Campaign Finance Legislation and Activity in the 109th Congress

Campaign Finance Legislation and Activity
th
in the 109 Congress
January 26, 2007
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



Campaign Finance Legislation and Activity
in the 109th Congress
Summary
During the 109th Congress, 51 bills were introduced to change the nation’s
campaign finance laws (primarily under Titles 2 and 26 of the U.S. Code). These
bills — 43 in the House and 8 in the Senate — sought to change the current system,
including tightening perceived loopholes. Two of those bills passed the House, but
no bill passed both chambers. Therefore, no statutory changes occurred in federal
campaign finance law during the 109th Congress.
Although the 109th Congress chose not to enact campaign finance legislation,
Congress nonetheless considered dozens of bills addressing a wide variety of topics.
In summarizing that legislation, this report identifies 14 major topics (categories)
addressed in the bills. These categories are diverse, ranging from changing
individual contribution limits to regulating independent expenditures. Although
some bills called for increased regulation, others proposed less regulation. Hence,
legislative activity during the 109th Congress reflected a long-standing debate in
campaign finance policy over extending regulation of campaign finance practices
versus limiting the reach of such regulation.
The most prominent legislation introduced during the 109th Congress — and that
which advanced farthest through the legislative process — focused on political
organizations operating under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, but outside
federal election law. Sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA) offered bills to require that “527s” (as these organizations are popularly
known) involved in federal elections comply fully with federal election law. The
Senate Rules and Administration Committee reported such a measure — S. 1053 —
in May 2005, but no further action occurred in the Senate. The House
Administration Committee reported two 527 bills with starkly different approaches:
H.R. 513 — the 527 Reform Act of 2005, the counterpart to S. 1053 — and H.R.
1316, which sought to address the 527 issue indirectly by loosening restrictions on
funding sources permitted under federal campaign finance law. In April 2006, the
House passed H.R. 513, as amended, but the Senate took no action on the bill.
Legislation proposing 527 reform later became a component of the 109th
Congress debate over lobbying reform. The text of H.R. 513 was eventually
incorporated into the House Republican leadership’s lobbying and ethics reform bill
— H.R. 4975, which passed the House in May 2006. The Senate-passed lobbying
bill did not contain the 527 provisions. Disagreement between the two chambers on
the 527 issue reportedly contributed to neither lobbying reform nor 527 regulation
legislation being enacted during the 109th Congress.
This report1 will not be updated, because it reflects the complete record of 109th
Congress proposals and activity in this area. It may be used to provide a basis for
legislation that could be offered in the 110th Congress.


1 Now-retired CRS specialist Joseph E. Cantor originally co-authored this report.

Contents
Highlights of 109th Congress Legislative Activity.........................1
527 Issue....................................................2
Party Coordinated Expenditures..................................3
Other Campaign Finance Issues...................................5
Leadership PACs..........................................5
Indian Tribes.............................................5
Internet Regulation.........................................5
Checklist of Bills and Types of Proposals...............................6
Major Reforms Proposed, by Category................................12
Individuals (Hard Money)..........................................13
Remove All Contribution Limits.................................13
Remove Aggregate Contribution Limit............................13
Raise Contribution Limits......................................13
Lower Contribution Limits.....................................13
Index Contribution Limits for Inflation............................13
Provide Tax Incentives for Individual Contributions.................13
PACs (Hard Money)..............................................13
Ban PACs in Federal Elections..................................14
Remove Contribution Limits....................................14
Raise Limit on PAC Contributions...............................14
Lower PAC Contribution Limit..................................14
Change PAC Contribution Limit.................................14
Impose Aggregate Limit on PAC Contributions.....................14
Change Rules for Leadership PACs...............................14
Increase Dollar Threshold for Political Committee Status.............14
Change Rules for PAC Solicitations of Restricted Classes.............15
Political Parties (Hard Money)......................................15
Remove All Contribution Limits.................................15
Remove Coordinated Expenditure Limit...........................15
Limit All Party Spending Per Candidate...........................15
Lower Contribution Limit to Candidates...........................15
Increase Limit on Coordinated Expenditures for Presidential Candidates.15
Candidates (Hard Money)..........................................15
Ban Use of Campaign or Official Funds for Candidate Salary..........16
Ban Repayment of Candidate Loans from Campaign Funds............16
Enact Constitutional Amendment to Limit Candidate Spending.........16
In-state or In-district Minimum (Hard Money)..........................16
Require In-state Funding Level..................................16



Increase Disclosure Requirements................................16
Ban Independent Expenditures..................................16
Coordination (Hard and Soft Money).................................17
Change Rules Affecting Candidate Appearances....................17
Define Coordination and Associated Activities......................17
Define Coordinated Activity As Contribution or Expenditure..........17
Soft Money: Party................................................17
Prohibit Soft Money for Reapportionment Activities.................17
Change Disclosure Requirements................................17
Loosen Restrictions on State and Local Party Grassroots Activities......18
Add Restrictions on State and Local Party Grassroots Activity.........18
Loosen Restriction on Federal Candidates..........................18
Ban Soft Money..............................................18
Reduce Amounts Federal Candidates May Solicit for Tax-Exempt
Groups .................................................18
Amend Definition of Federal Election Activity......................18
Change Definitions of Mass Mailing and Telephone Banks............18
Soft Money: Non-party (including tax-exempt and 527 organizations).......18
Union and Corporate Treasury Activity............................20
Add FECA Disclosure Requirements.........................20
Remove Ban on Corporate and Union Treasury Money...........20
Prohibit Corporate and Union Treasury Funding of Nonpartisan
Voter Drives.........................................20
527 Organizations............................................20
Require Regulation of 527s Under FECA......................20
Require Enhanced Disclosure By and About 527 Groups..........21
Ban Foreign National Contributions to 527s....................21
Prohibit Electioneering Communications by 527s................21
Tax-exempt Organizations Generally.............................21
Ban Use of Soft Money by Tax-exempt Groups for
Get-Out-the-Vote Activities.............................21
Issue Advocacy..............................................21
Repeal BCRA’s Electioneering Communications Provision........21
Allow Electioneering Communications by Certain Entities
Currently Prohibited...................................21
Other ......................................................22
Ban Use of Soft Money for Any Partisan Voter Registration
Activity ............................................22
Spending Limits and Public Benefits..................................22
Provide Public Benefits in Conjunction with Voluntary Spending Limits.22
Provide Public Benefits with No Spending Limits...................22
Provide Public Subsidies and Require Mandatory Spending Limits......22
Allow Mandatory Limits to Be Set Through Constitutional Amendment..22
Amend Senate Rules to Prohibit Senators and Staff from
Fundraising in Specified Periods.............................23



Enforcement .................................................23
Replace FEC with New Enforcement Agency...................23
Change Makeup of Enforcement Agency......................23
Appoint Administrative Law Judges to Expedite Enforcement......23
Authorize Enforcement Agency to Appeal for Injunctions to
Prevent Violations....................................23
Allow Enforcement Agency to Conduct Random Audits..........23
Change Standard to Begin Enforcement Proceedings.............24
Allow Enforcement Agency to Petition Supreme Court...........24
Expedite Enforcement Procedures Late in Election..............24
Allow Issuance of Subpoenas without Signature of Chair.........24
Require GAO Study of Criminal Enforcement by Justice
Department ..........................................24
Change Enforcement Agency’s Funding Process................24
Require GAO Study on Appropriate Funding Levels for
Enforcement Agency..................................24
Disclosure ..................................................24
Require Electronic Filing...................................24
Require Standardized Software for Electronic Filers.............24
Require Internet Posting by FEC.............................24
Require Expedited or Increased Disclosure.....................25
Remove “Best Efforts” Exemption...........................25
Require Disclosure of Phone Bank Activity....................25
Require Disclosure Regarding Push Polls......................25
Require Additional Breakdowns on Candidate Reports...........25
Establish Clearinghouse on Foreign National Activity............25
Advertising Issues................................................25
Require Identification for Phone Calling...........................25
Exclude Internet Communications from FECA Regulation............25
Require Identification on Internet Communications..................26
Change Terms of Lowest Unit Rate...............................26
Prohibit Preemption of Lowest Unit Rate Ads......................26
Extend Lowest Unit Rate to Parties...............................26
Presidential Elections..............................................26
Abolish Public Funding System..................................26
Lower Amount of Contribution Subject to Matching Funds............26
Increase Public Funds Matched in Primaries........................26
Increase Qualifying Threshold in Primaries.........................27
Change Disbursement Date for Public Funds.......................27
Eliminate State Spending Limits in Primaries.......................27
Remove Convention Prioritization Over Primary Funding.............27
Raise National Primary and General Election Spending Limits.........27
Remove Fundraising Exemption from Spending Limits...............27
Increase Tax Checkoff Amount..................................27
Increase Spending Limits and Public Funds to Offset Spending
by Non-Participants.......................................27
Link Participation in Primary and General Systems..................27
Require Neutral Tax Preparation Software Regarding Checkoff........28
Require Public Education about Tax Checkoff .....................28



Ban Soft Money in Connection with Nominating Conventions.........28
Require Disclosure of Bundled Contributions to Presidential Candidates.28
Provide Budget Offset for Increased Public Funds...................28
Miscellaneous ...................................................28
Prohibit Bundling.............................................28
Lengthen Pre-election Ban on Franked Mass Mailings................28
Offer Statement of Findings.....................................28
Amend Foreign Agents Registration Act to Increase Disclosure........29
Ban Contributions and Expenditures from Indian Tribal Treasuries......29
Express Sense of Congress That Buckley Ruling Misinterpreted
First Amendment.........................................29
Bill Summaries: Numerical Order....................................29
House Bills......................................................29
H.R. 45 (Bartlett).............................................29
H.R. 46 (Bartlett).............................................29
H.R. 338 (Maloney)...........................................30
H.R. 471 (Larson)............................................30
H.R. 491 (Petri)..............................................30
H.R. 513 (Shays-Meehan)......................................30
H.R. 689 (Bartlett)............................................31
H.R. 701 (English)............................................32
H.R. 702 (English)............................................32
H.R. 850 (Hoyer).............................................32
H.R. 914 (English)............................................32
H.R. 958 (Petri)..............................................32
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn).......................................33
H.R. 1580 (Price, NC).........................................34
H.R. 1605 (Hensarling)........................................34
H.R. 1606 (Hensarling)........................................34
H.R. 1942 (Shaw)............................................34
H.R. 2204 (Shaw)............................................35
H.R. 2294 (Johnson, CT).......................................35
H.R. 2753 (Andrews)..........................................35
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)...........................................36
H.R. 3960 (Neugebauer).......................................38
H.R. 4180 (Schmidt)..........................................38
H.R. 4194 (Shays-Meehan).....................................38
H.R. 4389 (Miller, NC)........................................38
H.R. 4655 (Jones, NC).........................................38
H.R. 4664 (Capuano)..........................................39
H.R. 4692 (Kaptur)...........................................39
H.R. 4694 (Obey).............................................40
H.R. 4696 (Rogers, MI)........................................41
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)..........................................41
H.R. 4819 (Leach)............................................42
H.R. 4900 (Allen)............................................42
H.R. 4975 (Dreier)............................................43
H.R. 5281 (Leach)............................................44



H.R. 5623 (Capuano)..........................................46
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan).....................................46
H.R. 5839 (Hefley)............................................47
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays).....................................47
H.J.Res. 13 (Leach)...........................................49
H.J.Res. 76 (Kaptur)..........................................49
H.Con.Res. 333 (Kaptur).......................................49
Senate Bills.....................................................49
S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott)..................................49
S. 678 (Reid)................................................50
S. 1053 (Lott)................................................50
S. 1508 (Feingold-McCain).....................................52
S. 2434 (Wyden).............................................52
S. 2511 (McCain).............................................53
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold).....................................54
S. 3740 (Feingold)............................................54
Index ..........................................................57
List of Tables
Table 1. Checklist of Major Provisions of 109th Congress Campaign
Finance Legislation............................................7



Campaign Finance Legislation and Activity
th
in the 109 Congress
This report discusses legislation and activity in the 109th Congress aimed at
amending the nation’s campaign finance laws, primarily under Titles 2 and 26 of the
U.S. Code, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) — the main body of law
governing federal campaign finance.
The report comprises four major sections and an index:
!A summary of legislative highlights in the 109th Congress regarding
campaign finance issues;
!A checklist of all bills (in numerical order), noting major types of
reforms proposed in each, organized by 14 categories (including
“miscellaneous”) addressed in the bills;
!Brief summaries of all provisions of every bill under the 14
categories noted in the checklist, with a basic description of the issue
area, where needed, and further division of proposals into
subcategories. Bills whose provisions fall under a specific category
or subcategory are noted accordingly (with further detail provided
elsewhere in the report);
!A numerical listing and summary of each bill. For each bill, this
section provides the bill number, sponsor, title, a detailed summary
of provisions arranged by the 14 categories explained previously,
date introduced, committee referral, and any legislative action; and
!An index of bills, listed alphabetically by primary sponsor.
Highlights of 109th Congress Legislative Activity
During the 109th Congress, 51 bills were introduced (43 in the House and 8 in
the Senate) to change federal campaign finance law. Legislation relating to 527
organizations received the most prominent legislative and media attention during theth
109 Congress. Other bills receiving attention addressed regulation of Internet
communications, party coordinated expenditures, contributions by Indian tribes, and
leadership political action committees (PACs). All are discussed in more detail
below.



