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

R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
December 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41542
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

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

Summary
Campaign finance policy is arguably at a crossroads. For decades, Congress, regulatory agencies,
and courts have emphasized the need to reduce potential corruption by providing public
disclosure of information about campaign contributions and expenditures. Preventing corruption
and enhancing transparency remain prominent themes in campaign finance policy, but what those
goals mean and how they should be accomplished appears to be in flux.
Both minor and major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when
Congress last substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act (BCRA). More recently, the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission
and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election
Commission
, arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in
decades. During the 111th Congress, the House responded by enacting the DISCLOSE Act (H.R.
5175; S. 3295; S. 3628). The Senate has, thus far, declined to do so.
Fundraising and spending in the 2010 election cycle suggest that previously prohibited sources
and amounts of funds will continue to be a factor in federal elections. Activities by independent-
expenditure-only political action committees (commonly called super PACs) and tax-exempt
organizations that are typically not political committees (e.g., many Internal Revenue Code
501(c) and 527 organizations) may be particularly prominent.
Despite these recent developments, some traditional aspects of campaign finance policy, such as
disclosure requirements and most contribution limits, remain unchanged. Issues such as the
presidential public financing program and the Federal Election Commission may require
congressional attention regardless of more recent developments. In addition, the Supreme Court
will continue examining campaign finance issues during the 112th Congress. Arizona Free
Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett
and McComish v. Bennett appear to be most relevant for state-level
policy, but might also affect federal campaign finance law or legislation in Congress.
As Congress decides how or whether to revisit law surrounding political campaigns, it may be
appropriate to take stock of the current landscape and to examine what has changed, what has not,
and what policy options might be relevant. This report provides a starting point for doing so. It
includes an overview of selected historical and recent developments. It also provides comments
on how those events might affect future policy considerations.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

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

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Development of Modern Campaign Finance Law ........................................................................ 3
Policy Background................................................................................................................ 3
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) ......................................................................... 3
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and Beyond.................................................. 4
What Has Changed Most Recently and What Has Not? ......................................................... 6
What Has Changed ......................................................................................................... 6
What Has Not Changed................................................................................................... 7
Potential Policy Considerations for Congress ............................................................................ 10
Recent Fundraising, Spending, and Assessing the Need for Policy Changes......................... 10
Congressional Campaign Fundraising and Spending Continue to Increase ..................... 10
Party Funding Generally Remains Robust ..................................................................... 11
Citizens United and SpeechNow Appear to Have Encouraged Additional
Fundraising and Spending .......................................................................................... 13
What Recent Financial Developments Might Mean for the Future ................................. 15
Revisiting Disclosure Requirements .................................................................................... 15
The Current Disclosure Process: How Reporting and Data Could Affect Policy
Options and Considerations........................................................................................ 16
Revisiting Contribution Limits ............................................................................................ 18
Public Financing Issues ....................................................................................................... 19
FEC Issues.......................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 22

Figures
Figure 1. U.S. House and Senate Campaigns: Total Receipts and Disbursements, 1992-
2010 ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2. National Party Committees: Receipts and Disbursements, 1992-2010 ......................... 12

Tables
Table 1. Federal Contribution Limits, 2009-2010......................................................................... 8
Table 2. Current Members of the Federal Election Commission................................................. 21

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
Federal law has regulated money in elections for more than a century.1 Concerns about limiting
the potential for corruption and informing voters have been at the heart of that law and related
regulations and judicial decisions. Restrictions on private money in campaigns, particularly large
contributions, has been a common theme throughout the history of federal campaign finance law.
The roles of corporations, unions, interest groups, and private funding from individuals have
attracted consistent regulatory attention. Congress has also required that certain information about
campaigns’ financial transactions be made public. Collectively, three principles embodied in this
regulatory tradition—limits on sources of funds, limits on contributions, and disclosure of
information about these funds—constitute ongoing themes in federal campaign finance policy.
Throughout most of the 20th century, campaign finance policy was marked by broad legislation
enacted sporadically. Major legislative action on campaign finance issues remains rare. Since the
1990s, however, momentum on federal campaign finance policy, including regulatory and judicial
action, has arguably increased. Congress last enacted major campaign finance legislation in 2002.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) largely banned unregulated soft money2 in federal
elections and restricted funding sources for pre-election broadcast advertising known as
electioneering communications. As BCRA was implemented, regulatory developments at the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), and some court cases, stirred controversy and renewed
popular and congressional attention to campaign finance issues. Since BCRA, Congress has also
continued to explore legislative options and has made comparatively minor amendments to the
nation’s campaign finance law.
In one of the most recent major developments, on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of the
United States issued its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.3 Arguably

1 The 1907 Tillman Act (34 Stat. 864), which prohibited federal contributions from nationally chartered banks and
corporations, is generally regarded as the first major federal campaign finance law. The 1925 Federal Corrupt Practices
Act (43 Stat. 1070) was arguably the first federal statue combining multiple campaign finance provisions, particularly
disclosure requirements first enacted in 1910 and 1911 (36 Stat. 822 and 37 Stat. 25). An 1867 statute barred requiring
political contributions from naval yard workers (14 Stat. 489 (March 2, 1867)). This appears to be the first federal law
concerning campaign finance. The Pendleton Act (22 Stat. 403), which created the civil service system is also
sometimes cited as an early campaign finance measure because it banned receiving a public office in exchange for a
political contributions (see 22 Stat. 404). For additional historical discussion of the evolution of campaign finance law
and policy, see Anthony Corrado et al., The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 2005), pp. 7-47. See also, for example, Kurt Hohenstein, Coining Corruption: The Making of the
American Campaign Finance System
(DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007), Robert E. Mutch,
Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York: Praeger, 1988),
Raymond J. La Raja, Small Change: Money, Political Parties, and Campaign Finance Reform (Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 2008), pp. 43-80, and Money and Politic$, ed. Paula Baker (University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002).
2 Soft money is a term of art referring to funds generally believed to influence federal elections but not regulated under
federal election law. Soft money stands in contrast to hard money. The latter is a term of art referring to funds that are
generally subject to regulation under federal election law, such as restrictions on funding sources and contribution
amounts. These terms are not defined in federal election law. For an overview, see, for example, David B. Magleby,
“Outside Money in the 2002 Congressional Elections,” in The Last Hurrah? Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the
2002 Congressional Elections
, ed. David B. Magleby and J. Quin Monson (Washington: Brookings Institution Press,
2004), pp. 10-13.
3 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). For legal analyses of the case, see CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating
Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC
, by L. Paige
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

