{ "id": "RS20854", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RS20854", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 102958, "date": "2001-03-22", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:26:01.928941", "title": "Campaign Finance Reform and Incentives to Voluntarily Limit Candidate Spending From Personal Funds: Constitutional Issues Raised by Public Subsidies and Variable Contribution Limits", "summary": "The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that spending limits, including the\namount a candidate\ncan spend on his or her own campaign from personal funds (also known as personal fund\nexpenditure limits) are unconstitutional. The Court did, however, uphold a system of spending\nlimits, on the condition that they are voluntarily accepted in exchange for some form of\npublic\nfinancing. As a result of these Court rulings, the concept of various incentives toward voluntary\ncompliance with a personal funds expenditure limit has been developed. This report discusses some\nconstitutional issues raised by two such incentives: public subsidies and variable contribution limits.\n An amendment to S. 27 (McCain/Feingold), SA 115 (Domenici) (approved 70 to\n30 on March 20, 2001), would raise the limits on contributions to a Senate candidate whose\nopponent exceeds a designated level of personal funding in his or her campaign.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS20854", "sha1": "b9ce12bdf3f52c25c46e8b1b863af81c4b66dfe8", "filename": "files/20010322_RS20854_b9ce12bdf3f52c25c46e8b1b863af81c4b66dfe8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS20854", "sha1": "a26af2c9b4677f4812e7c622041a21637bae92cd", "filename": "files/20010322_RS20854_a26af2c9b4677f4812e7c622041a21637bae92cd.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }