement of findings and declarations;
• Would have required publicly financed candidates to participate in debates;

172 2 U.S.C §441a(d)(3)(B). This limit is adjusted based on the consumer price index.
Congressional Research Service
75

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would have extended the lowest unit rate (also known as the “lowest unit
charge”) to national political party committees;
• Would have prohibited preemption of Senate campaign broadcast ads, unless
beyond broadcasters’ control;
• Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would have prohibited franked mass mailings from 90 days before a primary
election period through general election, unless Member is not a candidate or
mailing promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Would have authorized imposition of civil penalties for excessive contributions
or expenditures (penalty may not exceed three times amount of excessive
contribution or expenditure);
• Would have limited the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of
publicly financed candidates;
• Would set have specified reporting requirements for participating and non-
participating candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified
financial thresholds were met;
• Would have allowed FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision of the act were held unconstitutional, the remainder of act and
statute would have been unaffected.
• Appeals related to the act’s constitutionality could have been taken directly to the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Congressional Research Service
76

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

Appendix D. Public Finance Bills in the 111th
Congress: Summary of Key Provisions
H.R. 158 (Obey)—Let the Public Decide Clean Campaign Act
(Introduced January 6, 2009; referred to Committees on House Administration, Ways and Means,
and Rules)
Public finance provisions:
• Would set mandatory limits on House general election spending based on median
household income per district, with a maximum of $2 million for all major party
candidates in the wealthiest district; actual amount would be distributed
according to the ratio of district-wide votes the nominees of each major-party
received in the district during the three most recent general elections;
• In other (non-wealthiest) districts, the “maximum combined expenditures” for
major-party candidates would be $2 million minus two-thirds of the percentage
difference between the median household incomes in the wealthiest district and
the district in question, multiplied by $2 million; actual amount would be
distributed according to the ratio of district-wide votes the nominees of each
major-party candidate received in the district during the three most recent general
elections
• If no elections occurred with two major-party candidates, the vote-ratio for
Senate elections during the same period would be used to determine House
spending limits noted above;
• Maximum expenditure for minor party or independent candidates would be based
on comparable ratios concerning that party’s (or all independent candidates’)
votes in House general elections in the district, all federal offices in the state, or
for presidential elections in the state (whichever amount were highest);
• Would establish a mechanism for candidates to increase their spending limits
based on submission of specified number of petition signatures (not applicable to
candidate with highest limit in the race);
• Would limit House candidates’ spending to funds from a proposed Grassroots
Good Citizenship Fund, to be established within the U.S. Treasury, and to
specified amounts from state and national party committees
• Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund would be financed by voluntary taxpayer
contributions (of at least $1) from any refunds owed, plus any additional
contributions they wished to make, and by a tax on corporations of 0.1% on
taxable income of more than $10 million;
• Would direct FEC to make extensive public service announcements, through time
made available by television networks, from January 15 to April 15 to promote
the public financing fund;
• Would allow only one other source of campaign expenditures: contributions from
national and state political parties, of up to 5% of the candidate’s applicable
spending limit;
Congressional Research Service
77

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would limit spending in non-general House elections (i.e., primaries) to one-third
of the general-election spending limit;
• If any part of the act or these amendments were held unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court, would provide for expedited consideration by Congress of a
constitutional amendment to allow reasonable restrictions on contributions,
expenditures, and disbursements in federal campaigns; any legislation enacted to
enforce such an amendment would expire four presidential elections after
enactment, unless extended by Congress;
• Unless otherwise specified, legislation would take effect in 2012 and expire in
2026 (without legislative extension).
Other provisions:
• Would ban independent expenditures in connection with House elections (but
would provides for expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment to
allow reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional);
• Would ban “soft money” spending in connection with House elections (but
specifies expedited consideration of a constitutional amendment to allow
reasonable limits if the ban were held unconstitutional).
H.R. 1826 (Larson)—Fair Elections Now Act
(Introduced March 31, 2009; referred to Committees on House Administration, Energy and
Commerce, and Ways and Means)
Public finance provisions:
• Would apply to House candidates voluntarily participating in public financing;
• Would provide base subsidy (allocation) of 80% of the national average of
spending by winning House candidates in the previous two election cycles; base
subsidy would be adjusted to 40% of the base for primary elections; the
remaining 60% would be allocated to the general election;
• Would provide matching funds equal to 400% (up to 200% of the base) of “small
dollar” contributions (no more than $100 per individual contributor, per election);
• Would provide $100,000 in broadcast vouchers for the general election;
• Would provide lesser amounts of the benefits discussed above to minor-party
candidates or those in uncontested or runoff elections;
• Would permit participants to purchase additional broadcast time at 80% of the
lowest unit charge (lowest unit rate) for 45 days before the primary and 60 days
before the general election;
• Would extend lowest unit charge to national parties
• Participants would qualify for public financing by raising qualifying
contributions of no more than $100 per individual contributor (limited to state
residents) to the greater of 1,500 contributions or $50,000;
Congressional Research Service
78

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would prohibit participating candidates from spending funds other than
qualifying contributions, “small dollar” contributions, allocations from the
proposed Fair Elections Fund, and broadcast vouchers;
• Would limit the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of publicly
financed candidates to the lesser of 10% of the candidate’s base allocation
amount or established limits in FECA;
• Would fund public financing through appropriations (unspecified amount),
proceeds from fines and voluntary contributions, and “checkoff” designations on
individual federal income tax returns ($10 for individuals; $20 for married
couples filing jointly);
• Would create Fair Elections Oversight Board within the FEC to monitor
functioning of congressional public financing program, including program
benefits and limitations, and perform other duties delegated by the FEC;
• Would establish penalties for excessive spending (or accepting excessive
contributions) by publicly financed candidates.
Other provisions:
• Would require participating candidates to participate in debates;
• Would require participating candidates to accept public funds both during
primary and general elections;
• Would require FCC to initiate a rulemaking to develop a standard form for
broadcasters to report certain information about campaign advertising, which
broadcasters would have to make available via the Internet;
• Would prohibit preemption of candidates’ paid broadcast advertising, unless
beyond broadcaster’s control;
• Would allow leadership PACs associated with participating candidates to accept
contributions from individuals if those contributions did not exceed $100
annually and disbursements did not benefit the participant’s campaign;
• Would prohibit participating candidates’ authorized political committees
(principal campaign committees) from establishing joint fundraising committees,
except with other authorized committees;
• Would allow the FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision of the act were held unconstitutional, the remainder of act and
statute would be unaffected.
S. 752 (Durbin)—Fair Elections Now Act
(Introduced March 31, 2009; referred to Committees on Rules and Administration)
Public finance provisions:
• Would apply to Senate candidates voluntarily participating in public financing;
• Participants would qualify for public financing by raising qualifying
contributions of no more than $100 per individual contributor (limited to state
residents) to the sum of 2,000 plus 500 for each congressional district in the state,
Congressional Research Service
79

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

provided that the total dollar amount is at least 10% of the candidate’s base
allocation for the primary election;
• Would provide base subsidy (allocation) of $750,000 plus $150,000 for each
congressional district in the state; subsidy would be adjusted to 67% of the base
for primary elections;
• Would provide matching funds equal to 400% (up to 200% of the base) of “small
dollar” contributions (no more than $100 per individual contributor, per election);
• For the general election, would provide $100,000 in broadcast vouchers
multiplied by the number of congressional districts in the state;
• Would provide lesser amounts of the benefits discussed above to minor-party
candidates or those in uncontested or runoff elections;
• Would permit participants to purchase additional broadcast time at 80% of the
lowest unit charge (lowest unit rate) for 45 days before the primary and 60 days
before the general election;
• Would extend lowest unit charge to national parties
• Would prohibit participating candidates from spending funds other than
qualifying contributions, “small dollar” contributions, allocations from the
proposed Fair Elections Fund, and broadcast vouchers;
• Would limit the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of publicly
financed candidates to the lesser of 10% of the candidate’s base allocation
amount or established limits in FECA;
• Includes sense of the Senate language calling for proceeds from a proposed 0.5%
tax on government contacts of more than $10 million to be appropriated to fund
Senate public financing [see separate funding legislation, S. 751 (Durbin)];
proceeds from fines and voluntary contributions would also fund Senate
campaigns;
• Would create Fair Elections Oversight Board within the FEC to monitor
functioning of congressional public financing program, including program
benefits and limitations, and perform other duties delegated by the FEC;
• Would establish penalties for excessive spending (or accepting excessive
contributions) by publicly financed candidates.
Other provisions:
• Would require participating candidates to participate in debates;
• Would require FCC to initiate a rulemaking to develop a standard form for
broadcasters to report certain information about campaign advertising, which
broadcasters would have to make available via the Internet;
• Would allow leadership PACs associated with participating candidates to accept
contributions from individuals if those contributions did not exceed $100
annually and disbursements did not benefit the participant’s campaign;
Congressional Research Service
80

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

• Would prohibit participating candidates’ authorized political committees
(principal campaign committees) from establishing joint fundraising committees,
except with other authorized committees;
• Would allow the FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision of the act were held unconstitutional, the remainder of act and
statute would be unaffected.