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

one of the most highly anticipated decisions from the Court on campaign finance since the 1970s,
the ruling, among other things, lifted the long-standing Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
prohibition on corporations—and, implicitly, unions—using their general treasury funds for
political advertisements known as independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
Independent expenditures explicitly call for election or defeat of political candidates (known as
express advocacy), may occur at any time, and are usually (but not always) broadcast
advertisements. They must also be uncoordinated with the campaign in question.4 Electioneering
communications
are defined only as broadcast advertising, are aired during specific pre-election
windows, and might discuss a candidate, but do not explicitly call for election or defeat (known
as issue advocacy).5 Additional discussion appears later in this report.
The Citizens United ruling was the most prominent campaign finance issue of 2010, spurring
substantial legislative action during the 111th Congress.6 The ruling was, however, only the
latest—albeit perhaps the most monumental—shift in federal campaign finance policy to occur in
recent years. In another 2010 decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that contributions to political action
committees (PACs) that make only independent expenditures cannot be limited.7 The Supreme
Court will also consider state-level public financing issues in 2011. Campaigns, parties, and other
groups must adapt to these new realities, just as Congress, federal agencies, and the courts must
decide how or whether to respond.
As Congress does so, it may be appropriate to take stock of the current landscape and to examine
what has changed, what has not, and which policy issues and options might be relevant. This
report provides a resource for beginning that discussion. It includes an overview of selected
recent events in campaign finance policy and comments on how those events might affect future
policy considerations. The most prominent issues are directly related to Citizens United and
SpeechNow. Others, such as presidential public financing and FEC matters, would be timely
regardless of recent litigation. Historical themes of limiting potential corruption and promoting
transparency underlie the debate on each of these issues and on campaign finance policy as a
whole.
Before proceeding, explaining the report’s boundaries may help readers. This report is intended to
provide an accessible overview of major policy issues facing Congress. Citations to other CRS
products, which provide additional information, appear where relevant. The report discusses
selected litigation to demonstrate how those events have changed the campaign finance landscape
and affected the policy issues that may confront Congress, but it is not a constitutional or legal
analysis. Finally, campaign finance data appear throughout the report. The data were collected
and analyzed as described in the text.

(...continued)
Whitaker; and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues,
by L. Paige Whitaker et al.
4 On the definition of independent expenditures, see 2 U.S.C. 431 § 17.
5 On the definition of electioneering communications, see 2 U.S.C. 434 § (f)(3).
6 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett; and CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE
Act: Overview and Analysis
, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder.
7 For additional discussion of SpeechNow, see CRS Report RS22895, 527 Groups and Campaign Activity: Analysis
Under Campaign Finance and Tax Laws
, by L. Paige Whitaker and Erika K. Lunder.
Congressional Research Service
2

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

Development of Modern Campaign Finance Law
Policy Background
Dozens or hundreds of campaign finance bills have been introduced in each Congress since the
1970s. In fact, approximately 900 campaign finance measures have been introduced since the 93rd
Congress (1973-1974).8 Nonetheless, major changes in campaign finance law have been rare. A
generation passed between FECA and BCRA, the two most prominent campaign finance statutes
of the past 40 years. Federal courts and the FEC played active roles in interpreting and
implementing both statutes and others. The Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions appear to
represent the next chapter in campaign finance policy and are the focus of recent attention in
Congress and elsewhere.
Over time and in all facets of the policy process, anti-corruption themes have been consistently
evident. Specifically, federal campaign finance law seeks to limit corruption or apparent
corruption in the lawmaking process that might result from monetary contributions. Campaign
finance law also seeks to inform voters about sources and amounts of contributions. In general,
Congress has attempted to limit potential corruption and increase voter information through two
major policy approaches:
• limiting sources and amounts of financial contributions and
• requiring disclosure about contributions and expenditures.
Another hallmark of the nation’s campaign finance policy concerns spending restrictions.
Congress has occasionally placed restrictions on the amount candidates can spend, as it did
initially through FECA. Today, as discussed later in this report, candidates and political
committees can generally spend unlimited amounts on their campaigns, as long as those funds are
not coordinated with other parties or candidates.9
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
Modern campaign finance law was largely shaped in the 1970s, particularly through FECA.10
First enacted in 1971 and substantially amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, FECA remains the
foundation of the nation’s campaign finance law.11 As originally enacted, FECA subsumed

8 This figure is a CRS estimate and may understate the total number of relevant bills. This estimate is based on a search
of the Legislative Information System (LIS) for bills introduced between the 93rd and 111th Congresses that included
the terms “campaign finance” or “Federal Election Campaign Act” in the bill title or summary. The search was limited
to measures referred to the Committee on House Administration or Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Other bills not reflected here may also be relevant, just as some of the bills included here are not principally related to
campaign finance. The bills are also not all unique; some include identical legislative language introduced in multiple
Congresses and in both chambers.
9 Political committees include candidate committees, party committees, and PACs. See 2 U.S.C. § 431(4).
10 FECA is 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. Congress first addressed modern campaign finance issues in the 1970s through the
1971 Revenue Act, which established the presidential public financing program. The 1970s are primarily remembered,
however, for enactment of and amendments to FECA. For additional discussion of presidential public financing,
including an initial 1960s public financing program that was quickly repealed, see CRS Report RL34534, Public
Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis
, by R. Sam Garrett
11 On the 1971 FECA, see P.L. 92-225. On the 1974, 1976, and 1979 amendments, see P.L. 93-443, P.L. 94-283, and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

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

previous campaign finance statutes, such as the 1925 Corrupt Practices Act, which, by the 1970s,
were largely regarded as ineffective, antiquated, or both.12 The 1971 FECA principally mandated
reporting requirements similar to those in place today, such as quarterly reporting of a political
committee’s receipts and contributions. Subsequent amendments to FECA played a major role in
shaping campaign finance policy as it is understood today. In brief:
• Among other requirements, the 1974 amendments, enacted in response to the
Watergate scandal, placed contribution and spending limits on campaigns. The
1974 amendments also established the FEC.
• After the 1974 amendments were enacted, the first in a series of prominent legal
challenges (most of which are beyond the scope of this report) came before the
Supreme Court of the United States.13 In its landmark Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
ruling, the Court declared mandatory spending limits unconstitutional (except for
publicly financed presidential candidates) and invalidated the original
appointment structure for the FEC.
• Congress responded to Buckley through the 1976 FECA amendments, which
reconstituted the FEC, established new contribution limits, and addressed various
PAC and presidential public financing issues.
• The 1979 amendments simplified reporting requirements for some political
committees and individuals.
To summarize, the 1970s were devoted primarily to establishing and testing limits on
contributions and expenditures, creating a disclosure regime, and constructing the FEC to
administer the nation’s campaign finance laws.
Despite minor amendments, FECA remained essentially uninterrupted for the next 20 years.
Although there were relatively narrow legislative changes, such as the 1986 repeal14 of tax credits
for political contributions, much of the debate during the 1980s and early 1990s focused on the
role of interest groups, especially PACs.15
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and Beyond
By the 1990s, attention began to shift to perceived loopholes in FECA. Two issues—soft money
and issue advocacy (issue advertising)—were especially prominent. Soft money is a term of art
referring to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign
finance law. At the federal level before BCRA, soft money came principally in the form of large
contributions from prohibited sources, and went to party committees for “party-building”

(...continued)
P.L. 96-187 respectively.
12 The Corrupt Practices Act, which FECA generally supersedes, is 43 Stat. 1070.
13 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation:
Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
14 See P.L. 99-514 § 112. Congress repealed a tax deduction for political contributions in 1978. See P.L. 95-600 § 113.
15 See, for example, Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance
Law
(New York: Praeger, 1988); and Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Congressional Elections, ed. Robert
Biersack, Clyde S. Wilcox, and Paul S. Herrnson (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1994).
Congressional Research Service
4

