Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating
Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
January 28, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34630
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Summary
This report provides an overview and analysis of two recurring questions surrounding the federal
government’s role in financing presidential nominating conventions. First, how much public
funding supports presidential nominating conventions? Second, what options exist for changing
that amount if Congress chooses to do so? Both issues have generated controversy in the past and
continue to be the subject of debate. In the 112th Congress, H.R. 359, which passed the House
January 26, 2011, and companion measure S. 194, propose to eliminate the presidential public
financing program, including convention funding. Another measure, H.R. 414, would maintain
the public financing system but eliminate convention financing. These measures do not appear to
affect separate security funding discussed in this report.
There have been no major changes to the presidential public financing program or political
funding for conventions since the early 1990s (and, some would argue, even the 1970s). The 110th
Congress enacted one law (P.L. 110-161) in FY2008 that affected convention security funding
with the appropriation of $100 million for the Democratic and Republican nominating
conventions (each was allocated $50 million). This security funding was not provided to party
convention committees but to the state and local law enforcement entities assisting in securing the
convention sites. The Administration’s FY2011 budget request proposed $20 million for a
National Special Security Event State and Local Reimbursement Fund (NSSE Fund). The NSSE
Fund would reimburse state and local governments for costs incurred when providing security at
NSSEs, such as presidential nominating conventions.
A total of approximately $133.6 million in federal funds supported the 2008 Democratic and
Republican conventions. Such funding was provided through separate federal programs that
support public financing of presidential campaigns and convention security. Some Members of
Congress and others have objected to federal convention funding and have argued that the events
should be entirely self-supporting. Others, however, contend that public funding is necessary to
avoid real or apparent corruption in this aspect of the presidential nominating process. If
Congress decides to revisit convention financing, a variety of policy options discussed in this
report might present alternatives to current funding arrangements.
Additional discussion of public financing of presidential campaigns appears in CRS Report
RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam
Garrett and CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential
Campaigns, by R. Sam Garrett. For additional information on National Special Security Events,
which include presidential nominating conventions, see CRS Report RS22754, National Special
Security Events, by Shawn Reese. This report will be updated in the event of additional legislative
activity concerning convention financing.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Convention Financing: An Overview........................................................................................... 1
Federal Funds ................................................................................................................. 1
Nonfederal Funds............................................................................................................ 6
Recent Legislative Activity ......................................................................................................... 8
Legislation that Would Affect PECF Convention Funding ..................................................... 8
Policy Issues and Options............................................................................................................ 8
PECF Convention Funding.................................................................................................... 8
Maintaining the Status Quo ............................................................................................. 9
Options that Could Increase or Decrease Federal Convention Funding ........................... 9
Security Funds .................................................................................................................... 11
Maintaining the Status Quo ........................................................................................... 12
Options that Could Increase or Decrease Federal Convention Security Funding............. 12
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 13
Tables
Table 1. Federal Funds Supporting the 2008 Presidential Nominating Conventions...................... 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Introduction
Every four years, the two major political parties, and some third parties, select their presidential
nominees at conventions. These conventions are run by and for parties, without a formal role for
the federal government. Federal funds do, however, provide certain financial support to
convention committees that choose to accept public money. Additionally, Congress appropriates
federal funding for the securing of the convention venues.
A variety of policy issues surrounds convention financing. Some observers have questioned why
federal funds subsidize conventions, considering the availability of substantial private resources
and that they are party, rather than governmental, events. Others have contended that private
funds, particularly so-called “soft money,” which falls outside the scope of federal campaign
finance law, have become too pervasive in conventions and that tighter restrictions are needed.
These divergent views on the use of public funds to support party conventions also appear in
other contexts in the debate surrounding campaign finance policy.
Two taxpayer-supported revenue sources are available to conventions: (1) presidential public
campaign funds; and (2) security funds. Approximately $133.6 million from those sources went
toward the 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions.1 No third parties received
convention funds for the 2008 election cycle.2
Before proceeding, it is important to note the distinction between presidential public funds and
security funds. Presidential public funds and security funds come from separate revenue sources.
They are allocated differently, are used for different purposes, and are subject to different points
of debate. Although both presidential public funds and security funds both support conventions,
Congress may reassess them separately.
Convention Financing: An Overview
Federal Funds
Two sources of federal funds support different aspects of presidential nominating conventions.
First, funds for convention operations come from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
(PECF), which provides financial assistance to publicly financed presidential candidates.3
Second, funds are appropriated by Congress to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for security costs
incurred by state and local governments hosting the conventions.
