Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

Campaign finance regulation

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from Campaign Finance Reform)
Jump to: navigation, search

Election Policy VNT Logo.png

Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
Campaign finance by state
Comparison of state campaign finance requirements
Satellite spending
Campaign finance agencies
Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Campaign finance regulations govern the ways in which political campaigns are funded. This includes all spending done to support the promotion of candidates, ballot measures, political parties, and more. Regulations can be applied to natural persons, corporations, political action committees, political parties, and other organizations. They can come in the form of incentives, such as providing public financing to candidates who abide by spending limits, as well as restrictions, such as contribution limits on donors. Legislative efforts, judicial rulings, and citizen initiatives have all played roles in shaping the regulation of political contributions.

This page provides information on:

See also: History of campaign finance regulation

Major issues

Disclosure

The federal and state governments require some level of disclosure from candidates, committees, and political parties of the amount and source of contributions and expenditures. States vary in the detail required in disclosures and in the frequency of reporting. A recent trend has been the use of electronic disclosure systems.[1]

Ballotpedia has pages for each state's campaign finance requirements. A list of those pages can be found here. For a state-by-state comparison of disclosure requirements see this article: State by state comparison of campaign finance reporting requirements.

Contribution limits

Another common method of regulating political contributions is to limit their amount and source. Such limits can be made to adjust periodically according to the Consumer Price Index. Limitations can take the form of bans against certain sources, such as corporations or unions, or limitations to the amount that can be contributed. However, there are a number of potential ways to combine these methods. For example, each source can have different contribution limits or there could be contribution limits on particular campaigns, overall limits for a source, or a combination of individual campaign and overall election limits.[2][3]

Federal law prohibits any contributions from foreign nationals to any federal, state, or local candidate, unless the contributor is a permanent resident. Most states consider contributions of minors as part of their parent or guardian's political contribution. Lobbyists frequently face separate contribution limitations, as well.[4]

The national average limit on individual contributions to candidates were as follows in 2023:[2]

  • $6,645 for gubernatorial races
  • $3,062 for state senates
  • $2,708 for house of representatives

Spending limits and public financing

Spending limits are closely related to the method of contribution limits. Campaign spending limits place a cap on the amount a campaign can spend. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 that requiring candidates to abide by spending limits violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Since political campaigns used their funds to make political communications, the court argued, those communications were protected by the freedom of speech. Spending limits on candidates, therefore, limited that right and were unconstitutional.[1][5] The case of Randall v. Sorell upheld the Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 2006.[6]

Public financing of campaigns can be used to encourage candidates to abide by optional limitations. Some states provide funds directly to individual candidates, some to political parties, and others provide tax incentives to those who make political contributions.[1][7]

See also: Public financing of campaigns

Debates regarding campaign finance regulation

Proponents of more stringent campaign finance regulations argue that without them the highest bidder wins. Opponents argue that regulations limit freedom of speech and make politicians less accountable to voters.[8] The following sections discuss some of the tensions underlying opposition and support for various forms of campaign finance regulation. In these debates, several themes appear:

  • Is spending money an act of speech? If so, is that speech covered by the First Amendment?
  • Who counts as a person? Should corporations, nonprofits, and other groups have the same rights as natural persons?
  • What privacy is afforded to political speech? What should the balance be between transparency of campaign and privacy of contributors?

Transparency versus privacy

Debates between transparency and privacy are prominent when discussing disclosure practices.

In favor of transparency

Proponents of public campaign financing argue that it promotes transparency. The Campaign Legal Center argues that public financing programs "are intended to amplify the voices of constituents while curbing the undue influence of wealthy special interests. ... Because these programs leverage public funds, public financing agencies are required to ensure that those funds are disbursed and spent appropriately. The additional scrutiny provided by public financing programs creates enhanced transparency and accountability for campaigns."[9]

Appearing in the Columbia Law Review, Lear Jiang wrote, "For direct democracy elections—which are often local—the absence of party identification and other heuristic identifiers makes it unlikely for voters to grasp the nuance of certain issues without additional informa­tional cues. ... campaign-spending data [disclosure] help to fill the gap by revealing the entities attempting to influence the election."[10]

In favor of contributor privacy

Proponents of privacy argue that they are not entirely against disclosure. Rather, they seek to place limits on which contributions should be disclosed and whether they should be disclosed publicly.