527 Issue
The 109th Congress followed the 2004 elections, during which an estimated
$435 million2 was spent by political organizations operating under Section 527 of
the Internal Revenue Code, but outside federal election law regulation. The role of
527 organizations in federal elections was the principal campaign finance issue
examined by the 109th Congress.
On March 8, 2005, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a
hearing on S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott), the 527 Reform Act of 2005, to require
that 527s involved in federal elections comply fully with federal election law. On
April 27, 2005, it voted to report the bill, as amended in committee. Committee
amendments largely added provisions to deregulate other aspects of FECA. On May
17, the bill was reported as an original bill — S. 1053 — and placed on the Senate’s
legislative calendar. The Senate took no further action on the measure.
The House Administration Committee held a hearing April 20, 2005, on
regulation of 527 organizations. It focused on two measures: H.R. 513 (Shays-
Meehan), the 527 Reform Act of 2005 (the companion to S. 271, later S. 1053); and
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn). In sharp contrast with the Shays-Meehan bill and the one
reported in the Senate, H.R. 1316 sought to address the 527 issue indirectly, by
loosening restrictions on funding sources within FECA. By so doing, proponents
maintained that because more money could be directed to regulated sources, there
would be fewer incentives for political money to flow to 527 groups operating
outside the FECA framework. On June 9, 2005, House Administration voted to
report H.R. 1316 favorably, as amended, and it was reported on June 22.3 On June
29, 2005, the committee held a markup of H.R. 513 and ordered it reported (as
amended to reflect the sponsors’ changes), without recommendation.4 This set the
stage for a potential floor debate on the two contrasting measures (H.R. 513 and H.R.

1316).


Almost a year later, on April 5, 2006, the House passed H.R. 513 (Shays-
Meehan), as amended, by a 218-209 vote.5 The rule for its consideration — H.Res.


2 See the “expenditures” column in “2004 Cycle - PoliticalMoneyLine’s Key 527 Groups,”
PoliticalMoneyLine.com; these are groups the organization identified as being clearly
involved in federal elections. PoliticalMoneyLine is a commercial tracking service for
campaign finance data, owned by Congressional Quarterly. See:
[ h t t p : / / www.t r ay.com/ c gi -wi n / i r s_ef _527.exe?DoFn=&sYR=2004] .
3 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, 527 Fairness Act of 2005,
report to accompany H.R. 1316, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-146 (Washington: GPO,

2005).


4 U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, 527 Reform Act of 2005,
report to accompany H.R. 513, 109th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 109-181 (Washington: GPO,

2005).


5 “527 Reform Act of 2005,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (Apr. 5, 2006),
p. H1528.

7556 — allowed one floor amendment, by Representative Dreier, to remove political
party-coordinated expenditure limits in 2 U.S.C. 441a(d); this issue is discussed
below. The amendment was added by voice vote before final passage.
The text of H.R. 513 was also incorporated into the House Republican
leadership’s lobbying and ethics reform bill — H.R. 4975 (Dreier). As introduced,
Title VI of the bill incorporated the language of H.R. 513 as reported by the House
Administration Committee. In addition, it included the same provision as was
included in the House-passed version of H.R. 513, to remove the political party-
coordinated expenditure limits.
Prior to House passage of H.R. 4975, another amendment unrelated to 527s was
included in the bill by the House Rules Committee, to allow leadership PACs’ funds
to be transferred without limitation to national party committees (as is the case with
funds in candidates’ principal campaign committees).7 On May 3, 2006, the House
passed (by a vote of 217-213) H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and
Transparency Act of 2006, which included the text of H.R. 513 (Shays-Meehan), as
well as the amendments on leadership PACs and party coordinated expenditures.8
After passing H.R. 4975, the House substituted it for the text of S. 2349, the
Senate-passed version of the bill, to enable a conference with the Senate. The
Senate-passed bill did not contain the 527 provisions, and disagreement between the
two chambers on the 527 issue reportedly contributed to the 109th Congress enacting
neither lobby reform nor 527 regulation legislation.
Party Coordinated Expenditures
“Party coordinated expenditures” refer to expenditures made by a political party
in coordination with a candidate’s campaign. They have been subject to limits since
the 1974 FECA Amendments, codified in 2 U.S.C. §441a(d). The limits are
relatively high compared with the $5,000 limit on contributions most party
committees may give directly to candidate campaigns. In 2006, for example, parties
could make up to $79,200 in coordinated expenditures in support of House


6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 513, 527
Reform Act of 2005, report to accompany H.Res. 755, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-404
(Washington: GPO, 2006).
7 “Leadership PACs” are committees that are technically independent from legislators, but
which are generally established by and connected (albeit unofficially) with those legislators.
These committees are legally distinct from a legislator’s personal campaign committee. At
the federal level, “Leadership PACs traditionally have been used by legislative leaders to
contribute to the campaigns of other members of Congress as a way of gaining a party
majority and earning the gratitude of their colleagues or as a way of financing nationwide
political activity by party leaders.” See Trevor Potter, “The Current State of Campaign
Finance Law,” in Anthony Corrado, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R. Ortiz, and Trevor Potter,
The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2005),
p. 52.
8 “Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 152 (May 3, 2006), pp. H2056-H2057.

candidates (in multi-district states).9 Limits for Senate candidates vary by state,
ranging in 2006 from $158,400 in states with the smallest populations, to almost $4.2
million in California.10
Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in Colorado Republican Federal
Campaign Committee v. FEC (518 U.S. 604 (1996)), which permitted parties to
make independent expenditures on behalf of their candidates, the importance of
coordinated expenditures has been diminished. The prospect of unlimited
independent expenditures has been increasingly appealing to the parties, and it has
become common for parties to make both independent expenditures and coordinated
expenditures for the same candidates, albeit from at least nominally different
departments of a party committee. In 2004, Democratic party committees (federal,
state, and local) made $33.1 million in coordinated expenditures and $176.5 million
in independent expenditures to promote their federal candidates.11 By contrast,
Republican party committees made $29.1 million in coordinated expenditures and
$88.0 million in independent expenditures.12 As of this writing, data for the complete

2006 cycle were not yet available.


As enacted, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) contained
a provision to require a party to choose between making either independent
expenditures or coordinated expenditures, but not both, for one of its nominees.
This, however, was one of two BCRA provisions struck down by the Supreme Court
in McConnell v. FEC (549 U.S. 93(2003)). Hence, although abolishing the limit on
coordinated expenditures would appear to allow the parties to spend unlimited
amounts on behalf of their candidates, through independent expenditures they already
have that right, albeit through expenditures that are technically made without any
coordination with the favored candidate. Supporters of removing the limits on
coordinated expenditures assert that doing so would largely signal acceptance of
campaign reality and allow parties to reinforce their direct ties with candidates.
Opponents counter that abolishing coordinated expenditure limits would send the


9 The $79,200 figure assumes that state party committees authorize national party
committees to make coordinated expenditures on their behalf, which they are permitted by
law to do. The limit for a national or state party is $39,600, meaning that if a state party
authorizes a national party to make coordinated expenditures on its behalf, the total limit
would be $79,200. These limits are addressed in the “Calculating 2006 Coordinated Party
Expenditure Limits” section of the following FEC document, which is apparently untitled,
at [http://www.fec.gov/pdf/441a(d)2006.pdf].
10 The $158,400 figure assumes that state party committees authorize national party
committees to make coordinated expenditures on their behalf. For states with the smallest
populations, the coordinated expenditure limit for a state party committee or a national party
committee is $79,200. The cumulative limit if state party committees authorize national
party committees on their behalf would be, therefore, $158,400.
11 See Democratic party totals in “National Party Federal Financial Activity Through the
End of the Election Cycle,” accompanying Federal Election Commission, “Party Financial
Activity Summarized for the 2004 Election Cycle,” press release, Mar. 15, 2005, at
[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050302party/demfederalye04.pdf]. Figures in this
section are rounded.
12 See Republican party totals in ibid.

wrong message to an electorate cynical about the role of money in politics, and that
the national parties are now playing a significant role, especially in light of increased
hard money limits under BCRA. Party committees raised almost $1.5 billion13 in the
2004 election cycle (all hard money), more than ever had been raised in combined
hard and soft money by the national parties. As of this writing, data for the complete

2006 cycle were not yet available.


Other Campaign Finance Issues
Leadership PACs. A provision allowing leadership PACs to transfer
unlimited funds to national parties was added by the Senate Appropriations
Committee to H.R. 3058, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD-Judiciary-DC
appropriations bill for FY2006. This was the same provision as was added by the
Senate Rules and Administration to S. 271 (later S. 1053) and by the House to H.R.

4975, the lobby reform bill. Following a move by BCRA sponsors, the Senate14


deleted the provision by unanimous consent on October 17, 2005.
Indian Tribes. In response to large sums of money given in recent elections
by Indian tribes and concerns over the application of federal campaign finance law
to tribes, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held a hearing February 8, 2006, to
examine rules governing campaign contributions by Indian tribes.15 In its final report
on its investigation of lobbying and political activities by Indian tribes, the committee
recommended requiring Indian tribes making federal election contributions to register16
with the FEC and improving rules for disclosure of those contributions.
Internet Regulation. Changes in technology have recently raised questions
about the extent to which traditional campaign finance regulations should affect new
media. Since BCRA passed in 2002, there has been particular debate about whether
Internet communications should fall under the act’s regulations governing “public
communications,” such as outdoor advertising and broadcast advertisements.
Internet communications were addressed at a House Administration Committee
hearing September 22, 2005.17 On November 2, 2005, the House failed to pass a
measure to exempt Internet communications from regulation under federal campaign


13 Federal Election Commission, “Party Financial Activity Summarized for the 2004
Election Cycle” at [http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/20050302party
/demfederalye04.pdf].
14 “Treasury, Transportation, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (Oct.

17, 2005), p. S11401.


15 For further discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RS21176, Application of Campaign
Finance Law to Indian Tribes, by L. Paige Whitaker and Joseph E. Cantor.
16 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, “Gimme Five”: Investigation of
Tribal Lobbying Matters, final report, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., June 22, 2006, at
[ ht t p: / / www.i ndi an.senat e.gov/ publ i c / _f i l e s/ Repor t .pdf ] .
17 For further discussion of this issue, see CRS Report RS22272, Campaign Finance
Reform: Regulating Political Communications on the Internet, by L. Paige Whitaker and
Joseph E. Cantor.

finance laws; H.R. 1606 (Hensarling) was brought up under suspension of the rules
but failed on a 225-182 vote.18 On March 9, 2006, the House Administration
Committee ordered the bill favorably reported,19 and it was expected to be considered
by the House on March 16, but that vote was postponed. On March 27, the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) approved new regulations governing only paid
advertisements placed on another’s website, thus addressing much of the concern
expressed about regulating blogs and similar communications under campaign
finance law. On March 29, 2006, House Majority Leader Boehner announced that
consideration of H.R. 1606 would be postponed indefinitely.
Checklist of Bills and
Types of Proposals
Table 1 on the following pages provides easy reference to types of provisions
in each of the bills listed in this report. An “X” denotes features in a given bill. The
nature of these categories is described in the introduction to the next section.


18 “Online Freedom of Speech Act,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (Nov. 2,

2005), p. H9497.


19 U.S. Congress, House Committee of House Administration, Online Freedom of Speech
Act, report to accompany H.R. 1606, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 109-389 (Washington:
GPO, 2006).