1 Each major convention was eligible for $16.8 million in Presidential Election Campaign Funds (i.e., non-security
funding). The Republican convention ultimately refunded part of its allocation because the convention ended a day
early due to Hurricane Gustav; this decreased the Republican convention’s overall allocation to $13.0 million
2 Although third-party conventions are occasionally eligible for presidential public financing grants, Congress only
appropriated security funds for the 2004 and 2008 Democratic and Republican conventions.
3 On the PECF, see 26 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq. and CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns:
Overview and Analysis. Convention funding was added through the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)
amendments. See P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
PECF Funds
Congress makes no appropriations for PECF funds (including amounts used to support
conventions). Rather, amounts in the PECF are determined by “checkoff” designations on
individuals’ federal income tax returns. Individuals may choose to designate $3 of their tax
liability to the PECF. Married couples filing jointly may designate a total of $6 to the fund.4
Federal law permits the two major parties’ conventions to receive grants of $16.8 million for the
2008 election cycle (an inflation-adjusted base amount of $4 million each). (Amounts for 2012
have not yet been determined.) These grants are awarded to the relevant party’s convention
committee.5 Qualifying convention committees are not obligated to accept PECF funds, but doing
so is standard practice. Third parties are eligible for limited public convention funds, but they
rarely qualify.6
Under federal law, PECF convention grants must first be reserved before other elements of
presidential public funding can be distributed. Once convention grants are reserved, the Treasury
Department may distribute general election grants and primary matching funds to participating
presidential candidates.7 The Federal Election Commission (FEC) determines eligibility for PECF
funds based on requirements established in Title 26 of the U.S. Code (the Internal Revenue
Code), the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), and FEC regulations.8
DOJ Funds
The second source of federal convention funds come through the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP), within the Department of Justice (DOJ). This OJP funding has only been available in
FY2004 and FY2008, arguably as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.9 In 2004,
Congress appropriated $100 million, through DOJ, for the Democratic and Republican
presidential nominating conventions in Boston and New York City.10 More recently, Congress
appropriated $100 million for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominating convention
4 The checkoff question does not permit taxpayers to distinguish between making a designation to publicly financed
presidential candidates versus to publicly financed conventions. In other words, taxpayers may choose to make a PECF
designation, but may not specify how those funds are distributed or spent.
5 Convention committees are separate political committees (i.e., candidate committees, party committees, and political
action committees (PACs)) “responsible for conducting the day to day arrangements and operations of that party’s
presidential nominating convention,” including receiving public funds. See 11 C.F.R. § 9008.3(a)(2).
6 26 U.S.C. § 9008(b).
7 On prioritization of convention funding, see 26 U.S.C. § 9008(a).
8 FECA is 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.
9 However, federal assistance for convention security has been provided in at least one election year prior to 2004.
According to The Campaign Finance Institute, in 1980 the cities of Detroit and New York City received “Federal Law
Enforcement Assistance grants” of $3.2 million and $3.5 million respectively for convention security. Steve Weissman
with the assistance of Margaret Sammon and Jennifer Sykes, Inside Fundraising for the 2008 Party Conventions: Party
Surrogates Gather Soft Money While Federal Regulators Turn a Blind Eye (Washington: Campaign Finance Institute,
2008). See the table entitled “Sources of Funding for Major Party Presidential Nominating Conventions, 1980-2004,”
which is not paginated.
10 In P.L. 108-287 (An Act Making Appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2005, and For Other Purposes), Sec. 11002, Congress appropriated $25 million for Boston and $25 million for New
York City convention security. In P.L. 108-199 (An Act Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other
Purposes), Sec. 103, Congress appropriated $50 million for the 2004 presidential nominating conventions.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
security in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, respectively.11 In 2008, the $100 million is to be
administered through OJP’s Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs. DOJ, reportedly, will use most of this funding to reimburse state and local
law enforcement entities for overtime costs associated with convention security.
Even though DOJ administers the convention security funding, DOJ is not responsible for
security at the presidential nominating conventions. Rather, the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) is
responsible for planning, coordinating, and implementing security operations at conventions.
Congress authorized the USSS—when directed by the President—to be the lead federal agency
for convention security in P.L. 106-544 (the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000) because
the conventions are designated as National Special Security Events (NSSE).12 In addition to
presidential nominating conventions, NSSEs include such events as presidential inaugurations,
major international summits held in the United States, and some major sporting events.