Congressional Research Service
81

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

H.R. 2056 (Tierney)—Clean Money, Clean Elections Act of 2009
(Introduced April 22, 2009; jointly referred to Committees on House Administration, Energy and
Commerce, Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform)
Public finance provisions:
• Would establish voluntary public financing system for House candidates;
• Would provide full public subsidies, 30 minutes of free broadcast time in primary
and 75 minutes in general election, and additional broadcast time at 50% of
lowest unit rate for House candidates who participate in public financing system
and spend no private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
• Major-party candidates could qualify for public financing by raising 1,500 $5
contributions from state residents;
• Would allow candidates, prior to qualification, to raise seed money (up to
$50,000, in contributions of $100 or less);
• Subsidy would equal applicable percentage (60% for general election, 40% for
major party candidate in primary, and 25% for other primary candidates) of 80%
of base amount per election;
• Base amount would be national average of winning House candidate
expenditures in two most recent general elections, but not less than amount
provided in previous election cycle (and would include annual adjustments based
on media costs in the state in which the participating candidate is running);
• Would reduce subsidy to 40% of amount otherwise determined for unopposed
candidates;
• Would provide additional subsidies to compensate for spending by opponents,
opposing independent expenditures, and electioneering communications above
specified thresholds;
• Would deny lowest unit rate to non-participating House candidates;
• Would create Clean Elections Review Commission to monitor functioning of
House public financing program and make legislative recommendations;
• Would authorize tax credits for contributions to the House Clean Elections Fund,
subject to restrictions specified in the bill;
• Would finance benefits from House of Representatives Election Fund using
appropriated funds, qualifying contributions, unused seed money, and voluntary
donations.
Other provisions:
• In House races with at least one publicly financed candidate, would limit party
spending on behalf of a candidate to the lesser of 10% of general election
Congressional Research Service
82

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis

candidate’s subsidy or the coordinated party expenditure limit established in
FECA;173
• Would amend “contribution” to include anything of value for purpose of
influencing a federal election and that was coordinated with candidate;
• Would set specific reporting requirements for participating and non-participating
candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified financial
thresholds are met;
• Would limit the amount of party coordinated expenditures on behalf of publicly
financed candidates;
• Would define “payment made in coordination with a candidate” to include
payments (1) in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at request or
suggestion of a candidate or agent; (2) using candidate-prepared materials; (3)
based on information about campaign plans provided by candidate’s campaign
for purpose of expenditure; (4) by a spender who during that election cycle had
acted in an official position for a candidate, in an executive, policymaking, or
advisory capacity; and (5) by a spender who had used the same consultants as an
affected candidate during election cycle; would have deemed payments made in
coordination with a candidate as a “contribution” or “expenditure” (but exempted
a payment by a party in coordination with a “clean money” candidate);
• Would require electronic filing of disclosure reports;
• Would prohibit preemption of House campaign broadcast ads, unless beyond
broadcasters’ control;
• Would prohibit franked mass mailings from 90 days before a primary election
period through general election, unless Member was not a candidate or mailing
promotes public forum with candidate name only;
• Would authorize imposition of civil penalties for excessive contributions or
expenditures (penalty may not exceed 10 times amount of excessive contribution
or expenditure);
• Would set specific reporting requirements for participating and non-participating
candidates, particularly in final weeks of election or when specified financial
thresholds are met;
• Includes statement of findings and declarations;
• Would allow FEC to petition Supreme Court;
• If any provision or act of this statute were held unconstitutional, the remainder of
act and statute would have be unaffected; would provided for direct appeals to
the Supreme Court.

173 2 U.S.C §441a(d)(3)(B). This limit is adjusted based on the consumer price index.
Congressional Research Service
83

---

.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis


Author Contact Information

R. Sam Garrett

Analyst in American National Government
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443

Acknowledgments
Former CRS specialist Joseph E. Cantor co-authored the original version of this report. Among other
sections, Mr. Cantor was responsible for the detailed legislative history that appears in this report.

Congressional Research Service
84

---