Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns

R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
December 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41604
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

What Are the Essential Policy Issues?
There is a consensus that the presidential public financing program is antiquated and offers
insufficient benefits to attract the most competitive candidates. No major candidate accepted
public funds in 2012. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama became the first person, since the
public financing program’s inception, elected President without accepting any public funds. For
some, these developments signal an urgent need to save the public campaign financing program
that has existed since the 1970s; for others, they suggest that the program is unnecessary.
Eight bills introduced in the 113th Congress would terminate all or parts of the program. These
measures—H.R. 94, H.R. 95, H.R. 260, H.R. 270, H.R. 1724, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2857, and S.
118—are discussed in the next section of this report. The 112th Congress also considered
terminating the program; two bills passed the House but died in the Senate. On January 26, 2011,
the House passed (239-160) H.R. 359, sponsored by Representative Cole, to repeal public
financing of presidential campaigns and nominating conventions. In addition, on December 1,
2011, the House passed (235-190) H.R. 3463. The latter bill, sponsored by Representative Harper,
proposed to terminate the public financing program (in addition to eliminating the Election
Assistance Commission) and transfer remaining amounts to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury
for use in deficit reduction.
This report provides a brief policy overview and raises potential issues for congressional
consideration. Readers are encouraged to consult the following CRS products for additional
information.
• CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview
and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett;
• CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating
Conventions: Overview and Policy Options, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn
Reese; and
• CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent
Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett (the “Public Financing
Issues” section).
For a discussion of constitutional considerations, which are beyond the scope of this report and
those noted above, readers may consult CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of
Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny
, by L. Paige
Whitaker.
What Would the Bills Do?
All bills would end public financing either entirely or for party conventions. Some bills also
specify other purposes for remaining balances after the Presidential Election Campaign Fund
(PECF) was terminated. Table 1 below provides a brief summary.
Congressional Research Service
1

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Table 1. 113th Congress Legislation That Proposes to Eliminate Aspects of the
Presidential Public Financing Program
Most Recent
Bill
Primary Sponsor
Short Title
Brief Summary
Major Action
H.R. 94
Cole

Would eliminate PECF Referred to
convention funding
Committee on
House
Administration,
01/03/2013
H.R. 95
Cole

Would eliminate PECF Referred to
and transfer balance
Committees on
to the general fund of
Ways and Means;
the U.S. Treasury for
House
use in deficit
Administration,
reduction
01/03/2013
H.R. 260
Harper

Would eliminate PECF Referred to
and transfer balance
Committees on
to the general fund of
House
the U.S. Treasury for
Administration;
use in deficit
Ways and Means
reduction; would
01/15/2013
eliminate Election
Assistance
Commission (EAC)
and transfer some
functions to the
Federal Election
Commission (FEC)
H.R. 270
Price
Empowering
Relevant provisions
Referred to
Citizens Act
would eliminate PECF
Committees on
convention financing;
House
remainder of bill
Administration;
proposes revised
Ways and Means
public financing of
01/15/2013
presidential campaigns,
and new public
financing program for
House campaigns
H.R. 1724
Harper
Kids First Research
Relevant provisions
Referred to
Act of 2013
would eliminate PECF
Committees on
and convert it to “10-
Energy and
Year Pediatric
Commerce; House
Research Initiative
Administration;
Fund,” with some
Ways and Means
amounts available to
04/25/2013
National Institutes of
Health; contains
health-research
provisions unrelated
to this reporta
Congressional Research Service
2

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Most Recent
Bill
Primary Sponsor
Short Title
Brief Summary
Major Action
H.R. 2019
Harper
Kids First Research
Relevant provisions of
Referred to
Act of 2013
amended version of
Committees on
bill would eliminate
Energy and
PECF convention
Commerce; House
funding and convert
Administration;
amounts to “10-Year
Ways and Means
Pediatric Research
05/16/2013b
Initiative Fund,” with
some amounts
available to National
Institutes of Health;
contains health-
research provisions
unrelated to this
reporta
H.R. 2857
Barletta
Disaster Loan
Relevant provisions
Referred to
Fairness Act of 2013 would eliminate PECF
Committees on
convention financing;
Small Business;
contains smal
House
business disaster-loan
Administration
provisions unrelated
07/30/2013
to this reportc
S. 118
Coburn

Would eliminate PECF Referred to
convention funding
Committee on
Rules and
Administration
01/23/2013
Source: CRS analysis of bill texts.
Notes: The table excludes provisions unrelated to public financing of campaigns.
a. For additional information on health-research provisions in the bill, congressional requesters may contact
CRS Analyst Pamela Smith at x77048.
b. As of this writing, the House majority leader had announced that the House could consider the bill under
suspension of the rules during the week of December 9, 2013.
c. For additional information on small business disaster-relief provisions in the bill, congressional requesters
may contact CRS Analyst Bruce Lindsay at x77048. See also CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan
Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress
, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
What Is the Presidential Public Financing Program?
For those candidates and party conventions choosing to participate, the presidential public
financing program provides funds for three phases of the campaign:
Grants to party nominating conventions. In 2012, the Democratic and Republican
parties each received grants of $18.2 million. Convention committees receiving
public funds must agree not to raise more funds, but separate “host committees”
often raise substantial private amounts. Funding for convention grants is reserved
first, followed by payments for general and primary funding.
Congressional Research Service
3