Recent Federal Convention Funding
As Table 1 shows, the federal government provided a total of approximately $133.6 million—
combining PECF grants and security expenditures—to support the 2008 Democratic and
Republican conventions. Each convention was allocated approximately $66.8 million. In 2004,
federal funding for the Democratic and Republican conventions totaled approximately $129.6
million ($29.6 million in PECF funds and $100 million in security funds).
Table 1. Federal Funds Supporting the 2008 Presidential Nominating Conventions
(in millions of dollars)
Presidential Election Campaign
Total Federal
Fund (PECF) Grants
Security Funding
Funding
Democratic
$16.8 $50.0
$66.8
Convention
Republican
$16.8a $50.0
$66.8
Convention
Total $33.6 $100.0b $133.6
Sources: PECF data appears in U.S. Treasury Department, Financial Management Service, “Disbursements From
the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Related Payments,” July 31, 2008; provided to CRS by the Office of
Legislative and Public Affairs, Financial Management Service. The 110th Congress appropriated $100 million
(through OJP) for securing the 2008 presidential nominating conventions in P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.
Notes: Amounts in the table are rounded. CRS aggregated totals in the table.
a. Because the Republican convention ended a day early due to Hurricane Gustav, the committee refunded
part of its public financing allocation, brining its final sum to $13.0 million.
b. This amount does not include any funding that the U.S. Secret Service may expend in protecting major
presidential candidates at the conventions.
11 P.L. 110-161, Div. B, Title II.
12 For information on the U.S. Secret Service’s missions, see CRS Report RL34603, The U.S. Secret Service: An
Examination and Analysis of Its Evolving Missions, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
No third parties qualified for any federal funding in 2008 or 2004. A third party most recently
received PECF funds in 2000. That year, the Reform Party reportedly qualified for $2.5 million in
federal funds.13 Congress has never appropriated funds for a third party’s convention security.
Conditions on PECF Funds
In exchange for receiving public funds, a party’s convention committee must agree not to raise or
spend additional funds.14 Certain exceptions are permitted for legal or accounting fees. (As is
discussed later in this report, nonfederal funds also supplement conventions, although those funds
do not flow through the convention committees.) Among other requirements, convention
committees receiving public funds must file disclosure reports with the FEC, agree to provide the
commission with any requested documents, and submit to an audit of their PECF spending.15
Federal law places relatively few restrictions on how PECF convention funds are spent, as long as
purchases are lawful and are used to “defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential
nominating convention.”16
FEC regulations provide additional guidance on permissible and prohibited spending.17 Per FEC
regulations, permissible PECF convention expenses include items such as:
• “preparing, maintaining, and dismantling” the convention site;
• personnel and staff expenses (including bonuses);
• convention operations and planning;
• security;18
• transportation;
• certain entertainment;
• administrative items (e.g., office supplies);
• gifts for convention staff or volunteers (limited to $150 per person or $20,000
total);
• production of candidate biographical films; or
• investment of PECF funds if the profits are to be used to defray convention
costs.19
13 Anthony Corrado, “Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns,” in Anthony Corrado, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R.
Ortiz, and Trevor Potter, eds. The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Washington: Brookings Institution Press,
2005), p. 191.
14 26 U.S.C. § 9008(d).
15 11 C.F.R. § 9008.3.
16 26 U.S.C. § 9008(c).
17 Convention committees seeking specific guidance can consult the Federal Election Commission or legal counsel for
additional information.
18 Although PECF funds could be spent on security, it is likely that security would be paid for with other federal funds
discussed elsewhere in this report.
19 11 C.F.R. 9008.7(a).
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
It is important to note, however, that although federal regulations permit the types of spending
described above, individual convention committees do not necessarily choose to fund all of those
activities.
Convention committees are prohibited from spending PECF funds on items including
• candidate or delegate participation in the convention, except in limited
circumstances;
• any item that would violate federal or state laws;
• penalties resulting from enforcement of federal election law; or
• replacing lost or stolen items, except in limited circumstances.20
Conditions on Security Funds
There were no conditions on security funds per se; however, convention security funding could
only be used for costs associated with specifically identified presidential nominating conventions.
In 2008, the Democratic convention in Denver, and the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St.
Paul were the only ones authorized to receive federal security funding. This funding was
primarily used to directly reimburse state and local law enforcement entities for their expenses,
thus neither major party was an eligible recipient of this security funding.
