Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly called the McCain-Feingold Act, is a federal law regulating financing for federal political candidates and campaigns. The law addressed two key campaign finance issues: soft money and issue advocacy.
According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money refers "to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign finance law." Prior to the enactment of McCain-Feingold, this included "large contributions from otherwise prohibited sources, [which] went to party committees for 'party-building' activities that indirectly supported elections."[1] The law prohibited national political parties, federal candidates, and officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions in federal elections.[2]
In addition, McCain-Feingold barred corporations and unions from spending on issue advertisements (sometimes called electioneering communications), which are defined as "broadcast ads referring to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election or caucus." [1] In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that this provision was unconstitutional.[2]
Legislative history
Since 1995, Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) made attempts to get a campaign finance bill passed in the U.S. Senate.[3] On January 22, 2001, McCain and Feingold, along with Representatives Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) held a press conference in which they proposed the bill that would become the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.[4]
Shays introduced the bill (HR 2356) in the United States House of Representatives on June 28, 2001. The bill passed the House on February 14, 2002, by a vote of 240-189. Of the 240 votes in favor of the bill, 198 came from Democrats, 41 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Of the 189 votes against the bill, 12 came from Democrats, 176 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Six members did not vote.[5][6][4]
On March 20, 2002, the bill passed the United States Senate by a vote of 60-40. Of the 60 votes in favor of the bill, 48 came from Democrats, 11 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Of the 40 votes against the bill, two came from Democrats and 38 from Republicans.[7] President George W. Bush (R) signed it into law on March 27, 2002:[8]
| “ | This legislation is the culmination of more than 6 years of debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens, and groups. Accordingly, it does not represent the full ideals of any one point of view. But it does represent progress in this often-contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law.[9] | ” |
| —President George W. Bush | ||
Key features
Soft money
According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act "includes several provisions designed to end the usenonfederal, or 'soft money.'"[10] Soft money is defined by the FEC as "money raised outside the limits and prohibitions of federal campaign finance law."[10] Specifically, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act does the following:[10]
- prohibits national political party committees from receiving or using soft money in federal elections
- prohibits state, district, and local political parties from receiving or using soft money for federal election activities; for specified activities, including voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote activities, these parties can use nonfederal funds (called Levin funds)
- prohibits federal candidates and officeholders from raising or using soft money for federal election activities
Issue advocacy
- See also: Issue advocacy and Buckley v. Valeo
In 1976, the Supreme Court defined two different types of advertising in its ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, issue advocacy and express advocacy.[11] Issue advocacy refers to political advertising focused on support for or opposition to specific issues rather than a candidate. Issue advocacy is distinguished from express advocacy, which explicitly supports or opposes a particular electoral outcome. Express advocacy advertisements include "for" or "against" statements. Candidate-supported advertisements expressing whether to vote for or against a candidate are an example of express advocacy. Advertisements focused on broader issues, which do not use express statements of support or opposition, are examples of issue advocacy. Issue advertisements may make specific mention of a candidate or official. Still, these advertisements do not directly support or oppose a candidate (however, such ads may urge viewers to contact a named candidate or official).[12]
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act defined issue advertisements as electioneering communications. Electioneering communications are distributed within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. The law prohibited corporations and labor unions from funding issue advertisements.[13] This prohibition was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 (see below for further details).
Contribution limits
The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act raised contribution limits for individuals and certain political committees to federal candidates. Some of these limits were also indexed to inflation; these limits were set to be adjusted during odd-numbered years. These changes are summarized in the table below.[13]
| Individual contribution limits under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Recipient | Previous limit | New limit | Indexed to inflation |
| Candidates | $1,000 per election | $2,000 per election | Yes |
| State, district, and local party committees | $5,000 per year (combined) | $10,000 per year (combined) | No |
| National party committees | $20,000 per year | $25,000 per year | Yes |
| Note: Limits indexed to inflation have risen since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was implemented. Consult the Federal Election Commission for current contribution limits. Source: Federal Election Commission, "Major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," accessed March 22, 2016 | |||
The law also raised aggregate individual contribution limits from $25,000 per year to $95,000 every two years.[14] This aggregate limit was indexed to inflation.[15] Aggregate individual contribution limits were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2014 (see below for further details).
