{ "id": "R41054", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R41054", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 394060, "date": "2011-11-22", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T00:27:45.957188", "title": "Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress", "summary": "Following the Supreme Court\u2019s January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, questions have emerged about which policy options could be available to Congress. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be relevant. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle.\nAs Congress considers legislative responses, at least two broad choices could be relevant. First, Congress could provide candidates or parties with additional access to funds to combat corporate influence in elections. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures post-Citizens United to provide additional information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches could generate substantial debate. Some may contend that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the Constitution.\nMore than 40 bills introduced during the 111th Congress may be relevant for legislative responses to Citizens United. These include H.Con.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.J.Res. 74 ,H.J.Res. 82, H.J.Res. 84, H.Res. 1275, H.R. 158, H.R. 1095, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2038, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3574, H.R. 3859, H.R. 4431, H.R. 4432, H.R. 4433, H.R. 4434, H.R. 4435, H.R. 4487, H.R. 4510, H.R. 4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, H.R. 4550, H.R. 4583, H.R. 4617, H.R. 4630, H.R. 4644, H.R. 4749, H.R. 4768, H.R. 4790, H.R. 5175, S.J.Res. 28 ,S.J.Res. 36, S. 133, S. 752, S. 2954, S. 2959, S. 3004, S. 3295, and S. 3628. The House passed H.R. 5175, a version of the DISCLOSE Act (an acronym for \u201cDemocracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections\u201d), on June 24, 2010. (For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett, L. Paige Whitaker, and Erika K. Lunder). Given the pace of developments since the ruling, this report is not intended to be exhaustive. Relevant legislation that has been introduced thus far is reflected through selected examples and in Table 1 at the end of this report. \nThis report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of Citizens United or of constitutional issues that might affect the policy options discussed here. 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, and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues, by L. Paige Whitaker et al., discuss legal and constitutional issues.\nEvents described in this report are current as of September 2010, when the report was last substantively updated. No major additional campaign finance activity occurred during the 111th Congress. For discussion of the ongoing evolution of Citizens United policy issues, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41054", "sha1": "2fa9ddc0d42eaa1e9fa7b2b1aa5e6dce083397fe", "filename": "files/20111122_R41054_2fa9ddc0d42eaa1e9fa7b2b1aa5e6dce083397fe.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41054", "sha1": "2e3b20708958edbc9c34c49d302afd2f058b69c3", "filename": "files/20111122_R41054_2e3b20708958edbc9c34c49d302afd2f058b69c3.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc505567/", "id": "R41054_2010Feb01", "date": "2010-02-01", "retrieved": "2015-05-29T05:37:21", "title": "Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress", "summary": "This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be relevant to the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100201_R41054_ad88e2bb1dc3b66a8a849eb67fadd403f21db4e5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100201_R41054_ad88e2bb1dc3b66a8a849eb67fadd403f21db4e5.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign finance reform", "name": "Campaign finance reform" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Political advertising", "name": "Political advertising" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign contributors", "name": "Campaign contributors" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions" ] }