The $100 million Congress appropriated for the FY2008 presidential nominating conventions
was, reportedly, primarily used to reimburse state and local law enforcement costs associated with
their participation in securing the convention sites. In 2004, the main security costs that state and
local law enforcement entities incurred involved overtime payments. This overtime of state and
local law enforcement personnel might be the result of their participation in not only securing the
convention venue, but participating in such activities as advance planning, conducting liaison for
venue and air space security, training, and establishing and maintaining communications.21
Additionally, there were other security costs incurred by the federal government associated with
the conventions that are not part of the $100 million appropriated in FY2008. Some of these
additional security costs included the USSS protection of the major presidential candidates
(whether at the convention or at other campaign locations)22 and the use of other federal
government personnel which assisted in securing the convention sites, such as Federal Protective
Service law enforcement officers.23 Other federal security costs included the securing of the
convention venue through the positioning of fencing and barricades, as well as the pre-positioning
of federal law enforcement K-9 units and other teams such as the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security’s (DHS) Domestic Emergency Support Teams, and Urban Search and Rescue Teams.24
20 11 C.F.R. 9008.7(b).
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, Office of Legislative Affairs, “National Special
Security Events: Meeting the Counter-Terrorism Challenge” (Washington: 2006), p. 1. This document is only available
by contacting the U.S. Secret Service’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
22 In FY2008, Congress appropriated $85 million for major presidential candidate protection, P.L. 110-161, Div. E.
23 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Federal Protective Service,
“Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Justification,” p. 5.
24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Press Secretary, “National Special Security Events: Fact
Sheet,” available at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0207.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Nonfederal Funds
As discussed below, conventions also benefit from nonfederal money that supports certain
activities and security operations. In both cases, amounts of nonfederal funds can vary widely and
are not necessarily centrally reported.
Convention-related Activities
Nonfederal funds are a major source of money associated with the political (as opposed to
security) side of presidential nominating conventions. The Campaign Finance Institute has
estimated that more than 75% of money related to the 2004 Democratic and Republican
conventions came from private sources.25 The 2008 conventions also appear to have been heavily
subsidized, albeit indirectly, by nonfederal funds.26 In August 2008, CFI and the Center for
Responsive Politics estimated that 80% of funds for the 2008 Democratic and Republican
conventions would come from private (nonfederal) sources.27 As is discussed below, state and
local governments may also spend additional amounts on security.
Nonfederal funds28 are generally not subject to the limits on contribution sources and amounts
found in federal campaign finance law, although some FEC reporting requirements apply.29
Although convention committees may not accept private funds (other than certain amounts to
offset legal and accounting needs), local “host committees” may solicit and spend private
contributions for activities related to the convention, such as “use of an auditorium or convention
center,” promoting the convention city, and hosting receptions or tours for attendees.30
As a practical matter, the regulation of federal versus nonfederal funds rests largely on how FECA
and the FEC have treated each source. FECA is largely silent on campaign finance aspects of
25 Steve Weissman with the assistance of Margaret Sammon and Jennifer Sykes, Inside Fundraising for the 2008 Party
Conventions: Party Surrogates Gather Soft Money While Federal Regulators Turn a Blind Eye (Washington:
Campaign Finance Institute, 2008). See “Sources of Funding for Major Party Presidential Nominating Conventions,
1980-2004,” which is not paginated. The report is available at http://www.cfinst.org/books_reports/conventions/
2008Conventions_Rpt1.pdf.
26 See, for example, Fredreka Schouen, “Donors Pick up Parties’ Expenses; ‘Egregious Loophole’ Seen at
Conventions,” USA Today, August 15, 2008, p. A1; and Leslie Wayne “Candidates Forgo Soft Money, But
Conventions Rake It In,” New York Times, June 7, 2008, p. A1. See also ibid. and Craig Holman, Angela Canterbury,
and Zoe Bridges-Curry, Party Conventions Are Free-For-All for Influence Peddling (Washington: Public Citizen,
2008) at http://www.citizen.org/documents/Party%20Conventions2.pdf. As the titles suggest, the CFI and Public
Citizen reports address convention financing in addition to other issues (e.g., lobbying). Those reports also take policy
positions on convention financing. This CRS report lists those sources as references, but does not take a position on
convention financing.
27 Campaign Finance Institute, “Party Conventions’ Financiers Have Spent Nearly $1.5 billion on Federal Campaign
Contributions and Lobbying Since 2005,” press release, August 20, 2008, at http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?