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

activities that indirectly supported elections. Similarly, issue advocacy traditionally fell outside
FECA regulation because these advertisements praised or criticized a federal candidate—often by
urging voters to contact the candidate—but did not explicitly call for election or defeat of the
candidate (which would be express advocacy).
In response to these and other concerns, BCRA specified several reforms.16 Among other
provisions, the act banned national parties, federal candidates, and officeholders from raising soft
money in federal elections; increased most contribution limits; and placed additional restrictions
on pre-election issue advocacy. Specifically, the act’s electioneering communications provision
prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to air broadcast ads referring
to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a
primary election or caucus.
After Congress enacted BCRA, momentum on federal campaign finance policy issues arguably
shifted to the FEC and the courts. Implementing and interpreting BCRA were especially
prominent issues. Noteworthy post-BCRA events include the following:
• The Supreme Court upheld most of BCRA’s provisions in a 2003 facial challenge
(McConnell v. Federal Election Commission).17
• Over time, the Court held aspects of BCRA unconstitutional as applied to
specific circumstances. These included a 2008 ruling related to additional
fundraising permitted for congressional candidates facing self-financed
opponents (the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” Davis v. Federal Election
Commission
) and a 2007 ruling on the electioneering communication provision’s
restrictions on advertising by a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization (Wisconsin Right
to Life v. Federal Election Commission
).18
• Since 2002, the FEC has undertaken several rulemakings related to BCRA and
other topics. Complicated subject matter, protracted debate among
commissioners, and litigation have made some rulemakings lengthy and
controversial.19
• Congress also enacted some additional amendments to campaign finance law
since BCRA. Most notably, the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government
Act (HLOGA) placed new disclosure requirements on lobbyists’ campaign
contributions (certain bundled contributions) and restricted campaign travel
aboard private aircraft.20

16 BCRA is P.L. 107-155; 116 Stat. 81. BCRA amended FECA, which appears at 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq. BCRA is also
known as McCain-Feingold.
17 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL32245, Campaign Finance Law: A Legal Analysis of the Supreme
Court Ruling in McConnell v. FEC
, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of
Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
18 For additional discussion, 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; CRS Report
RS22687, The Constitutionality of Regulating Political Advertisements: An Analysis of Federal Election Commission v.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
, by L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance: Legislative
Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
19 For example, rulemakings on various BCRA provisions resulted in a series of at least three lawsuits covering six
years. These are the Shays and Meehan v. Federal Election Commission cases.
20 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

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

What Has Changed Most Recently and What Has Not?
Congress most recently considered major campaign finance legislation in response to the 2010
Citizens United decision. Thus far, the Senate has declined to amend federal campaign finance
law in response to the decision, although the DISCLOSE Act passed the House (discussed
below). As of this writing, the FEC has not yet issued new rules to implement the 2010
SpeechNow and Citizens United decisions. However, in July 2010, the FEC approved two
relevant advisory opinions (AOs). Afterward, some corporations and other organizations began
making previously prohibited expenditures or raising previously prohibited funds for
electioneering communications or independent expenditures.21
Following these developments (especially Citizens United), some have suggested that campaign
finance policy has been fundamentally altered. As the following discussion shows, some major
historical provisions have been invalidated, but other hallmarks of campaign finance policy
remain unchanged.
What Has Changed
Unlimited Corporate and Union Spending on Independent Expenditures and
Electioneering Communications

In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission
.22 In brief, the opinion invalidated FECA’s prohibitions on corporate and union
treasury funding of independent expenditures and electioneering communications.23 As a
consequence of Citizens United, corporations and unions are now free to use their treasury funds
to air political advertisements explicitly calling for election or defeat of federal or state candidates
(independent expenditures) or advertisements that refer to those candidates during pre-election
periods, but do not necessarily explicitly call for their election or defeat (electioneering
communications). Previously, such advertising would generally have had to be financed through
voluntary contributions raised by PACs affiliated with unions or corporations.

(...continued)
the 111th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett. HLOGA is primarily an ethics and lobbying statute. For additional discussion,
see, for example, CRS Report R40245, Lobbying Registration and Disclosure: Before and After the Enactment of the
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007
, by Jacob R. Straus.
21 The AOs are 2010-09 (Club for Growth) and 2010-11 (Commonsense Ten). AOs provide an opportunity to pose
questions about how the Commission interprets the applicability of FECA or FEC regulations to a specific situation
(e.g., a planned campaign expenditure). AOs apply only to the requester and within specific circumstances, but can
provide general guidance for those in similar situations. See 2 U.S.C. § 437f.
22 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010). For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett; CRS Report R41045,
The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens
United v. FEC
, by L. Paige Whitaker; CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC:
Constitutional and Legal Issues
, by L. Paige Whitaker et al.; and CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview
and Analysis
, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder.
23 As noted elsewhere in this report, BCRA instituted the electioneering communication provision. BCRA amended
FECA. 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
6

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

In the 111th Congress, the House and Senate considered various legislation designed to increase
public availability of information (disclosure) about corporate and union spending following
Citizens United. Thus far, most congressional attention responding to the ruling has focused on
the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175; S. 3295; S. 3628). The House of Representatives passed H.R.
5175, with amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. By a 57-41 vote, the Senate
declined to invoke cloture on companion bill, S. 3628, on July 27, 2010.24 A second cloture vote
failed (59-39) on September 23, 2010.25
Unlimited Contributions to Independent-Expenditure-Only Political Action
Committees (Super PACs)

Another notable development concerns contributions to a new category of PACs. In brief, on
March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held in SpeechNow.org v.
Federal Election Commission
26 that contributions to PACs that make only independent
expenditures—but not contributions—could not be constitutionally limited. As a result, these
entities, commonly called super PACs, may accept previously prohibited amounts and sources of
funds, including large corporate, union, or individual contributions used to advocate for election
or defeat of federal candidates. Existing reporting requirements for PACs appear to apply to super
PACs, meaning that contributions and expenditures would have to be disclosed to the FEC.
What Has Not Changed
Federal Ban on Corporate and Union Treasury Contributions
Corporations and unions are still banned from making contributions in federal elections.27 PACs
affiliated with, but legally separate from, those corporations and unions may continue to
contribute to candidates, parties, and other PACs. As noted elsewhere in this report, corporations
and unions may now use their treasury funds to make electioneering communications,
independent expenditures, or both, but this spending is not considered a contribution under
FECA.28
Federal Ban on Soft Money Contributions to Political Parties
The prohibition on using soft money in federal elections remains in effect. This includes
prohibiting the pre-BCRA practice of large, generally unregulated contributions to national party
committees for generic “party building” activities.

24 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed,” Senate vote 220, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156 (July 27,
2010), p. S6285.
25 “DISCLOSE Act—Motion to Proceed—Resumed,” Senate vote 240, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 156
(September 23, 2010), p. S7388.
26 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
27 2 U.S.C. § 441b.
28 On the definition of contribution, see, in particular, 2 U.S.C. § 431(8)(A) and 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)(b)(2).
Congressional Research Service
7

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

Most Contribution Limits Remain Intact
Pre-existing limits on contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs generally remain in effect.
Despite Citizens United’s implications for independent expenditures and electioneering
communications, the ruling did not affect the prohibition on corporate and union treasury
contributions in federal campaigns. As noted above, SpeechNow permitted unlimited
contributions to independent-expenditure-only PACs (super PACs).
In BCRA, Congress required that most contribution limits be biennially adjusted for inflation.
However, Congress chose not to require adjustment of the PAC limits for inflation. Limits for the
2010 election cycle appear in Table 1 below. As of this writing, the FEC has not yet announced
adjusted contribution limits for the 2012 election cycle.
Table 1. Federal Contribution Limits, 2009-2010
Additional limits appear in the table notes.