David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, claimed that the information provided by disclosure practices "does little if anything to enlighten a voter," due to the extensive length of the reports.[11]

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, said of disclosures, "The idea was to shine light on enormous secret donations to candidates. Today, you can use the Internet to search for your neighbor's $50 candidate donation. An employer can take a look at a job applicant's donation records. ... We should increase the threshold for publicly disclosing donations until they reach a cumulative total of, say, at least $1,000, and index it to inflation."[12]

Money as speech

Related to the tension between transparency and privacy is the issue of money as speech. The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo established the precedent of political campaign donations being a protected form of speech. However, arguments against the ruling exist.

Contributions as protected speech

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has supported efforts to broaden disclosure and other transparency efforts but has "fought to protect the speech and privacy rights of those whose participation in the political process posed no threat of corruption or appearance of corruption."[13] The ACLU advocated in several court cases for the removal of contribution limits or to increase the limit amount and opposed the 2010 DISCLOSE Act, arguing that it "fails to improve the integrity of political campaigns in any substantial way while significantly harming the speech and associational rights of Americans."[14][15][16]

The National Rifle Association has opposed efforts to broaden disclosure requirements on campaign contributions and expenditures, including legally challenging the McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulation bill. In 2010, the organization said, "NRA believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional."[17][18]

Money ≠ speech

Public Citizen argued, "Money is not speech, but a way to fund and amplify speech. Spending money in election-related contexts helps people express themselves and can lead to political speech. But money itself is not the equivalent of political speech. ... An election system in which unlimited political spending is protected speech replicates the systemic inequalities found in society."[19]

John Paul Stevens, former U.S. Supreme Court justice, made a statement to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in 2014, opposing the rulings of McCutcheon v. FEC. He said,

While money is used to finance speech, money is not speech. Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protections as speech itself. After all, campaign funds were used to finance the Watergate burglary, actions that clearly were not protected by the First Amendment.[20][21]
John Paul Stevens

Current regulations

Federal campaign finance reporting

Penalties for noncompliance

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), most violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) result in civil penalties, but knowingly and willfully violating certain FECA provisions can lead to imprisonment. The FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority and may refer criminal violations to the U.S. Department of Justice.[22][23][24]


See also

News articles

Related ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measures relating to campaign finance policy.

2026

  1. Alaska Establish Campaign Contribution Limits for State and Local Elections Initiative (2026) - On the ballot

2024

  1. California Proposition 34, Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative (2024) Approved
  2. Florida Amendment 6, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2024) Defeated
  3. Maine Question 1, Limit Contributions to Super PACs Initiative (2024) Approved

2023

  1. Louisiana Amendment 1, Ban on Private or Foreign Funding of Election Costs Amendment (October 2023) Approved
  2. Maine Question 2, Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative (2023) Approved

2022

  1. Arizona Proposition 211, Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022) Approved

2020

  1. Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) Approved
  2. Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020) Approved
  3. Oregon Measure 107, Campaign Finance Limits Amendment (2020) Approved

2018

  1. Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative (2018)
  2. Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure (2018) Approved
  3. Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) Defeated
  4. Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) Approved
  5. Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) Approved
  6. North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) Approved
  7. South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) Defeated
  8. South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) Approved

2016

  1. California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (2016) Approved
  2. Missouri State and Judicial Campaign Contribution Limits, Constitutional Amendment 2 (2016) Approved
  3. South Dakota Revision of State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Initiated Measure 22 (2016) Approved
  4. Washington Advisory Question about the Rights of Corporations and Money as Free Speech, Initiative 735 (2016) Approved
  5. Washington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, Initiative 1464 (2016) Defeated

2015

  1. Maine "Clean Elections" Initiative, Question 1 (2015) Approved

2012

  1. Montana Corporate Contributions Initiative, I-166 (2012) Approved

2010

  1. Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Ban on Use of Public Funds for Campaigns, Lobbying, and Contractor Restrictions Initiative (August 2010) Defeated
  2. California Proposition 15, Biennial Lobbyist Fee and Public Campaign Funding Measure (June 2010) Defeated
  3. Florida Amendment 1, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2010) Defeated