ReleaseID=203, p. 1.
28 On the various funding sources discussed in this and the preceding sections, see Anthony Corrado, “Public Funding
of Presidential Campaigns,” pp. 62-63.
29 Nonfederal funds that support conventions (except for security funding) are sometimes called “soft money,” a term
of art used to describe money believed to influence elections, but which falls outside federal campaign finance law. On
FEC reporting requirements for host committees and municipal funds (discussed below), see 11 C.F.R. § 9008.51.
30 Host committees are “any local organization,” such as civic associations, whose “principal purpose is the
encouragement of commerce in the convention city, as well as the projection of a favorable image of the city to the
convention attendees.” See 11 C.F.R. § 9008.50(b). On FEC receipt and expenditure regulations, see 11 C.F.R.
§ 9008.52.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
nonfederal funds, and the FEC has determined that nonfederal funds do not explicitly support the
conventions per se, even if they support events associated with those conventions. In particular, a
2003 FEC rulemaking reaffirmed the commission’s long-held view that
donations of funds to host committees are, as a matter or law, distinct from other donations
by prohibited sources [defined in FECA] in that they are motivated by a desire to promote
the convention city and hence are not subject to the absolute ban on corporate contributions
in 2 U.S.C. 441b [a FECA provision]. This conclusion is buttressed by the fact that
frequently members of the opposite political party have played prominent and active roles in
convention host committees.31
State or local governments, or coalitions of those governments, may also provide financial
assistance to conventions through entities known as “municipal funds.”32 The FEC has also
permitted corporations and labor unions, which may not provide direct financial support to
federal campaigns, to make certain contributions of goods or services to host committees and
municipal funds.33 In addition, “commercial vendors” may provide goods or services to
convention committees “at reduced or discounted rates, or at no charge” in certain
circumstances.34
Security Operations
Even though the primary use of the $100 million of federal funds through DOJ’s security grants
was intended to offset the security costs incurred by state and local governments, additional funds
may have been needed. Therefore, one can assume that nonfederal funding (state and local
government funding) was also used to secure the conventions. The amount of nonfederal funding
was based on the costs to state and local law enforcement entities that work with the USSS and
other federal law enforcement agencies during the convention.35 Additionally, unlike the funding
used by party convention committees, any nonfederal funds used for convention security came
from state and local governments, not PECF designations.
31 Federal Election Commission, “Public Financing of Presidential Candidates and Nominating Conventions,” 68
Federal Register 47401, August 8, 2003.
32 Municipal funds are “any fund or account of a government agency, municipality, or municipal corporation whose
principal purpose is the encouragement of commerce in the municipality and whose receipt and use of funds is subject
to the control of officials of the State or local government.” See 11 C.F.R. § 9008.50(c). On FEC receipt and
expenditure regulations, see 11 C.F.R. § 9008.53. Former FEC chairman David Mason provided consultations on some
points regarding commission regulation of host committees and municipal funds (e-mail correspondence with R. Sam
Garrett, August 14, 2008).
33 See 11 C.F.R. §§ 9008.52 and 9008.53(b).
34 11 C.F.R. § 9008.9.
35 CRS is unable to determine the amount of nonfederal funding used by Boston and New York City in 2004, and there
are no projections available for the 2008 conventions in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Recent Legislative Activity
Legislation that Would Affect PECF Convention Funding
In the 112th Congress, H.R. 359 proposes to eliminate the public financing system entirely,
including convention financing. That measure passed the House (239-160) on January 26, 2011.36
The same day, Senator McConnell introduced companion measure S. 194 in the Senate. By
contrast, Representative Price (NC) has introduced legislation (H.R. 414) to maintain the existing
public financing program and revise its benefits. That bill would, however, repeal the PECF
convention grants.
In the 111th Congress, H.R. 2992 proposed to eliminate PECF convention funding. Two other
111th bills, H.R. 6061 and S. 3681, although bolstering other elements of the public financing
program, also would have eliminating convention funding. None of these measures appears to
affect separate security funding discussed in this report. As of this writing, there has been no
major legislative activity on the presidential public financing program—including with respect to
convention funding. Four bills introduced in the 110th Congress would have affected PECF
convention financing. Only one of those bills (H.R. 72) was principally concerned with
convention funding. Others emphasized broader presidential public financing issues. None of
these measures became law. Additional discussion appears in the “Policy Issues and Options”
section of this report.