Recipient
Multicandidate
Principal
Committee (most
National Party
State, District,
campaign
PACs, including
Committee
Local Party
Contributor
committee
leadership PACs)
(DSCC; NRCC, etc.)
Committee
Individual $2,400
per
$5,000 per year
$30,400 per year*
$10,000 per year
election*
(combined limit)
Principal Campaign
$2,000 per
$5,000 per year
Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Committee
election
party committees
transfers to party
committees
Multicandidate
$5,000 per
$5,000 per year
$15,000 per year
$5,000 per year
Committee (most
election
(combined limit)
PACs, including
leadership PACs)a
State, District, Local
$5,000 per
$5,000 per year
Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Party Committee
election
(combined limit)
party committees
transfers to party
(combined limit)
committees
National Party
$5,000 per
$5,000 per year
Unlimited transfers to
Unlimited
Committee
election
party committees
transfers to party
committees
Source: CRS adaptation from FEC, “Contribution Limits for 2009-2010,” http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/
contrib.shtml#Chart.
Notes: The table assumes that leadership PACs would qualify for multicandidate status. The original source,
noted above, includes additional information and addresses non-multicandidate PACs (which are relatively rare).
Limits marked with an asterisk (*) are adjusted biennially for inflation. The table does not include the following
notes regarding additional limitations: (1) For individuals, a special biennial limit of $115,500 ($45,600 to al
candidate committees and $69,900 to party and PAC committees) also applies. These amounts are adjusted
biennial y for inflation; (2) Contributions to independent-expenditure-only PACs are unlimited; (3) The national
party committee and the national party Senate committee (e.g., the DNC and DSCC or RNC and NRSC) share
a combined per-campaign limit of $42,600, which is adjusted biennially for inflation.
a. Multicandidate committees are those that have been registered with the FEC (or, for Senate committees, the
Secretary of the Senate) for at least six months; have received federal contributions from more than 50
people; and (except for state parties) have made contributions to at least five federal candidates. See 11
C.F.R. § 100.5(e)(3). In practice, most PACs attain this status automatical y over time.
Congressional Research Service
8

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

Reporting Requirements
Disclosure requirements enacted in FECA and BCRA remain intact.29 In general, political
committees must regularly30 file reports with the FEC31 providing information about
• receipts and expenditures, particularly those exceeding an aggregate of $200;
• the identity of those making contributions of more than $200, or receiving more
than $200, in campaign expenditures per election cycle;
• the purpose of expenses.
Those making independent expenditures or electioneering communications, such as party
committees and PACs, have additional reporting obligations. Among other requirements:
• Independent expenditures aggregating at least $10,000 must be reported to the
FEC within 48 hours; 24-hour reports for independent expenditures of at least
$1,000 must be made during periods immediately preceding elections.32
• The existing disclosure requirements concerning electioneering communications
mandate 24-hour reporting of communications aggregating at least $10,000.33
Donor information must be included for those who designated at least $200
toward the independent expenditure, or $1,000 for electioneering
communications.34
• If 501(c) or 52735 organizations make independent expenditures or electioneering
communications, those activities would be reported to the FEC.36

29 This excludes requirements that were subsequently invalidated, such as reporting associated with the now-defunct
Millionaire’s Amendment (which required additional reporting for self-funding above certain levels and for receipt of
contributions in response to such funding). For additional discussion, 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.
30 Reporting typically occurs quarterly. Pre- and post-election reports must also be filed. Non-candidate committees
may also file monthly reports. See, for example, 2 U.S.C. § 434 and the FEC’s Campaign Guide series for additional
discussion of reporting requirements.
31 Unlike other political committees, Senate political committees (e.g., a Senator’s principal campaign committee) file
reports with the Secretary of the Senate, who transmits them to the FEC. See 2 U.S.C. § 432(g).
32 See, for example, 2 U.S.C. § 434(g).
33 2 U.S.C. § 434(f).
34 Higher thresholds apply if the expenditures are made from a designated account. For additional summary
information, see Table 1 in CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L.
Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder.
35 As the term is commonly used, 527 refers to groups registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political
organizations that seemingly intend to influence federal elections. By contrast, political committees (which include
candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees) are regulated by the FEC and federal election
law. There is a debate regarding which 527s are required to register with the FEC as political committees. For
additional discussion, see CRS Report RS22895, 527 Groups and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under Campaign
Finance and Tax Laws
, by L. Paige Whitaker and Erika K. Lunder.
36 For additional discussion of these groups, see CRS Report RS21716, Political Organizations Under Section 527 of
the Internal Revenue Code
, by Erika K. Lunder; CRS Report R40183, 501(c)(4) Organizations and Campaign Activity:
Analysis Under Tax and Campaign Finance Laws
, by Erika K. Lunder and L. Paige Whitaker; and CRS Report
RS22895, 527 Groups and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under Campaign Finance and Tax Laws, by L. Paige
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

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

Potential Policy Considerations for Congress
Given the developments since BCRA, especially the major events of Citizens United and
SpeechNow, federal campaign finance policy is potentially at a crossroads. The historic goals of
limiting corruption and promoting transparency remain relevant, but the policy options for
accomplishing those goals are, perhaps, less clearly defined than they once were. Specifically,
defining corruption and transparency may be in flux now that decades-old prohibitions against
corporate and union spending, and unlimited contributions to some PACs, have been invalidated.
As Congress considers how or whether to respond, a preliminary question is whether the previous
and remaining elements of the campaign finance regulatory structure are still valid and what
changes might be necessary.
Various issues might be relevant for those deliberations. The following section comments on
issues that appear to be particularly noteworthy. As the discussion notes, fundraising and
spending in federal elections has consistently risen over time. Options to restrict spending appear
limited, but disclosure presents alternatives, as do options for providing parties or others with
additional funds. Even if Congress decides not to respond to the most recent developments of
Citizens United, SpeechNow, or even BCRA, ongoing issues related to public financing and the
FEC may warrant attention.
Recent Fundraising, Spending, and Assessing the Need for Policy
Changes

As Congress determines whether or how to revisit campaign finance policy, a natural question
may be what effect recent events have had on political fundraising and spending. This issue is
likely to be a long-term concern, but is particularly noteworthy following Citizens United and
SpeechNow.
Congressional Campaign Fundraising and Spending Continue to Increase
As Figure 1 below shows, House and Senate campaigns’ fundraising and spending have
generally increased steadily since the early 1990s. Specifically, receipts more than doubled, from
$654.1 million in 1992 to approximately $1.8 billion in 2010. Disbursements37 rose similarly,
from $675.1 million to approximately $1.8 billion. Despite the steady increase in spending and
fundraising overall, there were slight decreases between some election cycles, such as 1996-1998
and 2000-2002.38

(...continued)
Whitaker and Erika K. Lunder.
37 As used here, receipts include all funding sources. Disbursements include all expenditures.
38 Although not shown here, fundraising and spending in presidential campaigns has also steadily increased. For
additional discussion, see CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis,
by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service
10


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

Figure 1. U.S. House and Senate Campaigns: Total Receipts and Disbursements,
1992-2010

Source: CRS analysis of Federal Election Commission data in “Historical Comparison for Al Campaigns 1992-
2008” (the “2historyall” file) at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/2009Dec29Cong/2009Dec29Cong.shtml (for
1992-2008) and the and the “Candidate Summary” file at http://fec.gov/data/ (for 2010). Graphic produced by
CRS.
Notes: The data in the figure include Democratic and Republican candidates for the House or Senate and rely
on total receipts and disbursements.
Party Funding Generally Remains Robust
As noted previously, BCRA prohibited soft-money contributions to national party committees.
Before BCRA became law, some contended that the soft-money ban would hinder political
parties’ financial resources. The national parties have, nonetheless, generally maintained robust
fundraising operations.39 In fact, as Figure 2 below shows, national party receipts and
expenditures rose sharply in 2004, the first cycle when BCRA was in effect.
For Democratic party-committees, total receipts increased more than 260% between 2002 and
2004, from $162.3 million to $586.2 million. Republican party-committee receipts increased less
dramatically, but still sharply (by more than 86%), from $352.9 million to $657.1 million.
Spending rose by similar increments, from $170.1 million to $586.2 million for Democrats, and
from $377.2 million to $646.1 million for Republicans.