CRS-7
Table 1. Checklist of Major Provisions of 109th Congress Campaign Finance Legislation
Hard MoneyHard &Soft MoneySoft MoneySpending
limits &FECAdvertisingPresidentialMisc.
publicill/Major contribution sourcesIn-state/Indep.CoordinationPartyNon-party*(including
benefitsonsor In-districtExpen. 527s)
Individuals P ACs P arty Cand.
House Bills
5 X
6 X
iki/CRS-RL33836 XX
g/wy
s.or X
leak
://wiki XX
http XX
eeh an
X
X
X
X
X



CRS-8
Hard MoneyHard &Soft MoneySoft MoneySpending
limits &FECAdvertisingPresidentialMisc.Non-party*
publicill/Major contribution sourcesIn-state/Indep.CoordinationParty(including
benefitsonsor In-districtExpen. 527s)
Individuals P ACs P arty Cand.
X
yn n XXX XXX X
X
iki/CRS-RL33836ling X
g/w
s.orling X
leak
X
://wiki
http X
T X
s XXXX X
XXXXXX
au er X
X



CRS-9
Hard MoneyHard &Soft MoneySoft MoneySpending
limits &FECAdvertisingPresidentialMisc.Non-party*
publicill/Major contribution sourcesIn-state/Indep.CoordinationParty(including
benefitsonsor In-districtExpen. 527s)
Individuals P ACs P arty Cand.
eeh an X
X
C X
iki/CRS-RL33836XXX
g/w
s.orX XX
leak
XXX X
://wiki
http XX
XXX X X XX
XX
X
XX X
X



CRS-10
Hard MoneyHard &Soft MoneySoft MoneySpending
limits &FECAdvertisingPresidentialMisc.Non-party*
publicill/Major contribution sourcesIn-state/Indep.CoordinationParty(including
benefitsonsor In-districtExpen. 527s)
Individuals P ACs P arty Cand.
XX
X
eeh an X
iki/CRS-RL33836X
g/w
s.or-S h ays X X
leak 13
X
://wiki 76
http X
es. 333X
Senate Bills
X
ld-Lott
X
XX XXX



CRS-11
Hard MoneyHard &Soft MoneySoft MoneySpending
limits &FECAdvertisingPresidentialMisc.Non-party*
publicill/Major contribution sourcesIn-state/Indep.CoordinationParty(including
benefitsonsor In-districtExpen. 527s)
Individuals P ACs P arty Cand.
ld- X
X
X
iki/CRS-RL33836
g/w X
s.orld
leak X X
ld
://wikilso includes labor, corporate, tax-exempt, and issue advocacy.


http

Major Reforms Proposed, by Category
As explained previously, campaign finance bills introduced in the 109th
Congress covered a wide range of topics. Although many of the bills at first appear
to have had little in common, all the bills focused on major campaign finance issues.
This section of the report is organized into 14 subsections, encompassing the 13th
major areas of proposed changes in campaign finance regulation found in 109
Congress bills; the 14th subsection, “miscellaneous,” includes provisions outside that
framework. These are the same categories listed in Table 1. Each subsection
contains a brief introductory statement about proposed changes, followed by a listing
of bills containing those proposed changes. (Later in this report, bills are listed by
number, followed by detailed summaries of all major provisions contained in each
bill and any action taken on them.)
In this section, bills are listed according to what appears to have been the
primary nature and goal of a particular provision. Many provisions, however, had
multiple purposes. For example, a bill that would have raised the limit on an
individual’s contributions to political parties would have empowered both the
individual and the political party. Such a provision would be listed here under
“individual,” because it would have most directly affected what an individual might
do, although the parties would have benefitted as well. Categorization and ordering
of bills in this report is solely for the purpose of organization and does not reflect any
judgement by CRS as to the relative importance or merit of the bills themselves.
The first six categories can be examined in the context of hard money, since
they pertain to types of activity that are fully regulated under federal election law,
which specifies prohibited sources, sets limits on permitted contributions, and
requires disclosure.20 The six hard money categories are shown on the checklist in
Table 1 under a larger heading “hard money,” with the first four — individuals,
PACs, parties, and candidates — further grouped to reflect the principal sources of
campaign receipts. The fifth category deals with in-state or in-district requirements
for campaign receipts, while the sixth addresses independent expenditures.
The eighth and ninth categories cover provisions that dealt with soft money,
those activities largely or fully outside the framework of federal election law, which
have been a major focus of reform efforts in recent years. The eighth category
contains provisions relating to party soft money, which was largely addressed in
BCRA but where some issues remain. The ninth category focuses on non-party soft
money — activities of unions, corporations, and tax-exempt organizations,
particularly 527 organizations, in federal elections; it also deals with election-related
issue advocacy, which is closely related to activities of 527s and other outside
groups. (The seventh category — coordination — has applicability to both hard and
soft money activities and is so designated.)


20 “Hard money” generally refers to funds raised and spent according to the source limits,
prohibitions, and disclosure requirements of federal election law. By contrast, “soft money”
refers to funds raised and spent outside the federal election regulatory framework, but which
may have at least an indirect impact on federal elections.

Category 10 addresses proposals for public financing or benefits and spending
limits in congressional elections. The 11th category — labeled “FEC” — addresses
proposals to improve enforcement and disclosure by the Federal Election
Commission or a proposed successor agency. The 12th deals with proposals on
campaign advertising, including the Internet. The 13th contains proposals to change
the presidential public funding system. The 14th — “Miscellaneous” — contains all
other proposals.
Individuals (Hard Money)
These bills would have changed limits and offered incentives to encourage a
greater role for individual citizens in federal campaign financing.
Remove All Contribution Limits
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Remove Aggregate Contribution Limit
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
Raise Contribution Limits
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — to PACs, and would have indexed for inflation
Lower Contribution Limits
H.R. 4664 (Capuano) — to candidates and PACs, but would have indexed PAC
limits
Index Contribution Limits for Inflation
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — for contributions to state parties
S. 1053 (Lott) — for contributions to state parties
Provide Tax Incentives for Individual Contributions
H.R. 958 (Petri) — credit and special deduction
PACs (Hard Money)
These bills would have restricted or empowered PACs in their funding roles.
Most PACs are considered “nonparty multicandidate committees,” referring to the
FECA status that most PACs have. PACs sponsored by organizations are called
“separate segregated funds,” while those that are independent of other entities are
labeled “nonconnected.”



Ban PACs in Federal Elections
H.R. 4819 (Leach) — if ban were held unconstitutional, would have lowered
PAC contribution limit to $1,000
Remove Contribution Limits
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Raise Limit on PAC Contributions
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — and would have indexed for inflation
S. 1053 (Lott) — and would have indexed for inflation
Lower PAC Contribution Limit
H.R. 4664 (Capuano) — to candidates, and indexes for inflation
Change PAC Contribution Limit
H.R. 4819 (Leach) — lesser of 10% of candidate receipts, or $5,000
Impose Aggregate Limit on PAC Contributions
H.R. 4819 (Leach) — $500,000 per PAC
Change Rules for Leadership PACs
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — would have allowed unlimited transfers to national
parties
H.R. 4655 (Jones, NC) — would have required in FEC disclosures clear
identification of federal candidates or officeholders associated with
leadership PACs
H.R. 4975 (Dreier) — would have allowed unlimited transfers to national
parties
H.R. 5623 (Capuano) — would have banned conversion of funds to personal
use, and defined “leadership PAC”
H.R. 5839 (Hefley) — would have banned federal leadership PACs and
established rules for disposing of existing funds
S. 1053 (Lott) — would have allowed unlimited transfers to national parties
Increase Dollar Threshold for Political Committee Status
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
S. 1053 (Lott)



Change Rules for PAC Solicitations of Restricted Classes
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
S. 1053 (Lott)
Prohibit Foreign National Involvement in PACs
H.R. 4692 (Kaptur) — would have banned PAC money from foreign-controlled
corporations and foreign national involvement in PAC decisions.
Political Parties (Hard Money)
These bills would have restricted or empowered political parties in their funding
roles.
Remove All Contribution Limits
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Remove Coordinated Expenditure Limit
H.R. 513 (Shays-Meehan)
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
H.R. 4975 (Dreier)
Limit All Party Spending Per Candidate
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — in “clean money” races
Lower Contribution Limit to Candidates
H.R. 4664 (Capuano) — by multicandidate committees, and would have
indexed for inflation
Increase Limit on Coordinated Expenditures for Presidential
Candidates
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays) — limit might have been removed if non-
participant exceeded specified amount in receipts or expenditures
S. 3740 (Feingold) — limit might have removed if non-participant exceeded
specified amount in receipts or expenditures
Candidates (Hard Money)
These bills contained provisions that focused on spending and loans by
candidates from personal or family wealth, including the issue of repayment of



candidate loans from campaign funds after an election, and permissible use of
campaign funds in general.
Ban Use of Campaign or Official Funds for Candidate Salary
H.R. 702 (English)
Ban Repayment of Candidate Loans from Campaign Funds
H.R. 701 (English) — for winning candidates, after taking office
Enact Constitutional Amendment to Limit Candidate
Spending
H.J.Res. 13 (Leach)
In-state or In-district Minimum (Hard Money)
This category includes a bill that would have required a minimum level of
candidates’ funds to come from residents of that state or district.
Require In-state Funding Level
H.R. 4819 (Leach) — for House and Senate candidates
Independent Expenditures (Hard Money)
Independent expenditures are communications with the public advocating the
election or defeat of clearly identified candidates made without any coordination,
cooperation, or consultation with the candidate campaigns. Independent expenditures
are not subject to limits on amounts spent, but the source restrictions and disclosure
requirements of federal law apply. This hard money activity should not be confused
with issue advocacy, which is largely outside federal election regulation and is
addressed in the “nonparty soft money” category, below.
Increase Disclosure Requirements
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — for “clean money” candidates
Ban Independent Expenditures
H.R. 4694 (Obey) — in House elections, but would have allowed for fast-track
consideration of constitutional amendment allowing reasonable limits if
the ban were held unconstitutional



Coordination (Hard and Soft Money)
These provisions address the issue of what constitutes coordination under
FECA, which, in turn, triggers an activity’s treatment as a contribution or
expenditure, subject to relevant limits. This issue has come to include both issue and
express advocacy, hence it contains both hard and soft money components.
Change Rules Affecting Candidate Appearances
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — would have allowed federal candidates greater
latitude in assisting state and local candidates
Define Coordination and Associated Activities
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
Define Coordinated Activity As Contribution or Expenditure
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — but would have exempted party spending for “clean
money” candidates
Soft Money: Party
The term “soft money” has traditionally referred to money that may indirectly
influence federal elections, but that is raised and spent outside federal election law’s
purview and that would be illegal if spent directly in connection with a federal
election. Prior to enactment of BCRA, national parties commonly raised money from
sources and in amounts that were federally impermissible; these funds could then be
transferred to state parties, where permitted under state election law, and used for
grassroots and generic party activity. Party soft money was also used for a share of
administrative and overhead expenses and issue advocacy. Since BCRA’s
prohibition on the raising of soft money by national parties and federal officials, theth
soft money issue has largely been moot. Those few bills that addressed it in the 109
Congress generally sought to adjust existing restrictions.
Prohibit Soft Money for Reapportionment Activities
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
Change Disclosure Requirements
H.R. 2753 (Andrews) — would have allowed state parties to file copies of state
reports with FEC, if substantially similar to what FEC requires
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle) — would have required copies of state party reports to be
filed with FEC



Loosen Restrictions on State and Local Party Grassroots
Activities
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
Add Restrictions on State and Local Party Grassroots
Activity
H.R. 5374 (Linder) — would have ended “Levin fund” provision
Loosen Restriction on Federal Candidates
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — appearances at state and local party fundraisers
Ban Soft Money
H.R. 4694 (Obey) — in House elections, but would have allowed for fast-track
consideration of constitutional amendment allowing reasonable limits if
the ban were held unconstitutional
Reduce Amounts Federal Candidates May Solicit for Tax-
Exempt Groups
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
Amend Definition of Federal Election Activity
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
Change Definitions of Mass Mailing and Telephone Banks
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
Soft Money: Non-party (including tax-exempt and

527 organizations)


