Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns

R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
March 3, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41604


Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

What Are the Essential Policy Issues?
Congress is faced with determining whether it wants public financing of presidential campaigns
to continue and, if so, how. The 113th Congress and President Obama chose to eliminate part of
the program—public funding for nominating conventions—in April 2014 via P.L. 113-94 (H.R.
2019). Barring a change in the status quo, the 2016 conventions will be the first entirely privately
financed since 1972. Public matching funds and grants remain in place for candidates who choose
to participate. There is, however, a consensus even among supporters 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.
Proposals to curtail the presidential public financing program have been a consistent theme in
recent Congresses. In the 114th Congress, H.R. 412 would eliminate candidate funding—the only
remaining component of the program. Eight bills introduced in the 113th Congress—H.R. 94,
H.R. 95, H.R. 260, H.R. 270, H.R. 1724, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2857, and S. 118—would have
terminated all or parts of the program. As noted previously, one of those measures, H.R. 2019,
became law.
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 H.R. 359 to repeal public financing of
presidential campaigns and nominating conventions. In addition, on December 1, 2011, the House
passed H.R. 3463. The latter bill 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 may consult the following CRS products for additional background.
• 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 discussion of increased contribution limits for political parties, including for privately
financed conventions, see CRS Report R43825, Increased Campaign Contribution Limits in the
FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently Asked Questions
, by R. Sam Garrett. For a
discussion of constitutional considerations, which are beyond the scope of this report and those
noted above, readers may consult CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of
Limits on Contributions and Expenditures
, by L. Paige Whitaker.
Congressional Research Service
1

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

What Would the Bills Do?
Now that public financing of conventions has been eliminated (except separately appropriated
security funds), only candidate funding remains. (Additional discussion of the funding types
appears below.) In the 114th Congress, one bill, H.R. 412, sponsored by Representative Cole,
would terminate candidate funding upon enactment. Remaining amounts in the Presidential
Election Campaign Fund (PECF), a segregated account that maintains public financing
designations from individual tax returns, would be transferred to two sources. First, the bill
specifies that $88.2 million of the PECF balance would go toward a pediatric research fund to
which convention funds were transferred under P.L. 113-94.1 Second, remaining amounts would
go to the general fund of the U.S. treasury “to be used only for reducing the deficit.” As of
January 31, 2015, the latest data available as of this writing, the PECF balance was approximately
$263.4 million. 2
For historical reference, Table 1 below provides a brief summary of legislation considered in the
113th Congress. All bills would have terminated convention financing, candidate financing, or
both.
Table 1. 113th Congress Legislation That Proposed 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 have
Committee on
eliminated PECF
House
convention funding
Administration
markup held; bill
ordered reported
favorably
06/04/2013 (voice
vote); reported
12/12/2013
(H.Rept. 113-291)
H.R. 95
Cole

Would have
Committee on
eliminated PECF and
House
transferred balance to
Administration
the general fund of the markup held; bill
U.S. Treasury for use
ordered reported
in deficit reduction
favorably
06/04/2013 (voice
vote); reported
12/12/2013
(H.Rept. 113-292)

1 Healthcare research issues and details of the pediatric research fund are beyond the scope of this report. Congressional
requesters may contact CRS Analyst Judith Johnson at x77077 with additional questions.
2 Information provided to CRS by the Financial Management Service, U.S. Treasury Department, via email, March
2015.
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. 260
Harper

Would have
Referred to
eliminated PECF and
Committees on
transferred balance to
House
the general fund of the Administration;
U.S. Treasury for use
Ways and Means
in deficit reduction;
01/15/2013
would eliminate
Election Assistance
Commission (EAC)
and transfer some
functions to the
Federal Election
Commission (FEC)
H.R. 270
Price (N.C.)
Empowering
Relevant provisions
Referred to
Citizens Act
would have eliminated Committees on
PECF convention
House
financing; remainder of Administration;
bill proposed 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 have eliminated Committees on
PECF and convert it
Energy and
to “10-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
H.R. 2019
Harper
Kids First Research
Relevant provisions
Became P.L. 113-
Act of 2013
eliminated PECF
94 , 04/03/2014
convention funding
and converted
amounts to “10-Year
Pediatric Research
Initiative Fund,” with
some amounts
available to National
Institutes of Health;
contains health-
research provisions
unrelated to this
reporta
Congressional Research Service
3

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Most Recent
Bill
Primary Sponsor
Short Title
Brief Summary
Major Action
H.R. 2857
Barletta
Disaster Loan
Relevant provisions
Referred to
Fairness Act of 2013 would have eliminated Committees on
PECF convention
Small Business;
financing; contained
House
small business
Administration
disaster-loan
07/30/2013
provisions unrelated
to this reportb
S. 118
Coburn

Would have
Referred to
eliminated PECF
Committee on
convention funding
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 Judith Johnson at x77077.
b. 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?
Until 2014, the public financing program provided three types of benefits for parties and
candidates that chose to participate:
Grants to party nominating conventions. In 2012, the Democratic and Republican
parties each received grants of $18.2 million. Convention committees receiving
public funds agreed not to raise more funds, but separate “host committees” often
raised substantial private amounts. As noted previously, convention funding has
been eliminated.
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.3 Grants remain
available for candidates who choose to participate.
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

3 Limited exceptions exist for additional fundraising and spending for legal and accounting expenses.
Congressional Research Service
4

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

Buddy Roemer III,4 and Green Party candidate Jill Stein qualified for a total of
approximately $1.2 million in matching funds.5 Major candidates most recently
received primary matching funds in 2008. Matching funds remain available for
candidates who choose to participate.
Congress established the current public financing system during the early and mid-1970s,
especially via the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments.6 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.7 Congress tripled the checkoff designation from $1 to
$3 (and from $2 to $6 for married couples) in 1993.8
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.9
What Might Happen If the Legislation Were
Enacted?

If public financing were eliminated, all presidential campaigns would be privately financed, as all
other federal campaigns are today.10 Repealing the public financing program would eliminate a
major tenet of modern campaign finance policy, albeit a controversial one.
• 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.

4 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.
5 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.
6 P.L. 93-443; 88 Stat. 1263.
7 On the presidential public financing portion of the Revenue Act, see 85 Stat. 573.
8 26 U.S.C. §6096(a). On the increase, see P.L. 103-66; 107 Stat. 567-568.
9 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.
10 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
Congressional Research Service
5

Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns

• 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 noted
previously, as of January 31, 2015, the PECF balance was approximately $263.4
million. 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 PACs11, 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 FY2014,
the checkoff rate reached a low of 5.4%.12



11 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42042, Super PACs in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for
Congress
, by R. Sam Garrett.
12 These are Financial Management Service figures provided by the FEC. Some FEC 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

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


Congressional Research Service
7