39 Both parties appear to have adapted their fundraising strategies to reemphasize small contributions and a wider circle
of donors following BCRA. See, for example, Anthony Corrado, “Party Finance in the Wake of BCRA,” in The
Election After Reform: Money, Politics, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
, ed. Michael J. Malbin (Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006), pp. 19-37.
Congressional Research Service
11


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

Figure 2. National Party Committees: Receipts and Disbursements, 1992-2010

Source: CRS analysis of Federal Election Commission data in “Party Financial Activity Summarized for the 2008
Election Cycle” (the “1_DemParty08” and “2_RepParty08” files) at http://www.fec.gov/press/press2009/
05282009Party/20090528Party.shtml (for 1992-2008); and the “Committee Summary” file at http://fec.gov/data/
(for 2010). Graphic produced by CRS.
Notes: Data in the figure include total federal campaign activity for the Democratic National Committee,
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Republican
National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial
Committee. Data include total federal receipts and total federal disbursements only.
Party committees appear to continue to be major financial players in elections. During the 2010
election cycle, the three national Democratic committees40 reported receiving a total of $491.1
million and spending $470.4 million. The three national Republican committees41 reported raising
$417.6 million and spending $415.9 million.42
Some have suggested, however, that even with robust fundraising and spending, parties face
unnecessary competition with interest groups, such as 527 organizations (and, now, 501(c)s,
corporations, or unions) for funding and influence.43 Following Citizens United and SpeechNow,
it is also possible that tax-exempt organizations, corporations, or unions will rival or overshadow
parties’ financial prowess in the long term. In addition, despite fundraising successes, party
committees (and some other political committees) routinely assume debt to fund campaign

40 This includes the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
41 This includes the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the National Republican Senatorial
Committee (NRSC), and the Republican National Committee (RNC).
42 These amounts include federal funds only. CRS obtained this figure from analysis of the FEC’s “committee summary
file” at http://fec.gov/data/CommitteeSummary.do?format=html.
43 See, for example, Raymond J. La Raja, “Back to the Future? Campaign-Finance Reform and the Declining
Importance of the National Party Organization,” in The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary
American Parties
, ed. John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2011),
pp. 205-222.
Congressional Research Service
12

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

operations. Ultimately, however, money is only one measure of the health of political parties.44
One option for strengthening the role of parties in elections could be to lift the existing caps on
party coordinated expenditures. The “Revisiting Contribution Limits” section of this report
provides additional detail.
Citizens United and SpeechNow Appear to Have Encouraged Additional
Fundraising and Spending

Preliminary information suggests that at least some groups chose to take advantage of the Citizens
United
and SpeechNow decisions. For example, a Campaign Finance Institute study issued in
November 2010 found that non-party independent expenditures and electioneering
communications increased approximately 130% between 2008 and 2010, from $119.9 million to
$280 million.45 Independent-expenditure-only PACs (super PACs) also emerged quickly
following Citizens United and SpeechNow. Specifically, approximately 70 organizations believed
to be super PACs spent, in total, approximately $84.6 million during 2010. This sum is perhaps
notable not only for its size,46 but also because most of these organizations did not emerge until
the summer of 2010.47
Group Funding, Organization, and Disclosure: A Brief Case Study
As noted previously, although super PACs are one new development, Citizens United and
SpeechNow could affect fundraising and spending by various types of organizations. A brief
example of specific groups illustrates how different organizations might allocate funds, and what
their reporting obligations would be, post-Citizens United. American Crossroads, a super PAC,
spent approximately $21.5 million in independent expenditures in 2010.48 PAC spending is not

44 For additional discussion, see, for example, The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American
Political Parties
, ed. John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey, 6th ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,
2011). Some alternative measures of party strength assess what functions parties fulfill versus those that are assigned to
political consultants. See, for example, David A. Dulio and R. Sam Garrett, “Organizational Strength and Campaign
Professionalism in State Parties,” in The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties,
ed. John C. Green and Daniel J. Coffey, 5th ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2007), pp. 199-216.
45 Campaign Finance Institute, “Nonparty Spending Doubled in 2010 But Did Not Dictate Results,” press release,
November 5, 2010, http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/10-11-05/Non-
Party_Spending_Doubled_But_Did_Not_Dictate_Results.aspx. Party independent spending, however, fell by almost
$40 million, from $225.2 million to $181.6 million. The additional spending that occurred in 2010 did not necessarily
determine electoral outcomes.
46 To provide some perspective, the entire general election grant for publicly financed presidential candidates in 2008
was approximately $84.1 million. (Additional spending is permitted to cover legal and accounting fees.) Spending by
super PACs during a congressional-election year is, of course, not the same as spending by a publicly financed
presidential candidate. In addition, spending by these groups can be for and against candidates. Nonetheless, the point
here is that, in at least one area of post-Citizens United spending, several new groups quickly amassed substantial sums
consistent with those that major national candidates might spend. Whether or not such spending will compete with, or
overshadow, party or candidate spending over time is unclear, but the issue may be of interest to Congress as it
considers policy options.
47 The FEC provided CRS with data on spending by individual committees. CRS aggregated the totals listed in the text.
In the absence of additional regulations concerning registration for super PACs, it is not clear that all organizations are
reflected in the figures in the text. Accordingly, these data should be treated as estimates.
48 This figure is based on CRS analysis of independent expenditure reports filed with the FEC and available as of
December 7, 2010. This figure excludes amounts not reported on independent expenditure reports (e.g., operating
expenditures).
Congressional Research Service
13