Non-party soft money pertains to direct spending by and activity of groups, as
opposed to their donations to another entity (such as parties). The term long was
used to refer to activities by corporations and labor unions, but in recent years has
come to refer increasingly to activities by tax-exempt organizations, most notably
527s. It also has particular relevance to election-related issue advocacy, a practice
in which some of 527s are prominently engaged.
Traditionally, non-party soft money referred to permissible spending from union
and corporate treasuries — despite the long-standing ban on direct union and
corporate spending in federal elections — on three exempt activities aimed only at



specified restricted classes (corporate executives and stockholders and families, and
union members and their families). The three exempt activities are: setting up and
raising money for a PAC, internal communications (including express advocacy), and
voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
In more recent years, the activities of tax-exempt organizations have come under
scrutiny for their election-related activities that may be permitted under the Internal
Revenue Code (IRC) but are not regulated under FECA. Observers have long noted
the potential for 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations to affect elections indirectly
by their permissible activities under the tax code. Since 2000, particular interest has
been focused on “political organizations” defined by Section 527 of the IRC.
Although Congress in 2000 required disclosure by 527 groups through the IRS, much
debate has ensued since 2004 as to whether their election-related activities should
require full regulation under federal election law.21
In large measure, what has been fueling the issue over 527s and other tax-
exempt organizations has been the practice of election-related issue advocacy. Prior
to BCRA’s enactment, some observers became concerned about communications that
promoted political issues in reference to candidates, but which, by avoiding specific
election advocacy language (e.g., “elect Jones” or “defeat Smith”), were not subject
to regulation under federal election law. These “issue advocacy” communications
contrasted with those that explicitly promoted the election or defeat of clearly
identified candidates — a class of communications known as “express advocacy.”
Since the courts had generally construed “express advocacy” communications in a
narrow sense (i.e., using explicit phrases advocating election or defeat),
communications that may have been perceived as constituting thinly veiled election
activity could thus avoid federal disclosure and source regulations.
BCRA addressed issue advocacy by creating a new term in federal election law,
“electioneering communication” — political advertisements that refer to a clearly
identified federal candidate and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days
of a general election. The act prohibited unions and certain corporations from
spending treasury funds for electioneering communications and required disclosure
of disbursements of more than $10,000 and the identity of donors of $1,000 or more.
In part because of BCRA’s narrowly tailored response to issue advocacy,
concerns remain. Some believe that BCRA went too far and favor the repeal of its
electioneering communications provision. Others believe it did not go far enough
and favor more regulation in this area. Some proposals address issue advocacy
directly, while others address it through proposals aimed at the type of organization
practicing issue advocacy. This section is organized accordingly.


21 For a fuller discussion of the 527 issue and legislative proposals and activity in the 109th
Congress, see CRS Report RL32954, 527 Political Organizations: Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Joseph E. Cantor and Erika Lunder.

Union and Corporate Treasury Activity
Add FECA Disclosure Requirements.
H.R. 2753 (Andrews)
Remove Ban on Corporate and Union Treasury Money.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Prohibit Corporate and Union Treasury Funding of Nonpartisan
Voter Drives.
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
527 Organizations
Require Regulation of 527s Under FECA.
Define Political Committee to Include 527s Except Under Specified
Circumstances.
H.R. 513 (Shays)
S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott)
H.R. 4975 (Dreier)
S. 1053 (Lott)
S. 2511 (McCain)
Require Minimum Levels of Hard Money by Committees with
Federal and Non-Federal Activities.
H.R. 513 (Shays)
S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott)
H.R. 4975 (Dreier)
S. 1053 (Lott)
S. 2511 (McCain)
Impose Restrictions on Contributions to Non-Federal Accounts.
H.R. 513 (Shays)
S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott)
H.R. 4975 (Dreier)
S. 1053 (Lott)
S. 2511 (McCain)



Require Enhanced Disclosure By and About 527 Groups.
Under IRC.
H.R. 914 (English)
H.R. 471 (Larson)
H.R. 1942 (Shaw) — adds penalties for non-filing
H.R. 2204 (Shaw) — adds penalties for non-filing
Under FECA.
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
H.R. 2204 (Shaw)
Improve Linkage Between IRS and FEC Disclosure Databases.
H.R. 471 (Larson)
Ban Foreign National Contributions to 527s.
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
Prohibit Electioneering Communications by 527s.
H.R. 4696 (Rogers, MI)
Tax-exempt Organizations Generally
Ban Use of Soft Money by Tax-exempt Groups for Get-Out-the-Vote
Activities.
H.R. 5374 (Linder) — by 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 527 organizations
Issue Advocacy
Repeal BCRA’s Electioneering Communications Provision.
H.R. 46 (Bartlett)
H.R. 689 (Bartlett)
Allow Electioneering Communications by Certain Entities Currently
Prohibited.
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — using only donations from citizens and permanent
resident aliens



Other
Ban Use of Soft Money for Any Partisan Voter Registration Activity.
H.R. 5374 (Linder)
Spending Limits and Public Benefits
Bills in this category would, in general, have provided: (1) campaign spending
limits for House or Senate candidates on overall campaign or candidate personal
spending (or advertising time restrictions); (2) public, cost-saving benefits to
candidates, including direct subsidies (public financing); or (3) both. Discussion of
spending limits and benefits to candidates are grouped together because many bills
embodied both concepts, largely because a voluntary system of limits with
conditional benefits has been a major response to the Buckley v. Valeo ruling [424
U.S. 1 (1976)], which overturned mandatory limits. This grouping should not be
construed as an inherent linkage between the two ideas; there are very distinct
principles behind spending limits and public benefits (or financing). Options among
spending limit bills included voluntary limits, in response to Buckley, with or without
inducements to participation through public benefits; mandatory limits, through a
constitutional amendment; or “benefits only” provisions without adherence to
spending limits.
Provide Public Benefits in Conjunction with
Voluntary Spending Limits
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — with subsidies and free and discounted broadcast time
H.R. 5281 (Leach) — with matching funds in primary and general elections
Provide Public Benefits with No Spending Limits
H.R. 2753 (Andrews) — subsidies, in exchange for limiting individual
contributions to $100, raising at least 80% of funds in-state, and
participating in debates
Provide Public Subsidies and Require
Mandatory Spending Limits
H.R. 4694 (Obey) — would have allowed for fast-track consideration of
constitutional amendment allowing reasonable limits if this were held
unconstitutional
Allow Mandatory Limits to Be Set Through
Constitutional Amendment
H.J.Res. 76 (Kaptur)



Amend Senate Rules to Prohibit Senators and
Staff from Fundraising in Specified Periods
S. 2434 (Wyden)
FEC (Enforcement & Disclosure)
These bills sought to improve enforcement and disclosure provisions of FECA,
administered by the FEC or an alternative body.
Enforcement
Replace FEC with New Enforcement Agency.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan)
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold)
Change Makeup of Enforcement Agency.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan) — new agency to have had three members:
chairman to serve one 10-year term and two others to serve one six-year
term; would have required commissioners to have law enforcement or
judicial experience
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — add one commissioner to FEC
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold) — new agency to have had three members:
chairman to serve one 10-year term and two others to serve one six-year
term; would have required commissioners to have law enforcement or
judicial experience
Appoint Administrative Law Judges to Expedite Enforcement.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan) — would have allowed administrative law judges
(ALJs) to find that violations had occurred, impose civil penalties, and
issue cease-and-desist orders
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold)
Authorize Enforcement Agency to Appeal for Injunctions to Prevent
Violations.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan) — and restraining orders
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold) — and restraining orders
Allow Enforcement Agency to Conduct Random Audits.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan)
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold)



Change Standard to Begin Enforcement Proceedings.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — to “reason to investigate”
Allow Enforcement Agency to Petition Supreme Court.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
Expedite Enforcement Procedures Late in Election.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
Allow Issuance of Subpoenas without Signature of Chair.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
Require GAO Study of Criminal Enforcement by Justice
Department.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan)
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold)
Change Enforcement Agency’s Funding Process.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan) — Chairman to submit budget directly to Congress
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold) — Chairman to submit budget directly to Congress
Require GAO Study on Appropriate Funding Levels for
Enforcement Agency.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan)
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold)
Disclosure
Require Electronic Filing.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
S. 1508 (Feingold-McCain)
Require Standardized Software for Electronic Filers.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Require Internet Posting by FEC.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle) — within 24 hours



Require Expedited or Increased Disclosure.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle) — 24-hour notice of contributions in last 90 days
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — 24-hour notice of contributions in last 90 days
Remove “Best Efforts” Exemption.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
Require Disclosure of Phone Bank Activity.
H.R. 338 (Maloney)
Require Disclosure Regarding Push Polls.
H.R. 491 (Petri)
Require Additional Breakdowns on Candidate Reports.
H.R. 2753 (Andrews) — by primary, general, and runoff election
Establish Clearinghouse on Foreign National Activity.
H.R. 4692 (Kaptur)
Advertising Issues
Bills in this category would have changed terms under which candidates
communicated their messages, including rates charged and identification (disclaimer)
required, and whether certain advertising media, such as the Internet, might be
regulated.
Require Identification for Phone Calling
H.R. 491 (Petri) — push polls
H.R. 338 (Maloney) — phone banks
H.R. 1580 (Price, NC) — pre-recorded phone calls
H.R. 2294 (Johnson, CT) — robocalling
H.R. 4180 (Schmidt) — pre-recorded audio messages
Exclude Internet Communications from FECA Regulation
H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn)
H.R. 1605 (Hensarling)
H.R. 1606 (Hensarling)
H.R. 4194 (Shays-Meehan) — except in specified circumstances
H.R. 4389 (Miller, NC) — would have applied news media exemption to
Internet communications



H.R. 4900 (Allen) — except in specified circumstances
S. 678 (Reid)
S. 1053 (Lott)
Require Identification on Internet Communications
H.R. 1580 (Price, NC)
Change Terms of Lowest Unit Rate22
S. 1053 (Lott)
Prohibit Preemption of Lowest Unit Rate Ads
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — for House candidates, in “clean money” system
S. 1053 (Lott)
Extend Lowest Unit Rate to Parties
S. 1053 (Lott) — for advertising on behalf of candidates
Presidential Elections
These bills sought to change the rules for the public financing system available
in presidential elections, or to abolish that system.
Abolish Public Funding System
H.R. 45 (Bartlett) — for nominating conventions only
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle)
H.R. 3960 (Neugebauer)
Lower Amount of Contribution Subject to Matching Funds
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Increase Public Funds Matched in Primaries
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays) — would have increased rate of match and total
amount matched
S. 3740 (Feingold) — would have increased rate of match and total amount
matched


22 The “lowest unit rate,” also known as the “lowest unit charge,” allows campaigns to
purchase broadcast advertising time for amounts below what would typically be charged for
commercial advertising aired during campaign periods. See 47 U.S.C. 315(b) et seq.

Increase Qualifying Threshold in Primaries
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Change Disbursement Date for Public Funds
H.R. 850 (Hoyer) — uniform date for general election subsidy
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays) — earlier date in primaries and uniform date in
general elections
S. 3740 (Feingold) — earlier date in primaries and uniform date in general
elections
Eliminate State Spending Limits in Primaries
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Remove Convention Prioritization Over Primary Funding
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Raise National Primary and General Election Spending Limits
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Remove Fundraising Exemption from Spending Limits
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Increase Tax Checkoff Amount
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays) — with indexing for future inflation
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Increase Spending Limits and Public Funds
to Offset Spending by Non-Participants
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Link Participation in Primary and General Systems
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)



Require Neutral Tax Preparation Software
Regarding Checkoff
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Require Public Education about Tax Checkoff
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Allow Funds to Be Borrowed in Event of Shortfall
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Ban Soft Money in Connection with Nominating Conventions
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Require Disclosure of Bundled Contributions
to Presidential Candidates
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays)
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Provide Budget Offset for Increased Public Funds
S. 3740 (Feingold)
Miscellaneous
Prohibit Bundling
H.R. 2753 (Andrews) — by PACs, parties, lobbyists, unions, corporations,
national banks, or agents or employees acting on their behalf
Lengthen Pre-election Ban on Franked Mass Mailings
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)
Offer Statement of Findings
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle) — regarding impact of regulation of campaign financing
H.R. 3099 (Tierney)



Amend Foreign Agents Registration Act
to Increase Disclosure
H.R. 4692 (Kaptur)
Ban Contributions and Expenditures from
Indian Tribal Treasuries
H.R. 4696 (Rogers, MI) — Would have required unincorporated tribes to
finance such activities through a separate segregated fund (PAC)
Express Sense of Congress That Buckley
Ruling Misinterpreted First Amendment
H.Con.Res. 333 (Kaptur)
Bill Summaries: Numerical Order
House Bills
The preceding section listed all bills, organized by major categories of proposed
changes in campaign finance regulation. By contrast, the following section lists allth
bills introduced during the 109 Congress numerically, and provides summaries of
each major provision of those bills and any action taken. Headings in bold indicate
the primary purpose of each summarized provision. These headings are the same
categories used throughout this report.
H.R. 45 (Bartlett) — Political Convention Reform Act of 2005
Presidential. Would have repealed public funding of presidential nominating
conventions.
Introduced January 4, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 46 (Bartlett) — First Amendment Restoration Act
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have repealed provisions in BCRA
regarding electioneering communications, including (1) disclosure requirements; (2)
prohibition on corporate and union treasury funding; and (3) rules for consideration
as coordinated expenditures.23
Introduced January 4, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.