Presently, there is no legislation pending that would affect convention security funding. The
Administration, however, did request $20 million, in its FY2011 budget request, for an NSSE
Fund that would reimburse state and local governments for NSSE security costs, and this includes
security costs associated with presidential nominating conventions.37
Policy Issues and Options
PECF Convention Funding
As Congress considers whether, or how, to address PECF convention funds, Members may first
examine what role it wishes those funds (or other federal funds) to play in modern conventions.
The current system of PECF convention grants (and the presidential public financing program
generally) has been in place since the 1976 election cycle and has remained essentially unchanged
since that time. Although this report is not focused on nonfederal funds (e.g., “soft money”), it is
widely accepted that such funds play a prominent, even if indirect, role in convention financing.
As discussed below, the tension between federal and nonfederal funds is likely to shape
congressional consideration of convention financing.
Those who are wary of private, “interested” money in politics typically argue that public funds
are a way to insulate conventions (or other aspects of elections) from undue individual, corporate,
36 Roll call vote no. 25.
37 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 1, 2010, p. 518.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
or labor influence and from real or apparent corruption stemming from private funds. From that
perspective, maintaining or expanding public financing of conventions could be attractive.
Similarly, Congress could choose to restrict sources of nonfederal funds.38 On the other hand, in
light of the availability of nonfederal funds, even those who support public financing in general
might argue that federal funding for conventions is unnecessary or that it should be diminished.
Finally, those opposed to campaign finance regulation often view any public financial assistance
to campaigns (or conventions) as an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.
As is evident from the preceding discussion, the policy options addressed below, or others, would
likely be part of a larger debate surrounding convention financing and presidential public
financing in general.
Maintaining the Status Quo
If Congress chooses to make no policy changes, the role of PECF convention funds will remain
as it is today. Convention committees that choose to accept public funds would continue to be
bound by the regulations discussed above, and nonfederal funds would likely continue playing a
role in convention financing. The amount of PECF funds available to convention committees is
likely to continue to increase incrementally with inflation.39
Options that Could Increase or Decrease Federal Convention Funding 40
The policy options discussed below could change the amount of federal funding available to
conventions. Some of these options are proposed in current legislation. Others provide additional
approaches that have been offered for consideration, but are not the subject of current legislation.
Regardless of the particular approach, expanding federal funding could decrease the perceived
need for nonfederal funds. However, in the absence of additional regulation of nonfederal funds,
or voluntary decreases in spending by entities providing nonfederal funds, expanded federal
funding could also increase the total amount of money surrounding conventions. Any change in
federal convention funding would require amending the amounts currently specified in federal
law ($4 million for major parties, as adjusted for inflation; $16.8 million in 2008).
Changing the Prioritization of Convention Funds
As noted previously, PECF convention grants are reserved before matching funds or general-
election grants are paid to publicly financed presidential candidates. If, however, Congress
believes that funding candidates should be the top priority for the public financing program, de-
prioritizing convention funding could be an option. Two bills introduced in the 110th Congress (S.
436 and S. 2412) would have repealed the priority status of convention financing currently in law.
Doing so might help avoid future financial shortfalls in other aspects of the public financing
program (particularly primary matching funds). Nonetheless, it is possible that shortfalls could
38 For a discussion of constitutional issues, see CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance
Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by L. Paige Whitaker.
39 This assumes that sufficient balances would remain in the PECF to cover convention grants.
40 Some of the material in this section is adapted from CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential
Campaigns: Overview and Analysis. See that report for additional discussion.
Congressional Research Service
9
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
then affect convention funds, especially if convention funds were distributed after candidate
funds.
Appropriating Funds
Appropriating funds would permit Congress to annually (or every four years) determine the
amount of money available to conventions, as opposed (or in addition) to the most recent PECF
amount of $16.8 million per major party.41 If the PECF grant structure were abandoned in favor
of appropriated funds, Congress could legislate any other funding amount (or none, as discussed
below).42 Accordingly, although appropriations might yield more funding for conventions than is
currently available, Congress might also appropriate less funding. Appropriating convention
funds would also mark a departure from Congress’s traditional approach to presidential public
financing, which has always emphasized taxpayers’ roles in determining available funding.
Altering the Checkoff-Designation Question
As noted previously, federal financing of presidential campaigns—including convention
financing—relies entirely on “checkoff” designations by individual taxpayers. Currently, the
checkoff question allows taxpayers only to designate to the PECF $3 for individuals, or $6 for
married couples filing jointly. Available funds are then distributed through convention grants,
general election grants, and matching funds, as described previously. Congress could, however,
choose to alter the checkoff designation by posing two separate questions to taxpayers: one for
candidate financing, and another for convention financing. Of course, taxpayers might choose to
either provide more or less funding to conventions (and candidate campaigns).