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

new to 2010, but some of the amounts and sources of contributions American Crossroads
received would have been prohibited previously. Because American Crossroads is a political
committee, its receipts and expenditures must be reported to the FEC.
A related group, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS), is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt
organization. Crossroads GPS reported to the FEC that it made approximately $16.0 million in
independent expenditures and $1.1 million in electioneering communications.49 Other types of
spending would presumably not be reported to the FEC. Even in FEC reports, donors need not be
reported unless their funds were intended to support independent expenditures or electioneering
communications.
To summarize, American Crossroads could have existed as a PAC before Citizens United, but the
decision permitted corporations to make expenditures supporting express advocacy. Some
corporations chose to do so by making contributions to American Crossroads. SpeechNow
permitted the PAC to accept unlimited contributions provided that it only engages in independent
expenditures.50 Crossroads GPS could have previously accepted unlimited contributions, but as an
incorporated entity, could not have made independent expenditures or electioneering
communications. American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were prominent examples of new
groups operating in 2010; but they are, by no means, the only such groups. American Crossroads
and Crossroads GPS supported Republican candidates and opposed Democrats, but opposing
organizations were also in operation.51
These examples suggest that new donors and groups with access to previously restricted funds
may be a potent force in future campaigns. As noted elsewhere in this report, key questions for
Congress may be whether sufficient information exists about these groups’ financial activities,
whether they should be permitted to raise and spend funds explicitly influencing elections, or
both. Given Citizens United, limiting fundraising or spending by the groups could be challenging.
Disclosure could provide additional sources of information about their fundraising and spending,
although some may object to requiring tax-exempt organizations—whose primary purpose cannot
be election-related—to report additional information.52

49 These figures are based on CRS analysis of independent expenditure and electioneering communication reports filed
with the FEC and as of December 7, 2010. These figures exclude amounts not reported on independent expenditure- or
electioneering communication reports.
50 For example, based on FEC data available as of November 2010, CRS identified contributions to the PAC of as
much as $2 million—obviously well above the $5,000 limit that applies to traditional contributions. American
Crossroads also received contributions from incorporated entities, which would have previously been prohibited.
51 For example, Commonsense Ten, an independent-expenditure-only PAC, supported Democratic candidates.
American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS came to light during 2010 largely because of media coverage. Under
currently available information, the relationship between a political committee and a related 501(c) or 527 group
(assuming that the latter were not political committees) would not be readily available unless the organizations
publicized the information or the media did so. Democratic funders are reportedly organizing a group called American
Bridge designed to counter American Crossroads in 2012. See Michael Luo, “Effort to Set Up Liberal Counterweight
to G.O.P. Groups Begins,” The New York Times, November 23, 2010, p. A18, late edition-final.
52 For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL33377, Tax-Exempt Organizations: Political Activity Restrictions and
Disclosure Requirements
, by Erika K. Lunder.
Congressional Research Service
14

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

What Recent Financial Developments Might Mean for the Future
History suggests that when additional sources of political money become available, they endure
and flourish in the long term. Recent developments appear to be no different. In particular:
• The 2010 elections show that, at least in some cases, when given greater
flexibility to spend money to influence elections, corporations, unions, tax-
exempt organizations and individuals are willing to do so. Nonetheless, some
corporations and other organizations chose not to make such expenditures.53
• Spending and fundraising will likely increase in 2012, as is typically the case in
presidential elections compared with congressional cycles.
• Elections since 2004 suggest that political parties’ financial capabilities remain
stable post-BCRA. Nonetheless, parties might choose (or be forced) to adjust
their spending over time as “outside” organizations become more proficient at
allocating their own resources to independent expenditure campaigns (which
could either complement or complicate direct party assistance).
• Finally, it is important to note that all new spending in 2010 did not necessarily
result from Citizens United or SpeechNow. High levels of spending would be
expected any time a large number of congressional seats were in play, as was the
case in 2010.
Recent financial developments could encourage both sides in the campaign finance debate.
Parties’ abilities to flourish (at least financially) after BCRA suggests that additional financial
restrictions do not necessarily reduce competition. This could be promising for those favoring
regulation. Conversely, those favoring deregulation might argue that parties have flourished in
spite of BCRA, while the law also provided incentives for tax-exempt organizations to play a
more active role surrounding elections. For some, these organizations embody an alleged
loophole in federal campaign finance law that needs to be closed. For others, they signal diverse
and robust political participation. Therefore, a challenge facing those who desire more regulation
is how to construct constitutionally permissible barriers to political fundraising and spending.
Although constitutional analysis is beyond the scope of this report, recent developments suggest
that regulating independent spending on historic anti-corruption grounds may become
increasingly difficult. Disclosure, discussed below, may present additional options.
Revisiting Disclosure Requirements
Historically, disclosure aimed at reducing the threat of real or apparent conflicts of interest and
corruption have received bipartisan support. In fact, disclosure typically has been regarded as one
of the least controversial aspects of an otherwise often-contentious debate over the nation’s
campaign finance policy. Disclosure, then, could yield opportunities for cooperation among
members of both major parties and across both chambers. On the other hand, some recent
disclosure efforts have generated controversy. Particularly during 111th Congress consideration of
the DISCLOSE Act, some lawmakers raised concerns about whether the legislation applied fairly

53 For example, the Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending, founded by New York City Public Advocate Bill
de Blasio and other public officials after Citizens United, tracks reported corporate political spending decisions at
http://saveourelections.com/?page_id=16.
Congressional Research Service
15

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

to various kinds of organizations (e.g., corporations versus unions) and how much information
those airing independent messages rather than making direct candidate contributions should be
required to report to the FEC.
Other key questions could be which type of disclosure should be required, if any, and of whom
should that disclosure be required. Congress might also consider a “disclosure-only” measure, as
some have advocated following the controversy surrounding the DISCLOSE Act (which also
proposes spending restrictions) seen in the 111th Congress. Particularly for those organizations
that do not typically have to report to the FEC (e.g., 527s or for-profit corporations), the House
and Senate could require parity across all those receiving and spending funds affecting
elections—even if those entities are not political committees or explicitly engaging in calls to
elect or defeat candidates. Such an approach could be consistent with the historical emphasis on
transparency in modern campaign finance policy, as noted throughout this report. Requiring
additional reporting, however, could also raise questions about which entities should be regulated
as political committees subject to federal election law—questions that have been controversial in
the past.
Additional disclosure poses the advantage of making it easier to track the flow of political money.
Disclosure, however, does not guarantee complete information, nor does it necessarily guard
against all forms of potential corruption. For example, current requirements generally make it
possible to identify which people or organizations were involved in a political transaction. This
information promotes partial transparency, but does not, in and of itself, provide detailed
information about what motivates those transactions or, in some cases, where the funds in
question originated. Additional disclosure requirements from Congress, the FEC, or the IRS could
provide additional clarity.
The Current Disclosure Process: How Reporting and Data Could Affect Policy
Options and Considerations

Due in part to the disclosure requirements discussed above, some information about 2010 (or any
other election cycle’s) fundraising and spending will presumably remain publicly unavailable. A
variety of practical ramifications resulting from those requirements also affect availability of
campaign finance information. If Congress chooses to revisit transparency in campaign funding
and spending, attention to how these requirements operate in practice can shed light on which
information is available, which is not, and why. The following selected ramifications, and others,
of the current disclosure process could be relevant as Congress considers what policy problems
exist and whether or how those problems should be addressed.
• Unless meeting the criteria for disclosure,54 corporate or union funds given to an
intermediary (such as a trade association) do not have to be publicly reported.
Accordingly, the total sources or amounts of corporate or union funds in federal
elections remains unknown.
• Details about campaign spending are often unclear. For example, although
campaign finance reports must contain itemized data providing general
information about the nature of authorized committees’ expenses greater than

54 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R40183, 501(c)(4) Organizations and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under
Tax and Campaign Finance Laws
, by Erika K. Lunder and L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service
16