23 An apparent drafting error related to coordinated communications led to a corrected
version being introduced as H.R. 689; the summary here reflects the apparent original
intention of H.R. 46’s sponsor.

H.R. 338 (Maloney) — Voters’ Right to Know Act of 2005
FEC. Regarding federal election phone banks: would have required FEC
disclosure of costs, receipts, text of questions, and number of households contacted.
Advertising. Would have required a disclaimer to identify the sponsor of
federal election phone bank communications to the respondents.
Introduced January 25, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 471 (Larson)
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have increased frequency of required
disclosure by 527 political organizations under IRC; would have required disclosure
by such groups with receipts or expenditures of less than $25,000 per year; would
have required Secretary of Treasury to improve database and disclosure systems for
527 reporting; would have required FEC and Secretary of Treasury to improve
linkage of disclosure systems under FECA and IRC.
Introduced February 1, 2005; jointly referred to Committees on Ways and
Means and House Administration.
H.R. 491 (Petri) — Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005
FEC. Would have required disclosure by sponsors of push polls whose results
are not public, including cost, funding sources, number of households contacted, and
questions asked.
Advertising. Would have required identification of all push poll sponsors to
respondents.
Introduced February 1, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 513 (Shays-Meehan) — 527 Reform Act of 2005
[committee amendments in italics; floor amendment in italics and brackets]
Parties (Hard Money). [Would have repealed limits on coordinated
expenditures by political parties].
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have included in definition of “political committee” any 527
organization, unless it: (1) had annual gross receipts of less than
$25,000; (2) was a political committee of a state or local party or
candidate; (3) existed solely to pay certain administrative expenses
or expenses of a qualified newsletter; (4) was composed solely of
state or local officeholders or candidates whose voter drive
activities referred only to state/local candidates and parties; or (5)
was exclusively devoted to elections where no federal candidate was



on ballot, to non-federal elections, ballot issues, or to selection of
non-elected officials;
!Would have made the preceding exemption (above) inapplicable if
the 527 organization spent more than $1,000 for: (1) public
communications that promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed a
clearly identified federal candidate within one year of the general
election in which that candidate was seeking office; or (2) for any
voter drive effort conducted by a group in a calendar year, unless:
(a) sponsor confined activity solely to one state; (b) non-federal
candidates were referred to in all voter drive activities and no
federal candidate or party was referred to in any substantive way;
(c) no federal candidate or officeholder or national party
official/agent was involved in organization’s direction, funding, or
spending; AND (d) no contributions were made by the group to
federal candidates;
!Would have required political committees (but not candidate or
party committees) that made disbursements for voter mobilization
activities or public communications that affected both federal and
non-federal elections to use generally at least 50% hard money from
federal accounts to finance such activities (but would have required
that 100% of public communications and voter drive activities that
referred to only federal candidates be financed with hard money
from a federal account, regardless of whether the communication
referred to a political party); in effect, this would have codified the
2005 FEC regulations on this topic and made them applicable to

527s not affected by current rules;


!Would have allowed contributions to non-federal accounts making
allocations (above) only by individuals and subject to limit of
$25,000 per year; would have prohibited fundraising for such
accounts by national parties and officials and federal candidates and
officeholders;
!Stated that this act was to have no bearing on FEC regulations, on
any definitions of political organizations in Internal Revenue Code,
or on any determination of whether a 501(c) tax-exempt organization
might be a political committee under FECA;
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to BCRA’s, for a challenge on constitutional grounds, and
would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene in any such
case.
Introduced February 2, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
Ordered reported as amended without recommendation (H.Rept. 109-181), June 29,

2005. Rule allowing vote on H.R. 513 and Dreier amendment (H.Res. 755; H.Rept.


109-404), passed House (223-199), April 5, 2006. H.R. 513, with Dreier
amendment, passed House (218-209), April 5, 2006.
H.R. 689 (Bartlett) — First Amendment Restoration Act
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have repealed provisions in BCRA
regarding electioneering communications, including (1) disclosure requirements; (2)



prohibition on corporate and union treasury funding; and (3) rules for consideration
as coordinated expenditures.
Introduced February 9, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 701 (English) — Personal Accountability in Campaign Committees
Act
Candidates (Hard Money). Would have prohibited use of campaign funds
to repay a winning candidate’s personal loans to his or her campaign, once that
candidate took office (for elections after December 2005).
Introduced February 9, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 702 (English) — Candidate Anti-Corruption Act
Candidates (Hard Money). Would have prohibited use of campaign funds
or funds used to defray official expenses of federal officeholders for payment of a
salary to the candidate or any immediate family member.
Introduced February 9, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 850 (Hoyer)
Presidential. Would have established a uniform date for release of payments
to presidential candidates participating in public financing in the general election.
Introduced February 16, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 914 (English) — Truth in Spending Act of 2005
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have required political organizations
operating under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, but not regulated under
FECA, to file monthly disclosure statements with the IRS.
Introduced February 17, 2005; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 958 (Petri) — Citizen Involvement in Campaigns Act of 2005
Individuals (Hard Money). Would have established a 100% tax credit for
individual contributions to federal candidates and national political party committees,
up to $200 (or $400 on joint returns), and a special tax deduction (regardless of
whether taxpayer itemized deductions) for the total value of such contributions,
beyond the amount applied toward the credit, up to $600 (or $1,200 on joint returns).
Introduced February 17, 2005; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.



H.R. 1316 (Pence-Wynn) — 527 Fairness Act of 2005
[provisions added in committee substitute amendment shown in italics]
Individuals (Hard Money).
!Would have removed aggregate limit on contributions by
individuals;
!Would have raised limit on contributions to PACs and indexed for
inflation;
!Would have indexed limit on contributions state parties for inflation.
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have raised limit on contributions by PACs and indexed them
for inflation;
!Would have allowed leadership PACs to transfer unlimited funds to
national party committees;
!Would have increased annual contribution and expenditure
threshold for determining political committee status to $10,000;
!Would have removed requirements that trade association
solicitations of member corporations’ restricted classes have prior
approval of the corporations and that no more than one trade
association might solicit such classes in a calendar year;
!Would have allowed unions, corporations, and trade associations to
solicit restricted classes by means other than mail.
Parties (Hard Money). Would have removed limit on party-coordinated
expenditures.
Coordination (Hard and Soft Money). Would have allowed federal
candidates/officeholders to endorse state/local candidates and appear in their
advertisements without this constituting coordinated contributions under FECA.
Soft Money: Party.
!Would have loosened restrictions on state/local parties by allowing
use of soft money for voter registration activities in last 120 days of
a federal election and for sample ballots in elections with both
federal and state/local candidates on ballot;
!Would have codified FEC regulation that federal candidates and
officeholders might speak at state/local party fundraisers without
restriction or regulation.
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have banned contributions to 527 groups from foreign
nationals;
!Would have required 527 groups now filing financial activity reports
with IRS but not FEC to file reports with FEC as well;
!Would have allowed 501(c)(4) and 527 corporations to make
electioneering communications with funds donated solely by
individuals who were citizens or permanent resident aliens (by
removing “targeted communications” exception to exemption of



501(c)(4) and 527 organizations from union and corporate ban on
electioneering communications);
!Would have extended same authority granted to 501(c)(4)
organizations with regard to electioneering communications to
501(c)(5) and 501(c)(6) organizations (typically unions and trade
associations);
!Stated that expenditures made by 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6)
organizations were not to affect their tax status under Internal
Revenue Code.
Advertising. Would have provided that communications on Internet were not
considered “public communications” and hence not regulated by FECA.
Introduced March 15, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
Reported by committee, as amended, June 22 2005 (H.Rept. 109-146).
H.R. 1580 (Price, NC) — Stand By Your Internet Ad Act of 2005
Advertising. Would have clarified law requiring statement of responsibility
for election-related communications to apply to printed, audio, and video
communications distributed on the Internet and to pre-recorded telephone calls.
Introduced April 12, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 1605 (Hensarling)
Advertising. Stated that communications over the Internet were not to be
considered “public communications” and thus not regulated under FECA.
Introduced April 13, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 1606 (Hensarling) — Online Freedom of Speech Act
Advertising. Stated that communications over the Internet were not to be
considered “public communications” and thus not regulated under FECA.
Introduced April 13, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
Brought up under suspension of the rules and failed, November 2, 2005 (225-182).
Reported by Committee on House Administration, March 13, 2006 (H.Rept. 109-

389).


H.R. 1942 (Shaw) — 527 Transparency Act of 2005
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have required 527 organizations to disclose to the IRS on
quarterly, rather than semi-annual, basis in non-election years;
!Would have created a 30% penalty on amounts not disclosed as
required by 527 organizations and made their managers liable for it;



!Would have provided that contributions to 527 organizations that
reported to IRS would be subject to the gift tax in any year the
organization failed to make periodic disclosures to the IRS.
Introduced April 27, 2005; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 2204 (Shaw) — 527 Transparency Act of 2005
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have required 527 organizations that reported to the IRS to
disclose on a monthly basis, with special rules for pre-election, post-
election, and year-end reports;
!Would have created a 30% penalty on amounts not disclosed as
required by 527 organizations and made their managers liable for
that penalty;
!Would have provided that contributions to 527 organizations that
reported to IRS would be subject to the gift tax in any year the
organization failed to make periodic disclosures to the IRS;
!Would have required 527 organizations that reported to the IRS to
simultaneously file copies of periodic disclosure reports with FEC.
Introduced May 5, 2005; jointly referred to Committees on Ways and Means and
House Administration.
H.R. 2294 (Johnson, CT) — Robocaller Identification Act
Advertising. Would have required automatic calling system messages used
for political purposes (advocacy in electoral campaigns or legislative issues) to
include identification of caller and sponsor and either the phone number or address
or board of directors of sponsoring organization.
Introduced May 11, 2005; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2753 (Andrews) — Public Campaign Financing Act of 2005
Soft Money: Party. Would have required FEC to allow state parties to file
copies of reports filed under state law if they contained substantially the same
information as required under federal law.
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have required prompt disclosure by non-
party entities for spending on “federal election activities” (as defined by BCRA),
once $2,000 threshold level was reached.
Spending/Benefits. Would have provided public funding in House general
elections in amounts based on media costs in the area, up to $750,000 (with indexing
for future inflation), for specified campaign purposes (but not a salary for candidate),
within four months of general election, for candidates who: (a) gathered petitions
signed by at least 3% of registered voters or whose party received at least 25% of the
vote in prior general election; (b) limited individual donations to $100; (c) raised at



least 80% of funds in-state; and (d) participated in at least two debates; would have
required broadcasters to accept participating candidate ads, until they constituted

40% of station’s total advertising time.


