Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

History of campaign finance regulation

From Ballotpedia
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

The history of campaign finance regulation (CFR) began before the United States gained independence from Great Britain. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, CFR efforts focused on protecting employees and union members from being coerced into contributing to political campaigns in order to keep their jobs.

The landscape of CFR changed dramatically in the 1970s with the passing of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which created the framework for subsequent regulations of contribution limits and reporting. Later amendments to the act established the Federal Elections Commission, or FEC, which is responsible for overseeing and enforcing campaign finance. In the early 21st century, several lawsuits, such as Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, challenged the constitutionality of FEC laws.

This page provides information on:

Pre Federal Election Campaign Act

  • 1757: After George Washington bought $195 worth of punch and hard cider for friends prior to an election, the legislature passed a law prohibiting candidates, or persons on their behalf, from giving voters "money, meat, drink, entertainment or provision ...any present, gift, reward or entertainment, etc. in order to be elected."
  • 1867: Congress passed a naval appropriations bill that made it illegal for government officials to solicit naval yard workers for money. This marked the first time the federal government specifically tried to regulate campaign finance.
Theodore Roosevelt
  • 1883: The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed, making it illegal for government officials to solicit contributions from any civil service workers, or award these positions on anything but merit. Before this act, many people who worked in government positions were expected to make contributions in order to keep their jobs.
  • 1905: President Theodore Roosevelt (R) called for "vigorous measures to eradicate" perceived political corruption and suggested that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."
  • 1907: The Tillman Act was passed, making contributions to federal candidates by corporations and national banks illegal.
  • 1910: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act was passed, which required House candidates to disclose their finances. One year later, Senate and primary candidates were also required to disclose their finances, and expenditure limits were set for all congressional candidates.
  • 1921: In Newberry v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not grant Congress the authority to regulate political parties or federal primary elections. As a result, spending limits were no longer required in congressional elections.
  • 1925: Congress amended the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to ban any corporation contributions to federal campaigns, require candidates to disclose the source of contributions greater than $50, prohibit patronage, and allow Senate candidates to spend $0.03 for each voter based on the previous election up to $25,000. The last rule also applied to House candidates but with a limit of $5,000.
  • 1935: The Public Utilities Holding Act was passed, prohibiting public utility companies from contributing to federal campaigns.
  • 1939: The Hatch Act was passed, which banned most federal employees from contributing to candidates in federal elections and from participating in political activities or campaigns.
  • 1943: The Smith-Connally Act was passed, which prohibited unions from contributing to federal candidates. Before this law, unions had been using dues as political donations.
  • 1947: The Taft-Hartley Act was passed, which banned corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in federal campaigns. Candidates could campaign with publicly funded dollars if they promised not to use their primary election funds during the general election or collect private donations.
  • 1967: Congress officially began collecting campaign finance reports.[1][2]

Federal Election Campaign Act

  • 1971 election laws: The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and the 1971 Revenue Act were passed, initiating fundamental changes in campaign finance laws. FECA required full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and also limited spending on media advertisements. In addition, FECA provided the legislative framework for political action committees (PACs), which unions and corporations established to allow them to use treasury funds to establish, operate, and solicit voluntary contributions for the PAC to be used in federal races.

The Revenue Act allowed citizens to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance presidential campaigns in the general election. From the time this was first implemented in 1973, enough money had been collected to fund the 1976 election.

The clerk of the House, the secretary of the Senate, and the comptroller general of the General Accounting Office monitored and enforced FECA, while the Justice Department was responsible for prosecuting violations.

Federal Election Commission
  • 1974 amendments: Following the documentation of campaign abuses in the 1972 elections, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was established and given jurisdiction in civil enforcement, authority to write regulations, and responsibility for monitoring compliance with FECA. The president, speaker of the House, and president pro tempore of the Senate were each allowed to appoint two voting members of the commission, and the secretary of the Senate and clerk of the House were designated as nonvoting commissioners.

The 1974 amendments also provided for partial federal funding, in the form of matching funds, for presidential primary candidates. Public funding was also extended to political parties to finance their presidential nominating conventions. Congress also enacted strict limits on both contributions and expenditures for all federal candidates and political committees involved in federal elections.

  • Buckley v. Valeo: Senator James L. Buckley (R) filed a lawsuit against Secretary of the Senate Francis R. Valeo, claiming portions of the 1974 amendments were unconstitutional. The Court upheld contribution limits but overturned expenditure limits, saying that limiting expenditures would limit the quantity of campaign speech, which in turn violated First Amendment rights. In addition, provisions of the law regarding public funding, disclosure, and record keeping were upheld. The Court also found that the method of appointing members to the FEC violated the principle of separation of powers.
  • 1976 amendments: In response to the Court's ruling, Congress repealed expenditure limits and revised the method of appointing commissioners. Beginning in 1976, the president appointed six commissioners to be confirmed by the Senate. These amendments also included provisions to limit the scope of PAC fundraising by specifying who could be solicited for contributions, and how those solicitations could be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.
  • 1979 amendments: Following the 1976 and 1978 elections, Congress further amended the law to include provisions to simplify reporting requirements, encourage party activity at state and local levels, and increase public funding grants for presidential nominating conventions.[3]

Post Federal Elections Campaign Act

  • 1990: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, stating that Michigan's law banning corporations from using company money for independent expenditures was constitutional.
  • 1992: President George H.W. Bush (R) vetoed a bill that would have provided partial public financing for congressional candidates.
  • 2002: The McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed, which sought to limit the use of soft money. Soft money is money raised by national parties and political action committees for "get out the vote" campaign efforts and other organization-building activities. This money wasn't regulated by the federal government, and parties were raising unlimited funds for these activities but using them for purposes aside from voter registration. Notably, 501(c) and 527 organizations were exempted from the soft money ban, though they were banned from running ads prior to primaries and elections, and from providing direct advocacy for a candidate.
  • 2003: The BCRA was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court via lawsuits filed by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell (R), the California Democratic Party, and the National Rifle Association. They argued that the law was too broad and limited their First Amendment rights. The Court upheld the law in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.
  • 2006: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Vermont's caps on campaign contributions were unconstitutional in Randall v. Sorrell, saying they violated the First Amendment.

Court cases

  • 2010: In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were protected by the First Amendment. The ruling struck down BCRA provisions that banned these types of expenditures. A few months later, the decision from Citizens United was applied to SpeechNOW.org v. Federal Election Commission in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges decided that arguments claiming unlimited independent expenditures would lead to corruption were invalid after the Citizens United decision.
  • 2012: Both presidential candidates did not accept public financing for the first time. Also, in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Citizens United applied to Montana's 1912 legislation banning direct corporate political spending.
  • 2014: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruled that aggregate contribution limits infringed on First Amendment rights. This decision removed a cap on the amount of money any single donor, including PACs, could give to candidates or party committees. Previously, the limit had been a total of $48,600 every two years for all federal candidates and an aggregate of $74,600 to political parties and committees. As of 2014, there was no limit to the number of PACs that could exist. Donors could theoretically increase their contributions to certain candidates if the candidates had enough PACs supporting them. The base limits for campaign contributions of $2,600 for individual candidates and $5,000 for PACs remained in effect.
  • 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate held that a BCRA provision limiting the monetary amount of post-election contributions a candidate could use to pay back personal campaign loans impermissibly limited political speech and violated the First Amendment.[1][2]

Efforts to overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions

State legislatures across the country put forward measures to form committees to review the above rulings. The measures also called on the United States Congress for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. The following are examples of legislative attempts:

Additionally, various organizations have campaigned for similar constitutional amendments to reform campaign finance:

See also

Additional reading

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Washington Post, "A history of campaign finance reform from George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon" April 3, 2014
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Infoplease, "Campaign-Finance Reform: History and Timeline," accessed May 13, 2014
  3. ↑ The Federal Elections Commission, "The Federal Election Campaign Laws:A Short History," accessed May 13, 2014
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=History_of_campaign_finance_regulation&oldid=10496655"