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

$200, political committees have wide latitude to characterize the expenses as
long as the descriptions are not overly vague.55
• Political committees that file regular reports with the FEC do not have to provide
information on spending in the final weeks of the campaign until 30 days after
the general election. Some expenses might carry over to year-end reports. After
reports are filed, additional time is required for the Commission or outside
researchers to adjust the data for amended filings and conduct analysis,
particularly concerning individual transactions and fundraising and spending
patterns. In some cases, “final” data are unavailable for several weeks or months.
Paper filing of Senate reports, discussed elsewhere in this report, can also foster
delay (although summary information is generally available within a few days).
• Recent initiatives to enhance the FEC website have made some campaign finance
data far easier to access and analyze (especially for 2010). However, accessing
historical data can remain challenging. In particular, the FEC’s new Disclosure
Data Catalog56 provides easier access to data and more complete documentation
than in the past. By contrast, much of the pre-2010 data has not yet been
converted to the new formats and can require substantial time and technical
expertise to access and interpret.
• Estimates (such as those appearing in some media accounts) that rely on partial
data can be valuable and often provide more timely information than complete
filings. However, estimates also require making assumptions that do not
necessarily reflect technical distinctions in the data and among organizations.
These differences may be unimportant for general summaries about which parties
or groups raised or spent funds. More complete data, however, may be more
likely to reflect important legal or regulatory distinctions among groups, account
for amended filings, or address the details of particular transactions, including
transfers among various organizations.
• Estimates sometimes report corporate and union activity differently. In particular,
estimates about union spending might or might not report communications to
members versus independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
Similarly, estimates about corporate spending often include “corporations” as the
term is commonly understood, but do not necessarily include incorporated tax-
exempt organizations or political committees.
• In general, fundraising and spending that is devoted only to issue advocacy is not
publicly disclosed. As such, issue advocacy that arguably affects elections is
often excluded from financial estimates. On the other hand, estimates that mix
issue advocacy and express advocacy can inflate the amount of fundraising or
spending that is truly dedicated to electoral politics.
• Currently, unlike all other federal political committees (except those raising or
spending less than $50,000 annually), Senate campaign committees, party
committees, and PACs are not required to file campaign finance reports

55 For example, listing the purpose of disbursement as “polling” is acceptable, but “outside services” is insufficient. See
11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(3); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4). “Polling,” in and of itself, however, does not explain the nature of the
poll, whether the payee conducted the poll, analyzed the data, etc.
56 The catalog is available at http://www.fec.gov/data/.
Congressional Research Service
17

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

electronically.57 The lack of electronic filing leads to additional delay and cost in
making complete Senate data publicly available. Electronic filing per se is
generally non-controversial, although, in recent Congresses, there has been
debate about whether “stand alone” electronic disclosure measures should be
advanced or whether they should also address other issues.58 Requiring electronic
filing of Senate campaign finance reports might be an area of potential agreement
in disclosure policy. The issue precedes Citizens United and other recent
developments. As such, it is arguably a narrower policy concern, but also
potentially a comparatively modest reform.
Each of the preceding points could be addressed as individual policy questions (e.g., through
targeted legislation), but may also be a factor in any campaign finance proposal that would
broadly affect disclosure policy. In either case, a potential policy question for Congress is whether
the implications of the current reporting requirements represent “loopholes” that should be closed
or whether existing requirements are sufficient. If additional information is desired, Congress, the
FEC, IRS, or all three could revisit campaign finance law or regulation to require greater clarity
about financial transactions that affect campaigns. As with disclosure generally, the decision to
revisit specific reporting requirements will likely be affected by how much detail is deemed
necessary to prevent corruption or accomplish other goals.
Revisiting Contribution Limits
After Citizens United, one potential concern is how candidates will be able to field competitive
campaigns amid potentially unlimited corporate or union expenditures. One option for providing
additional financial resources to candidates, parties, or both, would be to raise or eliminate
contribution limits. However, particularly if contribution limits were eliminated, corruption
concerns that motivated FECA and BCRA could reemerge. Raising contribution limits does not
appear to have been actively considered in Congress since BCRA. Another option, which
Congress has occasionally considered in recent years, would be to raise or eliminate current limits
on coordinated party expenditures.59 Coordinated expenditures allow parties to buy goods or
services on behalf of a campaign—in limited amounts—and to discuss those expenditures with
the campaign.60
In a post-Citizens United environment, additional party-coordinated expenditures could provide
campaigns facing increased outside advertising with additional resources to respond. Permitting
parties to provide additional coordinated expenditures may also strengthen parties as institutions
by increasing their relevance for candidates and the electorate. A potential drawback of this
approach is that some campaigns may feel compelled to adopt party strategies at odds with the

57 11 C.F.R. §104.18(a).
58 See, for example, CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th
Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
59 This option would not provide campaigns with additional funding per se, but it could ease the financial burden on
campaigns for those purchases that parties make on the campaign’s behalf.
60 Coordinated party expenditures are subject to limits based on office sought, state, and voting-age population (VAP).
Exact amounts are determined by formula and updated annually by the FEC. For additional discussion, see CRS Report
RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and L. Paige
Whitaker; and CRS Report R41054, Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:
Issues and Options for Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
Congressional Research Service
18

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

campaign’s wishes in order to receive the benefits of coordinated expenditures.61 Those
concerned with the influence of money in politics may object to any attempt to increase
contribution limits or coordinated party expenditures, even if those limits were raised in an effort
to respond to labor- or corporate-funded advertising. Additional funding in some form, however,
may be attractive to those who feel that greater resources will be necessary to compete in a post-
Citizens United environment, or perhaps to those who support increased contribution limits as a
step toward campaign deregulation.
Public Financing Issues
Some supporters of publicly financed elections have suggested that this option could be a
response to Citizens United. Regardless of whether public financing is pursued as a Citizens
United
or SpeechNow response, the presidential public financing program is widely regarded as
needing restructuring before the 2012 election cycle if the system is to remain viable.62 At the
federal level, public financing is limited to presidential campaigns.63
Congress enacted the current presidential public financing program in 1971, and substantially
amended it in 1974. Through the 2000 elections, the program was popular among Democratic and
Republican candidates, but is generally considered to be in decline today. Even supporters of the
public financing program have argued that the current program is antiquated. As explained below,
without an additional infusion of funds, the program might not have sufficient resources to cover
the future election cycles.
At the close of the 2010 election cycle, approximately $194.5 million remained in the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund (PECF), the U.S. Treasury Account that funds the public financing
program.64 The FEC has not yet set 2012 public financing rates, but, because adjustments are
based on inflation, they will presumably be similar to amounts provided in 2008. In 2008, the
PECF made $135.7 million in net disbursements for convention grants for the two major parties,
a general-election grant for Republican nominee John McCain, and matching funds for eight
Democratic and Republican primary candidates.
Additional checkoff designations will continue to replenish the fund before the 2012 elections, so
it is possible that there will be more than sufficient resources to cover 2012 costs. However, the
current balance in the PECF is arguably artificially high because then-candidate Barack Obama
chose not to accept an $84.1 million general-election grant in 2008. If multiple competitive
candidates chose to accept public funds in 2012, available resources might be insufficient.

61 The long-running debate about relationships between parties and candidates is well documented. For a brief
overview, see, for example, Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America, 12th ed., pp. 65-83; and Paul S.
Herrnson, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 4th ed., pp. 86-128.
62 For additional discussion of proposals to publicly finance congressional campaigns, see CRS Report RL33814,
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
63 See CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett;
and CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options,
by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn Reese. Ongoing litigation, which is beyond the scope of this report, has placed some
aspects of state-level programs in question.
64 The Financial Management Service of the U.S. Treasury Department provided this information to CRS, November
2010.
Congressional Research Service
19

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

A related question is whether the public financing program, even when fully funded, provides
sufficient resources to wage competitive campaigns. Some observers have suggested that then-
Senator Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing, combined with the other challenges
discussed above, marks the death knell of the program. Others contend that the public financing
program can work well again if reformed.
Two bills to revamp the presidential public financing system were introduced in the 111th
Congress. Neither measure, H.R. 6061 (Price, NC) nor S. 3681 (Feingold), was the subject of
additional action. Those bills, like other recent reform efforts, proposed substantial changes.
Among other provisions, these would include increasing the match rate for primary contributions
from the current 100% to 400% of small contributions. These and similar proposals could provide
substantially greater resources to publicly financed candidates. This approach assumes that
sufficient funds would be available in the PECF to cover the additional match, and that candidates
would be willing to participate. Recent debate has also focused on whether or how the public
financing program should maximize small contributions (e.g., those of less than $200).
Congress could also renew the focus on small contributions by permitting publicly financed
campaigns to spend larger (or unlimited) amounts of these funds. However, focusing on small
contributions would not necessarily contain campaign costs (another program goal), particularly
for those candidates who were able to raise and spend virtually unlimited amounts. In fact, if
spending limits were eliminated, public financing could become an additional, but potentially
unnecessary, funding source for those already able to raise substantial private funds.
In addition, presidential public financing could be repealed. This approach would largely or
entirely (depending on specifics) eliminate taxpayer funds in presidential campaigns. In the 111th
Congress, Representative Cole introduced H.R. 2992 to repeal public financing for presidential
nominating conventions. In the 110th Congress, two bills (H.R. 72 (Bartlett), H.R. 484 (Doolittle))
would have repealed parts of the program or the entire program. Neither bill advanced beyond
committee referral.
Finally, also on the horizon during the 112th Congress could be issues related to the Supreme
Court’s consideration of Arizona’s public financing program.65 On November 29, 2010, the Court
announced that it would consider two cases (Arizona Free Enterprise, et al. v. Bennett and
McComish v. Bennett) addressing whether portions of Arizona’s state-level public financing
program are constitutional. The cases concern the availability of additional funding (sometimes
called “rescue funds”) for candidates facing privately financed opponents who raise or spend
certain amounts. Oral arguments and a decision are expected by the summer of 2011, when the
Court concludes its October 2010 term.
FEC Issues
Two FEC issues may be relevant for congressional oversight in the short term, as might various
long-term issues. First, in addition to other outstanding rulemaking issues, the Commission is
charged with implementing changes in federal campaign finance law. Most recently and notably,
this includes revising its regulations to implement Citizens United and SpeechNow. The
Commission has issued ad hoc guidance and advisory opinions about the rulings, but, as of this

65 Supreme Court of the United States, order list, November 29, 2010, p. 4, http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/
courtorders/112910zor.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20

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

writing, has not agreed on notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Even after the NPRM are
approved, the Commission must finalize rules and issue an explanatory statement. Each of these
steps requires agreement from at least four of six Commissioners, something that has been
difficult for the current Commission on some recent, high-profile issues.
The second short-term issue facing Congress could be FEC nominations. As of April 2011, five of
six Commissioners’ terms will have expired (see Table 2 below).66 Expired terms are not, in and
of themselves, necessarily a policy concern because Commissioners may remain in office until
replaced.67 But, if the Commission fell below four members, as it did in 2008, it would lose its
policymaking quorum.68
Table 2. Current Members of the Federal Election Commission
Commissioner
Term Expires
Date Confirmed
Party Affiliation
Cynthia L. Bauerly
04/30/2011
06/24/2008
Democrat
Caroline C. Hunter
04/30/2013
06/24/2008
Republican
Donald F. McGahn
04/30/2009 (remains in
06/24/2008 Republican
holdover status)
Matthew S. Petersen
04/30/2011
06/24/2008
Republican
Steven T. Walther
04/30/2009 (remains in
06/24/2008 Independent
holdover status)
Ellen L. Weintraub
04/30/2007 (remains in
03/12/2003 Democrat
holdover status)
Source: Legislative Information System nominations database. Legislative Information System nominations
database. CRS added party affiliation based on the seating chart distributed at FEC meetings.
A longer-term policy question surrounding the FEC is the status of the agency itself. Questions
about the Commission’s structure and effectiveness have long been a topic of debate. In the 111th
Congress, for example, S. 1648 (Feingold) would replace the FEC with a proposed Federal
Election Administration (FEA).69 Major provisions of the bill would establish a three-member
governing body with enhanced enforcement powers. Longer-term issues also include the
scheduled 2013 expiration the Commission’s Administrative Fine Program. Finally, the
Commission most recently made legislative recommendations to Congress in 2009. At that time,
the agency urged Congress to require electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports, and
requested clearer prohibitions on personal use of campaign funds, among other issues.70

66 Commissioners may serve only a single six-year term. See 2 U.S.C. § 437c(2)(A).
67 A Commissioner may remain in office after the expiration of his or her term unless or until: (1) the President
nominates, and the Senate confirms, a replacement; or (2) the President, as conditions permit, makes a recess
appointment to the position. For additional discussion of recess appointments generally, see CRS Report RS21308,
Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, by Henry B. Hogue; and CRS Report RL33009, Recess
Appointments: A Legal Overview
, by T. J. Halstead.
68 CRS Report RS22780, The Federal Election Commission (FEC) With Fewer than Four Members: Overview of
Policy Implications
, by R. Sam Garrett.
69 Some public financing bills also propose to revamp certain aspects of the FEC. See CRS Report RL34534, Public
Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis
, by R. Sam Garrett, for additional discussion.
70 Federal Election Commission, Legislative Recommendations 2009, Washington, DC, March 19, 2009,
http://www.fec.gov/law/legrec2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

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

Conclusion
Some elements of federal campaign finance policy have substantially changed in recent years;
others have remained unchanged. Enactment of BCRA in 2002 marked the culmination of efforts
to limit soft money in federal elections and place additional regulations on political advertising
airing before elections. BCRA was an extension of efforts begun in the 1970s, with enactment of
FECA, to regulate and document the flow of money in federal elections. BCRA’s soft-money ban
and some other provisions remain in effect; but Citizens United, SpeechNow, and other litigation
since BCRA have reversed major elements of modern campaign finance law. In particular,
corporate and union spending that is now permissible has not previously been allowed in modern
elections.
The changes discussed in this report suggest that the nation’s campaign finance policy may be a
continuing issue for Congress. Disclosure requirements, a hallmark of federal campaign finance
policy, remain unchanged. Additional information would be required to fully document the
sources and rationales behind all political expenditures. For some, such disclosure would improve
transparency and discourage corruption. For others, additional disclosure might be viewed with
suspicion and as a potential sign of government intrusion. Fundraising, spending, and reporting
questions have been at the forefront of recent debates in campaign finance policy, but they are not
the only issues that may warrant attention. Even if no legislative changes are made, additional
regulation and litigation are likely, as is the constant debate over the role of money in politics.
Although some of the specifics are new, these themes discussed throughout this report have been
present in campaign finance policy for decades.

Author Contact Information

R. Sam Garrett

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


Congressional Research Service
22