FEC. Would have required candidate reports to be broken down by primary,
general, or runoff election.
Miscellaneous. Would have prohibited bundling by PACs, parties, lobbyists,
unions, corporations, or national banks, or employees or agents acting on their behalf.
Introduced June 7, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 3099 (Tierney) — Clean Money, Clean Elections Act
Parties (Hard Money). In House races with at least one “clean money”
candidate, would have limited party spending on behalf of a candidate to 10% of
general election candidate’s subsidy.
Independent Expenditures (Hard Money).
!Regarding “clean money” candidates: would have required 48 hour
notice of independent expenditures above $1,000 up to 20 days
before election and 24 hour notice of amounts above $500 in last 20
days.
Coordination (Hard and Soft Money).
!Would have amended “contribution” to include anything of value for
purpose of influencing a federal election and was coordinated with
candidate;
!Would have defined “payment made in coordination with a
candidate” to include payments: (1) in cooperation or consultation
with, or at request or suggestion of, a candidate or agent; (2) using
candidate-prepared materials; (3) based on information about
campaign plans provided by candidate’s campaign for purpose of
expenditure; (4) by a spender who during that election cycle had
acted in an official position for a candidate, in an executive,
policymaking, or advisory capacity; and (5) by a spender who had
used the same consultants as an affected candidate during election
cycle; would have deemed payments made in coordination with a
candidate as a “contribution” or “expenditure” (but would have
exempted a payment by a party in coordination with a “clean
money” candidate).
Spending/Benefits.
!Would have provided full public subsidies, 30 minutes of free
broadcast time in primary and 75 minutes in general election, and
additional broadcast time at 50% of lowest unit rate for House
candidates who: participated in “clean money” system and spent no
private funds beyond subsidy once qualified;
!Prior to qualification, would have allowed candidates to raise seed
money ($35,000, in contributions of $100 or less) for specified uses



other than broadcast ads; major party candidates would have
qualified by raising $5 donations from 1,500 state voters; others
would have qualified by raising 150% of amount raised by major
party candidates;
!Subsidy would have equaled applicable percentage (60% for general
election, 40% for major party candidate in primary, and 25% for
other primary candidates) of 80% of base amount per election (base
amount was national average of winning House candidate
expenditures in three most recent general elections), but amount was
never to be less than amount provided in previous election cycle;
!Would have reduced subsidy to 40% of amount otherwise
determined for unopposed candidates;
!Would have provided additional subsidies to candidates opposed by
independent expenditures and by non-complying opponents once
such spending exceeded 125% of spending limit (maximum
additional funds equaled 200% of limit);
!Would have denied lowest unit rate to non-participating candidates;
!Would have financed benefits from House of Representatives
Election Fund using appropriated funds, qualifying contributions,
and unused seed money.
FEC.
!Would have added one commissioner, recommended by other
members;
!Would have allowed random audits of campaigns;
!Would have given FEC authority to seek injunctions;
!Would have changed standard to begin enforcement proceedings to
“reason to investigate”;
!Would have allowed FEC to petition Supreme Court;
!Would have expedited enforcement in last 60 days of election, with
clear and convincing evidence that violation had occurred, was
occurring, or was about to occur;
!Would have allowed subpoenas without chair’s signature;
!Would have required electronic filing of disclosure reports;
!Would have required 24 hour notice of all contributions received in
last 90 days of election.
Advertising. Would have prohibited preemption of House campaign
broadcast ads, unless beyond broadcasters’ control.
Miscellaneous.
!Would have banned franked mass mailings from start of primary
period through general election, unless Member was not a candidate
or mailing promoted public forum with candidate name only;
!Would have included statement of findings and declarations;
!If any provision of act or this statute were held unconstitutional, the
remainder of act and statute would have been unaffected.
Introduced June 28, 2005; jointly referred to Committees on House
Administration, Energy and Commerce, and Government Reform.



H.R. 3960 (Neugebauer) — Taxpayer Campaign Fund Elimination Act
of 2005
Presidential. Would have eliminated presidential public funding system.
Introduced September 29, 2005; jointly referred to Committees on Ways and
Means and House Administration.
H.R. 4180 (Schmidt) — Identification and Disclosure Act
Advertising. Would have required campaign-related phone calls consisting
substantially of pre-recorded audio messages to include sponsor identification (name
and permanent address) at beginning, and to show sponsor phone number on caller
ID.
Introduced October 28, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 4194 (Shays-Meehan) — Internet Anti-Corruption and Free
Speech Protection Act of 2005
Advertising. Stated that communications over the Internet were not to be
considered “public communications,” thus not regulated under FECA, unless such
communications were placed on another person’s website for a fee, or
communication was financed by a union or corporation (unless its principal purpose
was operating a web log), state or local party committee, or other political committee.
Introduced November 1, 2005; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 4389 (Miller, NC)
Advertising. Would have exempted news stories, commentaries, and
editorials distributed through the Internet from consideration as expenditures or
electioneering communications, and would have exempted campaign-related
meetings organized through the Internet from consideration as contributions to a
campaign.
Introduced November 18, 2005; referred to Committee on House
Administration.
H.R. 4655 (Jones, NC) — Leadership PAC Disclosure Act
PACs (Hard Money). Would have required political committees associated
with (i.e., directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, controlled, or
acting on behalf of) federal candidates or officeholders to identify such candidates
or officeholders in disclosures to FEC (through statements of organization and
periodic financial disclosure reports), and would have required FEC to make such
identifications easily accessible to public through the Internet.
Introduced January 31, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.



H.R. 4664 (Capuano)
Individuals (Hard Money).
!Would have lowered limit on contributions to candidates to $1,000
per election;
!Would have lowered limit on contributions to multicandidate
committees to $1,000 per election;
!Would have indexed limits on contributions to multicandidate
committees, as of 2008;
!Would have delayed indexing on contributions to candidates until

2008.


PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have lowered limit on multicandidate committee
contributions to candidates to $1,000;
!Would have indexed multicandidate committees contribution limits,
as of 2008.
Parties (Hard Money).24
!Would have lowered limit on contributions by multicandidate
committees to candidates to $1,000 per election;
!Would have indexed multicandidate committees’ contribution limits,
as of 2008.
Introduced January 31, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 4692 (Kaptur) — Ethics in Foreign Lobbying Act of 2006
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have banned PAC contributions and expenditures if sponsor
was more than half foreign-owned or controlled;
!Would have banned foreign nationals from directing or participating
in decision-making of entities that might influence U.S. elections.
FEC. Would have created FEC clearinghouse on political and lobbying activity
of foreign principals and agents.
Miscellaneous. Would have amended Foreign Agents Registration Act to
increase required disclosure.
Introduced February 1, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on House
Administration and Judiciary.


24 While the bill’s headings reflected a likely intent to deal with nonparty committees only
(i.e., PACs), the legislation referred to “multicandidate committee,” which technically
applies to many party committees as well.

H.R. 4694 (Obey) — Let the Public Decide Clean Campaign Act
Independent Expenditures (Hard Money). Would have banned
independent expenditures in connection with House elections (but would have
provided for fast-track consideration of a constitutional amendment to allow
reasonable limits if the ban were ruled unconstitutional).
Party (Soft Money). Would have banned soft money spending in connection
with House elections (but would have provided for fast-track consideration of a
constitutional amendment to allow reasonable limits if the ban were ruled
unconstitutional).
Spending/Benefits.
!Would have set mandatory limits on House general election
spending based on median household income per district, with
maximum of $1.5 million for all major party candidates in highest
level district;
!Other districts’ limits would have been determined by subtracting
from $1.5 million: two-thirds of percentage difference between the
median household income in the district involved and the highest
median household income district, multiplied by $1.5 million;
!Maximum expenditure by a major party candidate was to have been
in the same ratio to the district-wide limit as the votes for that
candidate’s party in the last two House general elections in the
district were to the votes for all major party candidates in those two
elections;
!For purposes of establishing major party limit, only elections in
which there were at least two major party candidates were to have
been counted, and, if no such elections occurred, votes for Senate
elections during the same period were to have been used as the basis;
!Maximum expenditure for minor party or independent candidates
was based on comparable ratios concerning that party’s (or all
independent candidates’) votes in: House general elections in the
district, all federal offices in the state, or for presidential elections in
the state (whichever amount was highest);
!Would have established mechanism for candidates to increase their
spending limits based on submission of petition signatures (not
applicable to candidate with highest limit in the race);
!Payments were to have been made to candidates for election
expenses in amounts equal to the expenditure limits calculated above
from a Grassroots Good Citizenship Fund, established within the
Treasury;
!Fund would have been financed by voluntary taxpayer designations
of any refunds owed them of at least $1, plus any additional
contributions they wished to make, and by a tax on corporations of

0.1% on taxable income above $10 million;


!Would have directed FEC to make extensive public service
announcements from January 1 to April 15 to promote the fund;



!Would have allowed only one other source for campaign
expenditures — contributions from national and state political
parties, of up to 5% of the applicable spending limit;
!Would have imposed a limit on House candidates in primary
elections equal to one-third of the applicable limit for the general
election;
!If any part of the act or these amendments were ruled
unconstitutional, would have provided for expedited (fast-track)
consideration by Congress of a constitutional amendment to allow
reasonable restrictions on contributions, expenditures, and
disbursements in campaigns for federal office.
Introduced February 1, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on House
Administration, Ways and Means, and Rules.
H.R. 4696 (Rogers, MI) — Restoring Trust in Government Act
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have prohibited 527 organizations from
spending money for electioneering communications.
Miscellaneous. Would have treated unincorporated Indian tribes as
corporations for purposes of FECA (i.e., they would have to establish a PAC through
which to contribute money in federal elections and could not use treasury funds for
electioneering communications).
Introduced February 1, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on Judiciary,
Government Reform, House Administration, Rules, and Resources.
H.R. 4759 (Doolittle) — Citizen Legislature and Political Freedom Act
Individuals (Hard Money). Would have abolished all contribution limits,
after 2006.
PACs (Hard Money). Would have abolished all contribution limits, after

2006.


Parties (Hard Money). Would have abolished all contribution limits, after

2006.


Soft Money: Party. Would have required state and local parties to file copies
with the FEC of any disclosure reports required under state law.
Soft Money: Non-Party. Would have repealed prohibition on corporate and
union treasury money in federal elections, after 2006.
FEC.
!Would have required electronic filing of reports by all committees;
!Would have required FEC to make standardized software available
to all electronic filers;



!Would have required posting of information within 24 hours on
Internet;
!Would have required all committees to notify FEC within 24 hours
of all donations in last 90 days of election;
!Would have revoked “best efforts” exemption for identifying
contributors of over $200 in a year.
Presidential. Would have terminated presidential public funding system, after

2005.


Miscellaneous. Stated a series of findings that attributed contemporary
problems with campaign financing to the effects of government regulation.
Introduced February 15, 2006; jointly referred to Committee on House
Administration and Ways and Means.
H.R. 4819 (Leach) — PAC Elimination Act
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have banned contribution and expenditures by PACs in
federal elections;
!Would have changed definition of political committee to apply only
to committees of candidates and parties;
!If ban were held unconstitutional, would have reduced PAC
contribution limit to $1,000 per candidate per election.
!Would have provided alternate PAC contribution limit: the lesser of

10% of all candidate receipts, or $5,000;


!Would have imposed aggregate limit on a PAC’s contributions to all
federal candidates and committees to $500,000.
In-state/In-district (Hard Money). Would have required House and Senate
candidates to raise at least 80% of funds from in-state individual residents.
Introduced February 28, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 4900 (Allen) — Internet Free Speech Protection Act of 2006
Advertising.
!Stated that communications over the Internet were not to be
considered “public communications” and thus not regulated under
FECA, unless such communications were placed on another
person’s website for a fee of more than $5,000 in a calendar year, or
communication was financed by state or local parties, political
committees, unions, or corporations (other than a corporation
primarily devoted to online political commentary and discussions);
!Would have excluded those Internet communications aggregating
less than $5,000 in a calendar year, from special reporting
requirements applicable to non-political committee independent
ex penditures;



!Would have exempted communications over the Internet made by an
individual spending less than $5,000 in a calendar year, from
advertising disclaimer requirements;
!Would have exempted amounts of up to $10,000 annually on
Internet administrative fees and services, from triggering designation
as a political committee;
!Would have included Internet communications in general under
FECA’s news media exemption;
!Would have indexed threshold amounts in bill for inflation;
!Would have required FEC to issue a single policy guideline for
individuals engaged in online communications, within 150 days of
enactment.
Introduced March 8, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 4975 (Dreier) — Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of

2006 (provision added by Rules Committee shown in italics)


PACs (Hard Money). Would have allowed leadership PACs to transfer
unlimited funds to national, state, or local party committees (just as principal
campaign committees may do).
Parties (Hard Money). Would have repealed limits on coordinated
expenditures by political parties.
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have included in definition of “political committee” any 527
organization, unless it: (1) had annual gross receipts of less than
$25,000; (2) was a political committee of a state or local party or
candidate; (3) existed solely to pay certain administrative expenses
or expenses of a qualified newsletter; (4) was composed solely of
state or local officeholders or candidates whose voter drive activities
referred only to state/local candidates and parties; or (5) was
exclusively devoted to elections where no federal candidate was on
ballot, to non-federal elections, ballot issues, or to selection of non-
elected officials;
!Would have made the preceding exemption (above) inapplicable if
the 527 organization spent more than $1,000 for: (1) public
communications that promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed a
clearly identified federal candidate within one year of the general
election in which that candidate was seeking office; or (2) for any
voter drive effort conducted by a group in a calendar year, unless: (a)
sponsor confined activity solely to one state; (b) non-federal
candidates were referred to in all voter drive activities and no federal
candidate or party was referred to in any substantive way; (c) no
federal candidate or officeholder or national party official/agent was
involved in organization’s direction, funding, or spending; AND (d)
no contributions were made by the group to federal candidates;
!Would have required political committees (but not candidate or
party committees) that made disbursements for voter mobilization



activities or public communications that affected both federal and
non-federal elections to use generally at least 50% hard money from
federal accounts to finance such activities (but would have required
that 100% of public communications and voter drive activities that
referred to only federal candidates be financed with hard money
from a federal account, regardless of whether the communication
referred to a political party); in effect, this would have codified the
2005 FEC regulations on this topic and made them applicable to

527s not affected by current rules;


!Would have allowed contributions to non-federal accounts making
allocations (above) only by individuals and subject to limit of
$25,000 per year; would have prohibited fundraising for such
accounts by national parties and officials and federal candidates and
officeholders;
!Stated that this act was to have no bearing on FEC regulations, on
any definitions of political organizations in Internal Revenue Code,
or on any determination of whether a 501(c) tax-exempt organization
could be a political committee under FECA;
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to BCRA’s, for a challenge on constitutional grounds, and
would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene in any such
case.
Introduced March 16, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on the Judiciary,
House Administration, Rules, Government Reform, and Standards of Official
Conduct. April 25, 2006, reported as amended by Committees on Judiciary (H.Rept.