Altering the Checkoff Amount
Increasing the checkoff designation amount is frequently proposed as a way to provide additional
funds to the PECF in general.43 The same could be proposed for convention funding in
particular.44 For the first and only time, Congress tripled the checkoff amount (from $1 to $3 and
$2 to $6) to their current levels in 1993.45 Although increasing the checkoff amount did provide
an influx of money to the PECF, it did not increase the percentage of taxpayers contributing to the
fund.46 If that same scenario occurred with another increase in the checkoff amount, more money
would be available for public financing (including conventions if Congress so designates), but
declining participation could threaten available funds in the long term.
41 As noted previously, this amount is regularly adjusted for inflation.
42 Four 110th Congress bills that propose to revamp the presidential public financing program (H.R. 776; H.R. 4294; S.
436, and S. 2412) would permit congressional appropriations to initially cover additional benefits proposed in those
bills, but the PECF would later have to repay those appropriations. This proposal is distinct from appropriations
specifically for convention funding.
43 See, for example, H.R. 776, H.R. 4294, S. 436, and S. 2412 in the 110th Congress.
44 In the 110th Congress, H.R. 776, S. 436, H.R. 4294, and S. 2412 would all have increased the checkoff amount, but
did not propose additional funding for conventions.
45 26 U.S.C. § 6096(a). On the increase, see P.L. 103-66; 107 Stat. 567-568.
46 CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis.
Congressional Research Service
10
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Repealing Convention Funding
If Congress determines that convention funding were no longer necessary—or if it wanted to
concentrate remaining funding on candidate campaigns—convention grants could be eliminated
entirely. This outcome could be accomplished by repealing relevant sections of federal law, or by
amending the law to prohibit the FEC from certifying convention grants, or the Treasury
Secretary from making convention payments. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 72 (Bartlett) would
have ended subsidies for nominating conventions. H.R. 484 (Doolittle) would have ended the
public funding system entirely, as would H.R. 359 (Cole) in the 112th Congress. As noted
previously, H.R. 2992 (Cole) in the 111th Congress would have repealed convention financing.
Those concerned about the influence of private money, particularly soft money, in convention
financing would likely object to conventions that are completely dependent upon private funds.
Security Funds
During the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008, Congress appropriated funding through
DOJ for convention security; however, DOJ does not plan, train, exercise, or implement
convention security operations. Instead, the USSS (a DHS entity) is the lead federal agency for
convention security and any other National Special Security Event, such as the inauguration of
President Barack Obama. DOJ’s role in providing convention security funding, the mission of the
USSS, and the relationship between federal funding and nonfederal costs associated with
convention security could be issues that Congress might choose to address prior to the
conventions in 2012.
Presently, the USSS is responsible for administering the convention security operations, in
coordination with nonfederal entities, and using its own funding to cover any costs incurred by
federal agencies involved in the security operations. However, state and local governments,
following the convention, had to apply to DOJ for reimbursement of their costs associated with
convention security. DOJ administered the security grants because the USSS is not authorized to
reimburse state and local government costs associated with any NSSE, and specifically any costs
associated with presidential nominating conventions. It may be argued that the federal security
activities executed by the USSS require coordination with the distribution of federal funds.
State and local law enforcement entities are responsible for providing personnel and equipment
during conventions and working with the USSS to “develop and implement a seamless security
plan that will create a safe and secure environment for the general public, event participants,
Secret Service protectees, and other dignitaries.”47 To support this effort, in FY2008, Congress
appropriated $1 million for NSSE costs within the USSS,48 and the 2008 presidential nominating
conventions were designated as NSSEs. The 111th Congress appropriated $1 million for NSSE
costs within the USSS in FY2010.49
47 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Security Service, Office of Legislative Affairs, “National Special
Security Events: Meeting the Counter-Terrorism Challenge” (Washington: 2006), p. 1. This document is only available
by contacting the U.S. Secret Service’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
48 P.L. 110-161, Div. E.
49 P.L. 111-83, Title II. 123 Stat. 2155.
Congressional Research Service
11
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
Maintaining the Status Quo
If Congress chooses to make no policy changes, the routine of appropriating convention security
funds during presidential election years would remain unchanged. State and local law
enforcement entities would continue assisting the USSS in securing the convention venues and
then apply to DOJ for reimbursement following the completion of the conventions.