2008

  1. Alaska Measure 3, Public Campaign Financing Initiative (August 2008) Defeated
  2. Colorado Amendment 54, Campaign Contribution Limitations for Government Contractors Initiative (2008) Approved
  3. Oregon Measure 64, Prohibit Use Of Public Resources To Collect Political Funds Initiative (2008) Defeated
  4. South Dakota Initiated Measure 10, Limits on Lobbying Measure (2008) Defeated

2006

  1. Alaska Measure 1, Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (August 2006) Approved
  2. California Proposition 89, Public Campaign Finance Program, Campaign Finance Limits, and Increased Corporate Tax Initiative (2006) Defeated
  3. Oregon Measure 46, Regulation of Campaign Contributions Initiative (2006) Defeated
  4. Oregon Measure 47, Campaign Finance Limits and Disclosure Initiative (2006) Approved

2005

  1. Ohio Issue 3, Campaign Finance Initiative (2005) Defeated

2002

  1. Colorado Amendment 27, Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits Initiative (2002) Approved
  2. Massachusetts Question 3, Public Funding of Political Campaigns Advisory Question (2002) Defeated

2000

  1. California Proposition 25, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (March 2000) Defeated
  2. California Proposition 34, State Elective Office Campaign Contribution Limits Measure (2000) Approved
  3. Missouri Proposition B, Public Campaign Financing Initiative (2000) Defeated
  4. Oregon Measure 6, Public Funding for Candidates Who Limit Spending and Private Contributions Initiative (2000) Defeated
  5. Oregon Measure 92, Prohibit Payroll Deductions For Political Purposes Initiative (2000) Defeated
  6. Oregon Measure 98, Prohibit Using Public Resources For Political Purposes Initiative (2000) Defeated

1998

  1. Arizona Proposition 200, Commission to Administer Alternative Campaign Finance System Initiative (1998) Approved
  2. Florida Amendment 11, Nonpartisan School Board Elections, Ballot Access Requirements, Public Campaign Financing, and Election Processes Amendment (1998) Approved
  3. Massachusetts Question 2, Public Financing for State Campaigns Initiative (1998) Approved
  4. Montana Corporate Contributions to Ballot Issues, IR-114 (1998) Approved
  5. Oregon Measure 59, Prohibit Public Resources to Collect Political Funds Initiative (1998) Defeated
  6. Oregon Measure 62, Campaign Finance and Signature Gathering Regulation Initiative (1998) Approved

1996

  1. Arkansas Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure, Proposed Initiated Act 1 (1996) Approved
  2. California Proposition 208, Campaign Contribution and Spending Limits Initiative (1996) Approved
  3. California Proposition 212, Campaign Spending and Contribution Limits Initiative (1996) Defeated
  4. Colorado Amendment 15, Contributions to Candidates Initiative (1996) Approved
  5. Maine Question 3, Public Campaign Financing Bond Measure (1996) Approved
  6. Montana Direct Corporate Contribution in Ballot Issues, I-125 (1996) Approved
  7. Nevada Question 10, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1996) Approved

1994

  1. Colorado Amendment 12, Election and Legislative Measure Reform Initiative (1994) Defeated
  2. Colorado Amendment 15, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994) Defeated
  3. Massachusetts Question 1, Contributions to Ballot Measure Campaigns Initiative (1994) Defeated
  4. Missouri Proposition A, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994) Approved
  5. Montana Campaign Finance Law Revision, I-118 (1994) Approved
  6. Nevada Question 10, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994) Approved
  7. Oregon Measure 6, Residents-Only Contributions for Candidates Initiative (1994) Approved
  8. Oregon Measure 9, Limits on Campaign Contributions, Finance, and Spending Initiative (1994) Approved

1992

  1. Washington Initiative 134, Campaign Contribution Limit Measure (1992) Approved

1990

  1. Arkansas Standards of Conduct for Candidates and Political Campaigns, Proposed Initiated Act 1 (1990) Approved
  2. California Proposition 131, Term Limits and Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (1990) Defeated

1989

  1. Maine Public Financing of Gubernatorial Campaigns, Question 1 (1989) Defeated

1988

  1. California Proposition 105, Disclosure Requirements to Consumers, Voters, and Investors Initiative (1988) Approved
  2. California Proposition 68, Campaign Contributions Initiative (June 1988) Approved
  3. California Proposition 73, Funds for Election Campaigns Initiative (June 1988) Approved

1986

  1. Arizona Proposition 200, Campaign Contributions Limitations Initiative (1986) Approved
  2. Rhode Island Ethics in Government, Constitutional Amendment 6 (1986) Approved

1984

  1. California Proposition 40, Campaign Finance Initiative (1984) Defeated

1982

  1. Ohio Election of Members of the Public Utilities Commission Initiative (1982) Defeated

1980

  1. Minnesota Campaign Spending Limits, Amendment 1 (1980) Approved
  2. North Dakota Election Law Revision Referendum, Measure 8 (1980) Defeated

1978

  1. Hawaii Campaign Finance, Amendment 6 (1978) Approved

1976

  1. Oregon Measure 7, Partial Public Funding of Campaigns Measure (1976) Defeated

1974

  1. California Proposition 9, Fair Political Practices Commission and Election and Campaign Policies Initiative (June 1974) Approved
  2. Massachusetts Question 5, Create Independent Commission and Expand Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative (1974) Approved
  3. Missouri Proposition 1, Campaign Finance and Disclosure Initiative (1974) Approved

1973

  1. Ohio Disqualifications for Public Office Amendment (May 1973) Defeated

1972

  1. Washington Initiative 276, Regulations for Campaign Expenditures and Contributions Measure (1972) Approved
  2. Washington Referendum 25, Electoral Campaign Financing Regulation Measure (1972) Approved

Additional reading

External links


Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 NCSL, "Campaign finance reform: an overview," accessed May 2, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 NCSL, "Campaign Contribution Limits: Overview," February 1, 2023
  3. NCSL, "State Limits on Contribution to Candidates 2023-2024 Election Cycle," accessed May 20, 2025
  4. National Conference of State Legislatures, "PROHIBITED DONORS," December 6, 2011
  5. FindLaw, "Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U.S. 1 (1976)," decided January 20, 1976
  6. Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, "RANDALL v. SORRELL (Nos. 04-1528, 04-1530 and 04-1697)," decided June 26, 2006
  7. NCSL, "Public Financing of campaigns: an overview," January 23, 2013
  8. The Washington Times, "Senate Democrats declare war on Roberts’ Supreme Court, campaign finance freedoms," April 20, 2014
  9. Campaign Legal Center, "What Is Public Financing? How Small-Dollar Democracy Combats Big-Money Elections," October 11, 2024
  10. Columbia Law Review, "Disclosure’s last stand? The need to clarify the 'informational interest' advanced by campaign finance disclosure," accessed May 20, 2025
  11. U.S. News, "Campaign Finance Disclosure Is a Burden That Restricts Independent Speech," June 21, 2012
  12. U.S. News, "Campaign Finance Disclosure Rules Infringe on First Amendment Rights," June 21, 2012
  13. American Civil Liberties Union, "Campaign finance reform," accessed May 6, 2014
  14. American Civil Liberties Union, "Campaign Contribution Limits," June 24, 2010
  15. American Civil Liberties Union, "Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: Rethinking Campaign Contribution Limits," March 20, 2000
  16. American Civil Liberties Union, "DISCLOSE ACT Passed By House Today Compromises Free Speech," June 24, 2010
  17. Sunlight Foundation, "NRA fights campaign finance regulation, disclosure," January 15, 2013
  18. National Rifle Association, "NRA, Campaign Finance Bills And The Second Amendment," September 8, 2010
  19. Public Citizen, "A Constitutional Amendment to Keep Corporate Money out of Elections: Overturning the 'Money=Speech' Doctrine," accessed May 20, 2025
  20. Common Dreams, "'Money is Not Speech': Retired Justice Stevens Slams Dark Money Rulings," April 30, 2014
  21. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  22. Federal Election Commission, "Enforcing federal campaign finance law," accessed May 20, 2025
  23. Federal Election Commission, "Federal Election Campaign Laws," February 2019
  24. Federal Election Commission, "Guidebook for Complainants and Respondents on the FEC Enforcement Process," May 2012