109-439, Pt. I), House Administration (H.Rept. 109-439, Pt. II), Rules (H.Rept. 109-


439, Pt. III), and Government Reform (H.Rept. 109-439, Pt. IV), and discharged from
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. May 3, passed House (217-213).
H.R. 5281 (Leach) — Campaign Reform Act of 2006
Spending/Benefits.
!Would have created House of Representatives Election Campaign
Account, within the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, to
provide matching payments to eligible House candidates;
!Eligibility would have been established by: (1) raising at least
$10,000 from individuals in that election cycle; (2) qualifying for the
primary or general election ballot; (3) having an opponent in the
primary or general election; and (4) limiting receipts and
expenditures in election to $500,000 or the aggregate matching
payment limit, whichever was greater;
!Would have provided for an equal match of contributions from in-
state individuals whose aggregate contributions to that candidate for
that election did not exceed $500;
!Aggregate matching payments were not to have exceeded $175,000
in an election, unless: (1) a non-eligible opponent raised more than
$500,000 for that election, in which case the matching fund payment
might equal the opponent’s receipts; (2) any opponent in a contested
primary raised more than $50,000, in which case the payments might



be increased by up to $75,000; or (3) a runoff occurred, in which
case the payments might be increased by up to $50,000;
!Payments for House candidates where to have come from House of
Representatives Election Campaign Account, once Secretary of
Treasury determined that there were adequate funds for presidential
campaigns, and from supplemental authorizations by Congress.
Introduced May 3, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 5374 (Linder) — Ban It All, Ban It Now Act
Soft Money: Party.
!Would have clarified current ban on soft money to include activities
related to reapportionment;
!Would have eliminated “Levin fund” provision from current law,
allowing limited soft money use by state and local parties for
specified grassroots activities;
!For funds solicited by federal candidates or officeholders for 501(c)
tax-exempt organizations that were primarily involved in voter
registration, get-out-the-vote, voter identification, and generic
activities or if solicitation specified such activities as the purpose for
the donation, would have reduced limit on permissible donations
from $20,000 to $10,000;
!Would have revised definition of “federal election activity” to
include voter registration efforts regardless of when they were
conducted, thus requiring that such activities must always be
financed solely with hard money;
!Would have revised definition of “federal election activity” to
eliminate inclusion of salaries of state and local party employees
who devoted more than 25% of their time in connection with a
federal election, thus removing the requirement that only hard
money be used for such expenses;
!Would have extended time period in defining mass mailing (a form
of public communication) from 30 days to one year;
!Would have extended time period in defining telephone bank (a
form of public communication) from 30 days to one year.
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have removed exemption for nonpartisan voter registration
and get-out-the-vote drives from prohibition on use of corporate and
union treasuries;
!Would have required get-out-the-vote activities by 501(c)(3),
501(c)(4), and 527 tax-exempt organizations to be financed solely
with funds permissible under FECA (i.e., hard money);
!Would have required partisan voter registration activities by any
person to be financed solely with funds permissible under FECA
(i.e., hard money).
Introduced May 11, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.



H.R. 5623 (Capuano)
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have prohibited conversion of leadership PAC funds to
personal use;
!Would have defined a “leadership PAC” as a political committee
directly or indirectly established, maintained, or controlled by a
federal candidate or officeholder, but would not have included a
candidate’s authorized committee or party committee.
Introduced June 15, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 5676 (Shays-Meehan) — Federal Election Administration Act of
2006
FEC.
!Would have replaced Federal Election Commission with Federal
Election Administration, to administer, seek compliance with,
enforce, and formulate policy regarding federal election law; new
agency would have consisted of three commissioners, appointed by
President with advice and consent of Senate, headed by chairman
serving one 10-year term; other two commissioners would have
served staggered six-year terms; no two commissioners were to have
been of the same political party; would have required commissioners
to have had at least five years of professional law enforcement or
judicial experience;
!Would have allowed enforcement actions to be initiated by majority
vote;
!Would have authorized administrative law judges to hear cases,
make findings of fact, impose civil monetary penalties, and issue
cease-and-desist orders, subject to appeal to agency;
!Would have provided for appeals for judicial review by
complainants or aggrieved parties, including those adversely affected
by advisory opinions;
!Would have authorized agency to appeal to district court for
temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions to prevent
possible violations;
!Would have given agency responsibility to administer disclosure
laws and presidential public finance system, and to conduct random
audits;
!Would have provided for agency to submit budget directly to
Congress;
!Would have required GAO to study criminal enforcement of election
laws by Justice Department and to conduct ongoing study on
appropriate funding levels for agency.
Introduced June 22, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.



H.R. 5839 (Hefley) — Leadership PAC Prohibition Act of 2006
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have prohibited federal candidates or officeholders from
directly or indirectly establishing, maintaining, financing, or
controlling any federal or non-federal political committee, other than
a candidate’s principal campaign or authorized committee or a party
committee;
!Would have established transition rules to allow distribution of
existing leadership PAC funds to tax-exempt organizations, political
parties, the U.S. Treasury, and contributions of less than $1,000 to
candidates for elective office.
Introduced July 19, 2006; referred to Committee on House Administration.
H.R. 5905 (Meehan-Shays) — Presidential Funding Act of 2006
Party (Hard Money).
!Would have increased limit for coordinated spending by national
party on behalf of its presidential candidate to $25 million before
April 1 and an additional $25 million after April 1 until candidate
was certified for general election public funding (limits indexed for
inflation);
!Would have allowed latter limit to be removed if non-participating
primary candidate raised or spent more than 120% of total primary
spending limit.
Presidential.
!Would have lowered amount of individual contributions subject to
matching in primary elections from $250 to $200;
!Would have increased rate of public funds match in primary
elections from 100% to 400% before March 31 of election year, after
which the rate of match would have been lowered to 100% of any
contribution up to $200;
!Would have increased qualifying threshold for presidential matching
funds to $25,000 in contributions in each of 20 states, in amounts of
$200 or less (currently $250);
!Would have required candidates to commit to accepting public
financing for the general election as condition for getting matching
funds in primaries;
!Would have moved starting date for payment of matching funds to
July 1 of year prior to election year;
!Would have increased amount of matching funds available to 80%
of primary spending limit;
!Would have required acceptance of primary matching funds as a
condition for getting public funding in general election;
!Would have eliminated state-by-state primary spending limits;



!Would have raises national primary spending limit to $100 million
through April 1 of election year, and $150 million total for primary,
indexed for inflation;
!Would have raised general election spending limit to $100 million,
indexed for inflation;
!Would have changed rules to fully count fundraising costs toward
expenditure limits;
!For participating candidate opposed by non-participating candidate
who made expenditures of more than 120% of primary spending
limit, would have increased primary spending limit to $150 million
before April 1 and to $200 million for entire primary, with further
spending by non-participant triggering further increases in spending
limits and additional matching funds;
!For participating candidate in general election opposed by non-
participating candidate who raised or spent more than 120% of
combined primary and general election spending limit, would have
provided additional subsidy equal to subsidy already received (for
major party candidates);
!Would have increased tax check-off from $3 to $10 for individuals
and from $6 to $20 for couples, with future indexing for inflation;
!Would have established the Friday before Labor Day as the uniform
public funds disbursement date for participating general election
candidates;
!Would have required Secretary of Treasury to issue regulations to
ensure that electronic software used in preparation or filing of tax
returns did not automatically accept or decline a check-off to the
fund;
!Would have authorized FEC to spend up to $10 million from the
fund during a four-year period on public education about the fund;
!Would have allowed Secretary of the Treasury to borrow funds in
event of estimated shortfall in the Fund;
!Would have repealed prioritization of nominating convention
funding over primary matching funds;
!Would have required participating party committees to spend only
public subsidy amount on their presidential nominating conventions,
i.e., would have prohibited solicitation, receipt, and spending of any
soft money on conventions;
!Would have required disclosure of name, address, occupation, and
employer of each person making a bundled contribution to a
presidential campaign (would have defined “bundled contributions”
as a series of contributions that, in the aggregate, totaled at least
$10,000 and were transferred to a candidate by one person or
included notification that a person other than donor solicited,
arranged, or directed those contributions).
Introduced June 26, 2006; jointly referred to Committees on House
Administration and Ways and Means.



H.J.Res. 13 (Leach)
Candidates (Hard Money). Proposed constitutional amendment to give
Congress and the states the power to regulate the amounts of expenditures candidates
might make from personal and immediate family funds, including personal loans.
Introduced January 26, 2005; referred to Committee on the Judiciary.
H.J.Res. 76 (Kaptur)
Spending/Benefits. Proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress
and the states to set limits on contributions and expenditures that might be made, in
support of, or in opposition to, candidates for nomination and election to federal and
state or local offices.
Introduced February 1, 2006; referred to Committee on the Judiciary.
H.Con.Res. 333 (Kaptur)
Miscellaneous. Expressed sense of Congress that Supreme Court
misinterpreted the First Amendment in the Buckley v. Valeo decision by failing to
recognize corrosive effects of large, unlimited expenditures on elections, and
legitimate state interests in limiting such expenditures.
Introduced February 1, 2006; referred to Committee on Judiciary.
Senate Bills
S. 271 (McCain-Feingold-Lott) — 527 Reform Act of 2005
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have included in definition of “political committee” any 527
organization, unless it: (1) had annual gross receipts of less than
$25,000; (2) was a political committee of a state or local party or
candidate; (3) existed solely to pay certain administrative expenses
or expenses of a qualified newsletter; (4) was exclusively devoted to
elections where no federal candidate was on ballot, to non-federal
elections, ballot issues, or to selection of non-elected officials;
!Would have made preceding two exemptions (above) inapplicable
if the 527 organization spent more than $1,000 for: (1) public
communications that promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed a
clearly identified federal candidate within one year of the general
election in which that candidate was seeking office; or (2) for any
voter drive effort conducted by a group;
!Would have required political committees (but not candidate or
party committees) that made disbursements for voter mobilization
activities or public communications that affected both federal and
non-federal elections to use generally at least 50% hard money from



federal accounts to finance such activities (but would have required
that 100% of public communications and voter drive activities that
referred to only federal candidates be financed with hard money
from a federal account, regardless of whether the communication
referred to a political party); in effect, this would have codified the
2005 FEC regulations on this topic and made them applicable to

527s not affected by current rules;


!Would have allowed contributions to non-federal accounts making
allocations (above) only by individuals and subject to limit of
$25,000 per year; would have prohibited fundraising for such
accounts by national parties and officials and federal candidates and
officeholders;
!Stated that this act was to have no bearing on FEC regulations, on
any definitions of political organizations in Internal Revenue Code,
or on any determination of whether a 501(c) tax-exempt organization
might be a political committee under FECA;
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to BCRA’s, for a challenge on constitutional grounds, and
would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene in any such
case.
Introduced February 2, 2005; referred to Committee on Rules and
Administration. Ordered reported April 27, 2005, by Committee on Rules and
Administration, but was later incorporated into S. 1053, an original bill.
S. 678 (Reid)
Advertising. Stated that communications over the Internet were not to be
considered “public communications” and thus not regulated under FECA.
Introduced March 17, 2005; referred to Committee on Rules and
Administration.
S. 1053 (Lott) — 527 Reform Act of 2005
[amendments adopted in Committee in italics with sponsor name]
Individuals (Hard Money). Would have indexed, for inflation, limit on
contributions by individuals to state and local parties (Bennett).
PACs (Hard Money).
!Would have increased limit on contributions to and by PACs from
$5,000 to $7,500;
!Would have increased limit on PAC contributions to national parties
from $15,000 to $25,000;
!Would have indexed these limits for inflation;
!Would have allowed leadership PACs to transfer unlimited funds to
national party committees;
!Would have eliminated twice-a-year limit on solicitations by
unions/corporations of their restricted classes;