State and local governments can use some DHS grants, such as the State Homeland Security
Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) for convention security
activities, even though DHS did not administer the convention security grants that Congress
appropriated in FY2004 and FY2008.50 The grant approval process for the DHS programs,
however, is not flexible, so the programs have limited application to conventions. States and
localities, when hosting a convention, would need to incorporate plans to use SHSGP and UASI
funding for convention security in their grant applications. DHS does authorize states and
localities to reprogram SHSGP and UASI funding with the DHS Secretary’s approval; however,
that may result in states and localities not funding other planned homeland security activities.
Options that Could Increase or Decrease Federal Convention Security Funding
The policy options discussed below could change the amount of federal security funding
available to conventions. None of these options have been proposed in legislation.
Authorize SHSGP or UASI Amounts for Convention Locations
For presidential election years, Congress could fund convention security through DHS’s SHSGP
and UASI grants. This could be achieved by either increasing the SHSGP and UASI allocations
for convention locations in election years, or by requiring convention states and localities to apply
and program SHSGP and UASI funding specifically for convention security during election
years. As noted above, this is an option that states and localities can utilize; however, it may result
in not funding other planned homeland security activities.
This option would also remove DOJ from the convention security funding cycle. States and
localities have an established grant application mechanism with DHS related to homeland
security funding and activities, and the use of SHSGP and UASI appropriations for convention
security, arguably, are homeland security activities.
Authorize USSS to Reimburse State and Local Government Costs
Another option Congress may consider is authorizing the USSS to reimburse state and local
convention security costs. Because the USSS is the federal agency responsible for convention
security, one could argue that Congress could appropriate funding to the USSS to reimburse state
and local costs. Arguably, the USSS could be more effective in auditing state and local law
enforcement costs and determine reimbursement amounts since the USSS is the lead federal
agency for convention security. This option, like the preceding one, would remove DOJ from
50 For more information on recent appropriations for DHS grants, see CRS Report RS22805, FY2009 Appropriations
for State and Local Homeland Security, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
12
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
administering the convention security funding. Conversely, this option would require the USSS to
establish and administer a grant process that is not, at present, a responsibility of the agency.
Discontinue Convention Security Funding to States and Localities
Congress could also choose to not appropriate funding to reimburse state and local governments
convention security costs. This might result in a reduced security role for state and local law
enforcement entities or force state and local governments to fund all of their convention security
activities. However, this option seems unlikely given the present national concern with homeland
security, and the national interest in protecting major presidential candidates and ensuring the
security of mass political events.
Establish a Program to Fund NSSEs
Congress could choose to support the Administration’s FY2011 budget request and establish an
NSSE Fund. The Administration proposed $20 million for an NSSE Fund. The NSSE Fund would
reimburse state and local governments for costs incurred when providing security at NSSEs,
including presidential nominating conventions. In the past, state and local governments were
reimbursed for NSSE costs through multiple federal programs that were not consolidated or
coordinated. Eligible costs of the NSSE Fund would be determined by the DHS Secretary; the
fund’s management and administrative costs could not exceed one percent ($200,000). NSSE
Fund allocations would not be available to states and localities that receive reimbursement from
other federal programs, including the Department of State’s “Protection of Foreign Missions and
Officials” account.51
This option, however, would have to address some questions that are not discussed in the
Administration’s FY2011 budget request. Some of these questions include the following:
• How did DHS determine $20 million as the appropriate amount for the NSSE
Fund?
• What entity within DHS would administer the NSSE Fund?
• Would the NSSE Fund be redundant?
Conclusion
Although PECF funding of convention operations has been in place since the 1976 election cycle,
the role of federal convention funding remains subject to debate in Congress and beyond. Most of
that debate, however, occurs within the broader discussions of presidential public financing and
“hard” versus “soft” money in campaigns. Congress has several options for revisiting the federal
role in PECF funding, if it chooses to do so.
The role of the federal government in funding convention security is a fairly new development
since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As federal, state, and local governments further
51 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington,
DC, February 1, 2010, p. 518.
Congressional Research Service
13
Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options
refine their homeland security activities generally, and specifically convention security
operations, Congress may consider different options for how the federal government provides
funding for state and local costs incurred in securing convention venues.
Author Contact Information
R. Sam Garrett
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Congressional Research Service
14