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Grants for general-election nominees. In 2012, neither Democratic nominee
Barack Obama nor Republican nominee Mitt Romney chose to accept a grant of
approximately $91.2 million. In 2008, then-candidate John McCain accepted the
$84.1 million grant available to major-party nominees. Then-candidate Obama
chose not to accept public funds. Candidates who accept general election grants
must agree not to engage in additional private fundraising for their campaigns,
and not to spend funds other than the general election grant.1
Matching funds for primary candidates. Publicly financed primary candidates
may receive 100% matches of individual contributions up to $250, in exchange
for limited spending. In 2012, Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, Governor
Buddy Roemer III,2 and Green Party candidate Jill Stein qualified for a total of
approximately $1.2 million in matching funds.3 Major candidates most recently
received primary matching funds in 2008.
Congress established the current public financing system during the early and mid-1970s,
especially via the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments.4 Congress created
the voluntary public financing option amid concerns about potential corruption in campaign
fundraising following Watergate. Initially, individual taxpayers could designate $1 ($2 for
married couples filing jointly) to the PECF.5 Congress tripled the checkoff designation from $1 to
$3 (and from $2 to $6 for married couples) in 1993.6
Since the 1976 election cycle, approximately $1.5 billion has gone to publicly financed
candidates and nominating conventions. Almost all that money has benefitted Democratic and
Republican campaigns. Third party candidates, independents, and Lyndon LaRouche (who often
ran as a Democrat) collectively received about 4% of approximately $1.3 billion provided to
candidates overall.7
What Might Happen If the Bills Were Enacted?
If any of the bills discussed above became law, presidential candidates and nominating
conventions would have to be entirely privately financed, as all other federal campaigns are
today.8 Repealing the public financing program would eliminate a major tenet of modern
campaign finance policy, albeit a controversial one.

1 Limited exceptions exist for additional fundraising and spending for legal and accounting expenses.
2 The cited source does not provide a party affiliation for Gov. Roemer. As is often the case with minor candidates, it
appears that he pursued ballot access under different party labels depending on the state.
3 CRS aggregated these figures from data in Federal Election Commission, “Federal Election Commission Certifies
Federal Matching Funds for Gary Johnson ,” press release, December 20, 2012, http://fec.gov/press/press2012/
20121220_JohnsonMatchFund.shtml.
4 P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263.
5 On the presidential public financing portion of the Revenue Act, see 85 Stat. 573.
6 26 U.S.C. §6096(a). On the increase, see P.L. 103-66; 107 Stat. 567-568.
7 These figures are based on CRS analysis of data provided by the Federal Election Commission, data in Federal
Election Commission, Report on the Presidential Public Funding Program (FEC: April 1993), and data in FEC press
releases. Data on program totals sometimes vary over time and by source.
8 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
Congressional Research Service
4

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

• For those who believe that they could raise higher amounts than would be
available through public funds—or who wanted to spend more than would be
permitted—an end to public financing might be of little consequence. Those who
are philosophically opposed to using public funds would likely support repealing
or otherwise curtailing the program.
• Some otherwise qualified candidates could be deterred from seeking the
presidency because they do not have access to, or do not believe they can raise,
sufficient private funds.
• Candidates might have to spend additional time raising private funds, perhaps
with an incentive to pursue large contributions, to make up for the lack of public
funds.
• Amounts currently in the PECF could be used for other purposes. As of
September 2013, the PECF balance was approximately $270.0 million.9 It is also
possible that additional savings could be achieved if the Federal Election
Commission and Treasury Department no longer had to administer the program.
Why Are There Concerns About the
Program’s Viability?

Elections since 2000 have raised concerns about whether spending limits required of publicly
financed candidates, and funds available to those candidates, are sufficient.
• In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush was the first person elected President
since 1976 without participating in all elements of the public financing program
open to candidates (primary and general election funding). Instead, Mr. Bush
accepted only general election public funds.
• In 2008, Barack Obama became the first person elected President since 1976
without accepting any public funds. No major candidate accepted public funds in
2012.
• Given these developments, and the rise in non-candidate spending from entities
such as super PACs10, there is general consensus that the spending limits
associated with the current program are insufficient to attract the most
competitive candidates.
Taxpayer designations have also generally declined over time.
• Designations reached a high point in 1980, when 28.7% of filers designated
funds for the PECF. Participation has generally declined since then. In 2012, the
checkoff rate reached a low of 6.0%.11

9 Information provided to CRS by the Financial Management Service, U.S. Treasury Department, via email, October
2013.
10 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42042, Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for
Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
11 These are Financial Management Service figures provided by the FEC. The 2012 figure is for FY2012. Some FEC
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns



Author Contact Information

R. Sam Garrett

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



(...continued)
and Treasury sources vary in their use of calendar year data vs. fiscal year data. Calendar year and fiscal year
participation rates generally vary by approximately 1% - 2% per year.
Congressional Research Service
6