Campaign finance regulation

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:

• Different types of campaign finance regulation, such as disclosure, public financing, and contribution limits
• Debates regarding campaign finance regulation
• Federal and state campaign finance regulations
• Organizations related to advocacy and research around campaign finance regulation

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.

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.

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.

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

• $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. The case of Randall v. Sorell upheld the Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 2006.

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.

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. 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."

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."

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.

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."

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." 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."

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."

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."

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.	”
—John Paul Stevens

Current regulations

Federal campaign finance reporting

• Code of Federal Regulations, Title 11 Federal Elections Revised as of January 1, 2016
• Explanations and Justifications for FEC regulations
• A chart of federal contribution limits for 2023-2024 from the FEC
• FEC brochure on public funding for presidential campaigns

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.

See also

• Public financing of campaigns
• State by state comparison of campaign finance reporting requirements
• Campaign finance websites

News articles

• Federal judge rules Arizona public campaign financing law unconstitutional
• West Virginia Supreme Court denies public campaign financing request

Related ballot measures

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

Year

State

2026

1. Alaska Establish Campaign Contribution Limits for State and Local Elections Initiative (2026) - On the ballot
2. Missouri Amendment 4, Require Approval in Each Congressional District for Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments and Add Provisions on Petition Fraud and Foreign Contributions Amendment (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)
2. Florida Amendment 6, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2024)
3. Maine Question 1, Limit Contributions to Super PACs Initiative (2024)

2023

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

2022

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

2020

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

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

2016

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

2015

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

2012

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

2010

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

2008

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

2006

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

2005

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

2002

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

2000

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

1998

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

1996

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

1994

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

1992

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

1990

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

1989

1. Maine Question 1, Create a Voluntary System of Public Financing for Gubernatorial Campaigns Initiative (1989)

1988

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

1986

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

1984

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

1982

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

1980

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

1978

1. Hawaii Campaign Finance, Amendment 6 (1978)

1976

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

1974

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

1973

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

1972

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

Alaska

1. Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Ban on Use of Public Funds for Campaigns, Lobbying, and Contractor Restrictions Initiative (August 2010)
2. Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)
3. Alaska Establish Campaign Contribution Limits for State and Local Elections Initiative (2026) - On the ballot
4. Alaska Legislator Conflicts of Interest and Per Diem Limits Initiative (2018)
5. Alaska Measure 1, Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (August 2006)
6. Alaska Measure 3, Public Campaign Financing Initiative (August 2008)

Arizona

1. Arizona Proposition 200, Campaign Contributions Limitations Initiative (1986)
2. Arizona Proposition 200, Commission to Administer Alternative Campaign Finance System Initiative (1998)
3. Arizona Proposition 211, Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022)
4. Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure (2018)

Arkansas

1. Arkansas Campaign Contribution Limits and Disclosure, Proposed Initiated Act 1 (1996)
2. Arkansas Standards of Conduct for Candidates and Political Campaigns, Proposed Initiated Act 1 (1990)

California

1. California Proposition 105, Disclosure Requirements to Consumers, Voters, and Investors Initiative (1988)
2. California Proposition 131, Term Limits and Campaign Finance Limits Initiative (1990)
3. California Proposition 15, Biennial Lobbyist Fee and Public Campaign Funding Measure (June 2010)
4. California Proposition 208, Campaign Contribution and Spending Limits Initiative (1996)
5. California Proposition 212, Campaign Spending and Contribution Limits Initiative (1996)
6. California Proposition 25, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (March 2000)
7. California Proposition 34, Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative (2024)
8. California Proposition 34, State Elective Office Campaign Contribution Limits Measure (2000)
9. California Proposition 40, Campaign Finance Initiative (1984)
10. California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (2016)
11. California Proposition 68, Campaign Contributions Initiative (June 1988)
12. California Proposition 73, Funds for Election Campaigns Initiative (June 1988)
13. California Proposition 89, Public Campaign Finance Program, Campaign Finance Limits, and Increased Corporate Tax Initiative (2006)
14. California Proposition 9, Fair Political Practices Commission and Election and Campaign Policies Initiative (June 1974)

Colorado

1. Colorado Amendment 12, Election and Legislative Measure Reform Initiative (1994)
2. Colorado Amendment 15, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994)
3. Colorado Amendment 15, Contributions to Candidates Initiative (1996)
4. Colorado Amendment 27, Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits Initiative (2002)
5. Colorado Amendment 54, Campaign Contribution Limitations for Government Contractors Initiative (2008)
6. Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018)

Florida

1. Florida Amendment 1, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2010)
2. Florida Amendment 11, Nonpartisan School Board Elections, Ballot Access Requirements, Public Campaign Financing, and Election Processes Amendment (1998)
3. Florida Amendment 6, Repeal of Public Financing for Statewide Campaigns Amendment (2024)