!Would have eliminated requirement that trade associations get prior
approval of member corporations before solicitations were made to
their restricted classes;
!Would have eliminated requirement that corporations could grant
approval to only one association to solicit its restricted class in a
year;
!Would have increased annual contribution and expenditure
threshold for determining political committee status to $10,000
(Bennett).
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have included in the definition of “political committee” any
527 organization, unless it: had annual gross receipts of less than
$25,000; was a political committee of a state or local party or
candidate; existed solely to pay certain administrative expenses or
expenses of a qualified newsletter; was composed solely of state or
local officeholders and candidates whose voter drive activities
referred to state and local candidates but not federal candidates and
parties; was solely involved in voter drive activities, including public
communications devoted to such, but did not engage in broadcast,
cable, or satellite communications (Schumer); or was exclusively
devoted to elections where no federal candidate was on ballot, or to
non-federal elections, ballot issues, or selection of non-elected
officials.
!The preceding exemption would not have applied if the 527 spent
more than $1,000 for: public communications that promoted,
supported, attacked, or opposed a clearly identified federal candidate
within one year of the general election in which that candidate was
seeking office; or for any voter drive activity conducted by a group
in a calendar year, unless: (1) sponsor confined activity solely
within one state; (2) non-federal candidates were referred to in all
voter drive activities and no federal candidate or party was referred
to in any substantive way; (3) no federal candidate or officeholder or
national party official or agent was involved in the organization’s
direction, fundraising, or disbursements; and (4) no contributions
were made by the group to federal candidates;
!Would have required political committees (but not candidate or
party committees) that made disbursements for voter mobilization
activities or public communications that affected both federal and
non-federal elections to use generally at least 50% hard money from
federal accounts (or more, if FEC so determined) to finance such
activities (but would have required that 100% of public
communications and voter drive activities that referred to only
federal candidates be financed with hard money from a federal
account, regardless of whether the communication referred to a
political party);
!Would have allowed contributions to non-federal accounts making
allocations under this provision only by individuals in amounts of up
to $25,000 per year (and stated that funds in non-federal accounts
were not otherwise subject to FECA);



!Stated that this act was to have no bearing on FEC regulations, on
any definitions of political organizations in the IRC, or on any
determination of whether a 501(c) tax-exempt organization might be
a political committee under FECA;
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to those in BCRA, for a challenge to the act on constitutional
grounds, and would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene
in any such case.
Advertising.
!Would have made TV, cable, and satellite lowest unit rate broadcast
time non-preemptible, with rates based on comparison with full
prior year, and would have required such rates to be available to
national parties for time on behalf of candidates (Durbin);
!Would have provided that communications over the Internet were
not to be considered “public communications” and thus not
regulated under FECA (Bennett).
Miscellaneous.
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to BCRA’s, for a challenge on constitutional grounds, and
would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene in any such
case;
!Declared that if any provision were deemed unconstitutional, the rest
of the act would not be affected.
Original bill placed on legislative calendar May 17, 2005 (in lieu of S. 271,
which was ordered reported April 27, 2005 by Committee on Rules and
Administration).
S. 1508 (Feingold-McCain) — Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act
FEC. Would have required Senate candidate disclosure reports that were filed
with Secretary of the Senate and forwarded to FEC to be filed electronically.
Introduced July 27, 2005; referred to Committee on Rules and Administration.
S. 2434 (Wyden) — Senate Campaign Reform Act of 2006
Spending/Benefits. Would have amended Senate Rules to prohibit Senators,
officers, and staff from raising, soliciting, or directing Senate campaign contributions
within 18 months of Senate general election; prohibition would not have applied if
an opponent spent more than $100,000, if Senator was a candidate for another office
and raised funds solely for that purpose, or if Senator was targeted in broadcast
advertising by outside groups; in latter case, Senator could have engaged in raising
funds in amounts equal to what was spent in broadcast ads opposing him or her.
Introduced March 16, 2006; referred to Committee on Rules and
Administration.



S. 2511 (McCain) — 527 Reform Act of 2005
Soft Money: Non-Party.
!Would have included in definition of “political committee” any 527
organization, unless it: (1) had annual gross receipts of less than
$25,000; (2) was a political committee of a state or local party or
candidate; (3) existed solely to pay certain administrative expenses
or expenses of a qualified newsletter; (4) was composed solely of
state or local officeholders or candidates whose voter drive activities
referred only to state/local candidates and parties; or (5) was
exclusively devoted to elections where no federal candidate was on
ballot, to non-federal elections, ballot issues, or to selection of non-
elected officials;
!Would have made last exemption (above) inapplicable if the 527
organization spent more than $1,000 for: (1) public communications
that promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed a clearly identified
federal candidate within one year of the general election in which
that candidate was seeking office; or (2) for any voter drive effort
conducted by a group in a calendar year, unless: (a) sponsor confined
activity solely to one state; (b) non-federal candidates were referred
to in all voter drive activities and no federal candidate or party was
referred to in any substantive way; (c) no federal candidate or
officeholder or national party official/agent was involved in
organization’s direction, funding, or spending; AND (d) no
contributions were made by the group to federal candidates;
!Would have required political committees (but not candidate or
party committees) that made disbursements for voter mobilization
activities or public communications that affected both federal and
non-federal elections to use generally at least 50% hard money from
federal accounts to finance such activities (but would have required
that 100% of public communications and voter drive activities that
referred to only federal candidates be financed with hard money
from a federal account, regardless of whether the communication
referred to a political party); in effect, this would have codified the
2005 FEC regulations on this topic and made them applicable to

527s not affected by current rules;


!Would have allowed contributions to non-federal accounts making
allocations (above) only by individuals and subject to limit of
$25,000 per year; would have prohibited fundraising for such
accounts by national parties and officials and federal candidates and
officeholders;
!Stated that this act was to have no bearing on FEC regulations, on
any definitions of political organizations in Internal Revenue Code,
or on any determination of whether a 501(c) tax-exempt organization
might be a political committee under FECA;
!Would have provided special expedited judicial review procedures,
similar to BCRA’s, for a challenge on constitutional grounds, and
would have allowed any Member to bring or intervene in any such
case;



!Declared that if any provision were deemed unconstitutional, the rest
of the act would not be affected.
Introduced April 5, 2006; referred to Committee on Rules and Administration.
S. 3560 (McCain-Feingold) — Federal Election Administration Act of
2006
FEC.
!Would have replaced Federal Election Commission with Federal
Election Administration, to administer, seek compliance with,
enforce, and formulate policy regarding federal election law; new
agency would have consisted of three commissioners, appointed by
President with advice and consent of Senate, headed by chairman
serving one 10-year term; other two commissioners would have
serve staggered six-year terms; no two commissioners were to have
been of the same political party; would have required commissioners
to have had at least five years of professional law enforcement or
judicial experience;
!Would have allowed enforcement actions to be initiated by majority
vote;
!Would have authorized administrative law judges to hear cases,
make findings of fact, impose civil monetary penalties, and issue
cease-and-desist orders, subject to appeal to agency;
!Would have provided for appeals for judicial review by
complainants or aggrieved parties, including those adversely affected
by advisory opinions;
!Would have authorized agency to appeal to district court for
temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions to prevent
possible violations;
!Would have given agency responsibility to administer disclosure
laws and presidential public finance system, and to conduct random
audits;
!Would have provided for agency to submit budget directly to
Congress;
!Would have required GAO to study criminal enforcement of election
laws by Justice Department and to conduct ongoing study on
appropriate funding levels for agency.
Introduced June 22, 2006; referred to Committee on Rules and Administration.
S. 3740 (Feingold) — Presidential Funding Act of 2006
Party (Hard Money).
!Would have increased limit for coordinated spending by national
party on behalf of its presidential candidate to $25 million before
April 1 and an additional $25 million after April 1 until candidate
was certified for general election public funding (limits indexed for
inflation);



!Would have allowed latter limit to be removed if non-participating
primary candidate raised or spent more than 120% of total primary
spending limit.
Presidential.
!Would have lowered amount of individual contributions subject to
matching in primary elections from $250 to $200;
!Would have increased rate of public funds match in primary
elections from 100% to 400% before March 31 of election year, after
which the rate of match would have been lowered to 100% of any
contribution up to $200;
!Would have increased qualifying threshold for presidential matching
funds to $25,000 in contributions in each of 20 states, in amounts of
$200 or less (currently $250);
!Would have required candidates to commit to accepting public
financing for the general election as condition for getting matching
funds in primaries;
!Would have moved starting date for payment of matching funds to
July 1 of year prior to election year;
!Would have increased amount of matching funds available to 80%
of primary spending limit;
!Would have required acceptance of primary matching funds as a
condition for getting public funding in general election;
!Would have eliminated state-by-state primary spending limits;
!Would have raised national primary spending limit to $100 million
through April 1 of election year, and $150 million total for primary,
indexed for inflation;
!Would have raised general election spending limit to $100 million,
indexed for inflation;
!Would have changed rules to fully count fundraising costs toward
expenditure limits;
!For participating candidate opposed by non-participating candidate
who made expenditures of more than 120% of primary spending
limit, would have increased primary spending limit to $150 million
before April 1 and to $200 million for entire primary, with further
spending by non-participant triggering further increases in spending
limits and additional matching funds;
!For participating candidate in general election opposed by non-
participating candidate who raised or spent more than 120% of
combined primary and general election spending limit, would have
provided additional subsidy equal to subsidy already received (for
major party candidates);
!Would have increased tax check-off from $3 to $10 for individuals
and from $6 to $20 for couples, with future indexing for inflation;
!Would have established the Friday before Labor Day as the uniform
public funds disbursement date for participating general election
candidates;
!Would have required Secretary of Treasury to issue regulations to
ensure that electronic software used in preparation or filing of tax



returns did not automatically accept or decline a check-off to the
fund;
!Would have authorized FEC to spend up to $10 million from the
fund during a four-year period on public education about the fund;
!Would have allowed Secretary of the Treasury to borrow funds in
event of estimated shortfall in the Fund;
!Would have repealed prioritization of nominating convention
funding over primary matching funds;
!Would have required participating party committees to spend only
public subsidy amount on their presidential nominating conventions,
i.e., would have prohibited solicitation, receipt, and spending of any
soft money on conventions;
!Would have required disclosure of name, address, occupation, and
employer of each person making a bundled contribution to a
presidential campaign (would have defined “bundled contributions”
as a series of contributions that, in the aggregate, totaled at least
$10,000 and were transferred to a candidate by one person or
included notification that a person other than donor solicited,
arranged, or directed those contributions);
!Would have capped taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural
products by $100 million per year to offset additional costs in
presidential public funding system.
Introduced July 26, 2006; referred to Committee on Finance.



Index
House Bills
Primary SponsorBill(s)
AllenH.R. 4900
AndrewsH.R. 2753
BartlettH.R. 45, H.R. 46, H.R. 689
CapuanoH.R. 4664, H.R. 5623
DoolittleH.R. 4759
DreierH.R. 4975
EnglishH.R. 701, H.R. 702, H.R. 914
HefleyH.R. 5839
HensarlingH.R. 1605, H.R. 1606
HoyerH.R. 850
Johnson (CT)H.R. 2294
Jones (NC)H.R. 4665
KapturH.R. 4692, H.Con.Res. 333, H.J.Res. 76
LarsonH.R. 471
LeachH.R. 4819, H.R. 5281, H.J.Res. 13
LinderH.R. 5374
MaloneyH.R. 338
MeehanH.R. 5905
Miller (NC)H.R. 4389
NeugebauerH.R. 3960
ObeyH.R. 4694
PenceH.R. 1316
PetriH.R. 491, H.R. 958
Price (NC)H.R. 1580
Rogers (MI)H.R. 4696
SchmidtH.R. 4180
ShawH.R. 1942, H.R. 2204
ShaysH.R. 513, H.R. 4194, H.R. 5676
TierneyH.R. 3099
Senate Bills
Primary SponsorBill(s)
FeingoldS. 1508, S. 3740
LottS. 1053
McCainS. 271, S. 2511, S. 3560
ReidS. 678
WydenS. 2434