Subsequent developments
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
- See also: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which related to the regulation of soft money and the ban of issue advocacy ads before the election.[16][17][18] The court overturned portions of the law that banned citizens who were under 18 from donating to candidates and the portion that made it so a party committee cannot make coordinated and independent expenditures after a candidate wins the party's nomination.[13][18] Jusices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion.
| “ | Many years ago, we observed that "to say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard . . . an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self-protection." We abide by that conviction in considering Congress's most recent effort to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system. We are under no illusion that B.C.R.A. [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002] will be the last Congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day. In the main we uphold B.C.R.A.'s two principal, complementary features: the control of soft money and the regulation of electioneering communications.[19][9] | ” |
| —Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor | ||
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the First Amendment right to freedom of expression applies to corporations; thus, the government cannot limit political spending by corporations. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.[20][21]
| “ | Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.[22][9] | ” |
| —Justice Anthony Kennedy | ||
The court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by the sponsors of political advertisements. The court also sustained the prohibition against direct contributions by corporations to candidates.[23]
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that biennial aggregate contribution limits were unconstitutional. The Federal Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act imposed biennial aggregate contribution limits on campaign donors, limiting the total amount donors could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. At the time of the court's ruling, an individual could donate no more than $123,000 total to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down this cap. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, reaffirmed the federal government's right to place certain limits on campaign contributions "to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption." He added, however, that the federal government can only limit contributions to prevent "quid pro quo" corruption.[24]
| “ | Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties.[9] | ” |
| —John Roberts | ||
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate
On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court held that a federal law 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. Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) capped personal loan repayment using post-election campaign contributions at $250,000. Writing for the 6-3 majority striking down the law, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech."[25] Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.[26]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms McCain Feingold Act. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Federal campaign finance laws and regulations
- State campaign finance agencies
- Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
- Buckley v. Valeo
External links
- Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, as enacted
- Current federal election campaign laws, compiled by the Federal Election Commission
- Contribution limits, Federal Election Commission
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Congressional Research Service, "The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress," August 5, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Federal Election Commission, "Appendix 4: The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History," accessed September 23, 2015
- ↑ USA Today, "Passage ends long struggle for McCain, Feingold," March 20, 2002
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 The Atlantic, "Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign Finance Reform," July/August 2003
- ↑ Congress.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 34," February 14, 2002
- ↑ USA Today, "Passage ends long struggle for McCain, Feingold," March 30, 2002
- ↑ United States Senate, "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session - Passage of H.R. 2356," accessed March 22, 2016
- ↑ The American Presidency Project, "Statement on Signing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," March 27, 2002
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Federal Election Commission, "Major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," accessed April 5, 2025
- ↑ PBS, "Issue Ads," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ Brennan Center, "Express Advocacy and Issue Advocacy: Historical and Legal Evolution of Political Advertising," accessed February 12, 2015
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 FEC, "McCONNELL v. FEC," accessed April 6, 2025
- ↑ Wiley, "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," March 27, 2002
- ↑ FEC, "FEC announces 2023-2024 campaign cycle contribution limits," February 2, 2023
- ↑ FEC, "McConnell v. FEC," accessed April 6, 2025
- ↑ CNN, "Supreme Court upholds 'soft money' ban," December 16, 2003
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 PBS, "Divided High Court Upholds Campaign Finance Reform Law," December 10, 2003
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 540," accessed April 6, 2025
- ↑ Slate, "Money Grubbers: The Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform," January 21, 2010
- ↑ The New York Times, "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit," January 21, 2010
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "UNITED STATES REPORTS VOLUME 558," accessed April 5, 2025
- ↑ National Journal, "Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United," January 21, 2010
- ↑ Oyez.org, "McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission," accessed September 24, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, decided May 16, 2022
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Rules for Ted Cruz in Campaign Finance Case," May 16, 2022