Hawaii

1. Hawaii Campaign Finance, Amendment 6 (1978)

Louisiana

1. Louisiana Amendment 1, Ban on Private or Foreign Funding of Election Costs Amendment (October 2023)

Maine

1. Maine "Clean Elections" Initiative, Question 1 (2015)
2. Maine Question 1, Create a Voluntary System of Public Financing for Gubernatorial Campaigns Initiative (1989)
3. Maine Question 1, Limit Contributions to Super PACs Initiative (2024)
4. Maine Question 2, Prohibit Foreign Spending in Elections Initiative (2023)
5. Maine Question 3, Public Campaign Financing Bond Measure (1996)

Massachusetts

1. Massachusetts Question 1, Contributions to Ballot Measure Campaigns Initiative (1994)
2. Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018)
3. Massachusetts Question 2, Public Financing for State Campaigns Initiative (1998)
4. Massachusetts Question 3, Public Funding of Political Campaigns Advisory Question (2002)
5. Massachusetts Question 5, Create Independent Commission and Expand Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative (1974)

Minnesota

1. Minnesota Campaign Spending Limits, Amendment 1 (1980)

Missouri

1. Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018)
2. Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020)
3. Missouri Amendment 4, Require Approval in Each Congressional District for Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments and Add Provisions on Petition Fraud and Foreign Contributions Amendment (2026) - On the ballot
4. Missouri Proposition 1, Campaign Finance and Disclosure Initiative (1974)
5. Missouri Proposition A, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994)
6. Missouri Proposition B, Public Campaign Financing Initiative (2000)
7. Missouri State and Judicial Campaign Contribution Limits, Constitutional Amendment 2 (2016)

Montana

1. Montana Campaign Finance Law Revision, I-118 (1994)
2. Montana Corporate Contributions Initiative, I-166 (2012)
3. Montana Corporate Contributions to Ballot Issues, IR-114 (1998)
4. Montana Direct Corporate Contribution in Ballot Issues, I-125 (1996)

Nevada

1. Nevada Question 10, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1994)
2. Nevada Question 10, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (1996)

North Dakota

1. North Dakota Election Law Revision Referendum, Measure 8 (1980)
2. North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018)

Ohio

1. Ohio Disqualifications for Public Office Amendment (May 1973)
2. Ohio Election of Members of the Public Utilities Commission Initiative (1982)
3. Ohio Issue 3, Campaign Finance Initiative (2005)

Oregon

1. Oregon Measure 107, Campaign Finance Limits Amendment (2020)
2. Oregon Measure 46, Regulation of Campaign Contributions Initiative (2006)
3. Oregon Measure 47, Campaign Finance Limits and Disclosure Initiative (2006)
4. Oregon Measure 59, Prohibit Public Resources to Collect Political Funds Initiative (1998)
5. Oregon Measure 6, Public Funding for Candidates Who Limit Spending and Private Contributions Initiative (2000)
6. Oregon Measure 6, Residents-Only Contributions for Candidates Initiative (1994)
7. Oregon Measure 62, Campaign Finance and Signature Gathering Regulation Initiative (1998)
8. Oregon Measure 64, Prohibit Use Of Public Resources To Collect Political Funds Initiative (2008)
9. Oregon Measure 7, Partial Public Funding of Campaigns Measure (1976)
10. Oregon Measure 9, Limits on Campaign Contributions, Finance, and Spending Initiative (1994)
11. Oregon Measure 92, Prohibit Payroll Deductions For Political Purposes Initiative (2000)
12. Oregon Measure 98, Prohibit Using Public Resources For Political Purposes Initiative (2000)

Rhode Island

1. Rhode Island Ethics in Government, Constitutional Amendment 6 (1986)

South Dakota

1. South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018)
2. South Dakota Initiated Measure 10, Limits on Lobbying Measure (2008)
3. South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018)
4. South Dakota Revision of State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Initiated Measure 22 (2016)

Washington

1. Washington Advisory Question about the Rights of Corporations and Money as Free Speech, Initiative 735 (2016)
2. Washington Initiative 134, Campaign Contribution Limit Measure (1992)
3. Washington Initiative 276, Regulations for Campaign Expenditures and Contributions Measure (1972)
4. Washington Referendum 25, Electoral Campaign Financing Regulation Measure (1972)
5. Washington State-Provided Campaign Financing Funded by a Non-Resident Sales Tax, Initiative 1464 (2016)

Additional reading

• The Washington Post, "From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A brief-ish history of campaign finance regulation," April 3, 2014
• National Affairs, "The Myth of campaign finance regulation," Issue 2, Winter 2010
• NPR, "A Century Of U.S. Campaign Finance Law," January 21, 2010
• Mother Jones, "The Man Who Took Down campaign finance regulation," January 21, 2010

External links

• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox