You limited your search to:

 Collection: Congressional Research Service Reports
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term “soft money” generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5848/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term “soft money” generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4389/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term “soft money” generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4388/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term “soft money” generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4387/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Prior to enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), P.L. 107-155, the term “soft money” generally referred to unregulated funds, perceived as resulting from loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431 et seq. Generally, the intent of BCRA, (effective Nov. 6, 2002), which amends FECA, is to restrict the raising and spending of soft money. This Issue Brief discusses constitutional and legal issues surrounding two major types of soft money that BCRA regulates: political party soft money and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. Corporate and labor union soft money, which FECA exempts from regulation and is not addressed by BCRA, is also discussed. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4386/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because such funds are generally unregulated and perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). More specifically, soft money is considered to be funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4385/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2596/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2595/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2594/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because such funds are generally unregulated and perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). More specifically, soft money is considered to be funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2593/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2592/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1627/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
As in the 105th Congress, many of the 106th Congress bills focus on political party soft money--subjecting contributions, expenditures, or transfers of national political parties to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the FECA. Other bills would restrict corporate and labor union soft money. Another major reform proposal would subject certain types of advocacy communications to FECA regulation, either fully or just insofar as disclosure requirements. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1154/
Campaign Finance: Constitutional and Legal Issues of Soft Money
Soft money is a major issue in the campaign finance reform debate because these generally unregulated funds are perceived as resulting from a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Generally, soft money is funds that are raised and spent according to applicable state laws, which FECA prohibits from being spent directly on federal elections, but that may have an indirect influence on federal elections. This Issue Brief discusses three major types of soft money: political party soft money, corporate and labor union soft money, and soft money used for issue advocacy communications. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1153/
Campaign Finance Debate in the House: Substitute Amendments to H.R. 2183 (105th Congress)
This report provides a summary and comparison of the 11 substitute amendments to H.R. 2183, a campaign finance reform bill offered by Representatives Hutchinson and Allen, that, under H. Res. 442, will be in order for consideration by the House. The House began consideration of the bill and these substitute amendments (as well as additional perfecting amendments) on May 21, 1998. This report is intended for use by House Members and staff in preparation for and during House debate and assumes basic familiarity with the underlying issues. It may be updated to reflect further legislative actions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs629/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 105th Congress: Comparison of H.R. 2183 (Hutchison -Allen), H.R. 3526 (Shays-Meehan), and Current Law
As pledged by Speaker Gingrich, the House renewed consideration of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The principal bill is H.R. 2183, known as the freshman bipartisan bill, introduced July 17, 1997, by Messrs. Hutchinson and Allen. Selected floor amendments and substitutes will be in order. The legislation that has generated the most publicity in the 105th Congress has been the McCain-Feingold bill (S. 25), offered on March 19, 1998, as H.R. 3526 by Messrs. Shays and Meehan;1 this has also been offered as substitute amendment no. 13 to H.R. 2183 in the current debate. Table 1 highlights key differences between the two bills, and Table 2 summarizes and compares H.R. 2183, H.R. 3526, and current law. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs628/
Campaign Finance Reform Bills in the 105th Congress: Comparison of H.R. 3581 (Thomas), H.R. 3526 (Shays-Meehan), and Current Law
On March 30, 1998, the House considered four campaign reform bills under a suspension of rules, focusing on the comprehensive H.R. 3581, offered that day for the Republican leadership by Mr. Thomas; it failed passage on a 74-337 vote. (The bill was similar to H.R. 3485, also by Mr. Thomas, reported by the House Oversight Committee March 18.1) The bill generating the most publicity in the 105th Congress has been S. 25 (McCain-Feingold),2 introduced on March 19 as H.R. 3526 by Messrs. Shays and Meehan. This report summarizes and compares H.R. 3581, H.R. 3526, and current law. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs627/
Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy
Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular over the federal election cycles. Often these advertisements could be interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving to inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has ruled that issue ads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech and cannot be regulated in any manner. According to most lower court rulings, only speech containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, also known as “express advocacy” or “magic words” can be regulated as election-related communications and therefore be subject to the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Unlike express advocacy communications, therefore, issue ads may be paid for with funds unregulated by federal law, i.e., soft money digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2581/
Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy
Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular over the federal election cycles. Often these advertisements could be interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving to inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has ruled that issue ads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech and cannot be regulated. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs626/
Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy
Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular in recent federal election cycles. These advertisements are often interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving to inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has determined that issue ads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech that cannot be regulated in any manner. According to most lower court rulings, only speech containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, also known as "express advocacy" or "magic words" can be regulated and therefore be subject to the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Unlike express advocacy communications, therefore, issue ads may be paid for with funds unregulated by federal law, i.e., soft money. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1623/
Voter Eligibility Verification Pilot Program
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs625/
Campaign Financing: Highlights and Chronology of Current Federal Law
Current law governing financial activity of campaigns for federal office is based on two principal statutes: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, and the Revenue Act of 1971. These laws were enacted to remedy widely perceived shortcomings of existing law, the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, and in response to reports of campaign finance abuses over the years, culminating in the 1972-1974 Watergate scandal. This report provides a summary of major provisions of federal law and a chronology of key legislative and judicial actions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1151/
Campaign Financing: Highlights and Chronology of Current Federal Law
Current law governing financial activity of campaigns for federal office is based on two principal statutes: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, and the Revenue Act of 1971. These laws were enacted to remedy widely perceived shortcomings of existing law, the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, and in response to reports of campaign finance abuses over the years, culminating in the 1972-1974 Watergate scandal. This report provides a summary of major provisions of federal law and a chronology of key legislative and judicial actions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs954/
Campaign Financing: Highlights and Chronology of Current Federal Law
Current law governing financial activity of campaigns for federal office is based on two principal statutes: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended in 1974, 1976, and 1979, and the Revenue Act of 1971. These laws were enacted to remedy widely perceived shortcomings of existing law, the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, and in response to reports of campaign finance abuses over the years, culminating in the 1972-1974 Watergate scandal. This report provides a summary of major provisions of federal law and a chronology of key legislative and judicial actions. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs425/
The Supreme Court Upholds EPA Standard-Setting Under the Clean Air Act:
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1621/
Environmental Reauthorizations and Regulatory Reform: From the 104th Congress to the 106th
The 104th Congress pursued efforts to reform environmental regulations on several fronts: (1) revising regulatory decision making processes; (2) attaching specific reforms to funding bills; (3) establishing a House corrections day calendar of bills addressing specific regulatory problems; and (4) incorporating regulatory reforms into individual program reauthorization bills. The 105th Congress has pursued regulatory reform in four primary directions: (1) proposals to establish a comprehensive cost-benefit/risk analysis framework for regulatory programs, (2) private property “takings” initiatives, (3) amendments and reforms directed at individual environmental statutes, and (4) oversight of environmental programs. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs953/
War on Drugs: The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4347/
War on Drugs: The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4346/
Drug Certification of Mexico in 1999: Arguments For and Against Congressional Resolutions of Disapproval
This report presents arguments for and against congressional resolutions to disapprove President Clinton’s February 26, 1999 certification of Mexico as a fully cooperative country in efforts to control illicit narcotics.1 These resolutions (H.J.Res. 35--Bachus, and H.J.Res. 43--Mica and Gilman) would disapprove the President’s certification, but would permit him to avoid withholding of assistance to Mexico if he determined that vital national interests required such assistance. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs952/
Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5841/
Drug Certification Requirements and Proposed Congressional Modifications in 2001
This report provides a brief summary of the existing drug certification requirements for drug producing and drug-transit countries, background on the experience, criticisms, and reform efforts under these provisions; a summary of early congressional options and proposals advanced in 2001, with possible advantages and disadvantages; a summary of later initiatives with legislative activity; and (5) a tracking of legislative action on the major initiatives. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1606/
Drug Certification Requirements and Congressional Modifications in 2001-2002
This report provides a brief summary of the existing drug certification requirements for drug producing and drug-transit countries, background on the experience, criticisms, and reform efforts under these provisions; a summary of early congressional options and proposals advanced in 2001, with possible advantages and disadvantages; a summary of later initiatives with legislative activity; and (5) a tracking of legislative action on the major initiatives. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2557/
Drug Certification Requirements and Congressional Modifications in 2001-2002
This report provides a brief summary of the existing drug certification requirements for drug producing and drug-transit countries, background on the experience, criticisms, and reform efforts under these provisions; a summary of early congressional options and proposals advanced in 2001, with possible advantages and disadvantages; a summary of later initiatives with legislative activity; and (5) a tracking of legislative action on the major initiatives. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2556/
Drug Certification Requirements and Congressional Modifications in 2001
This report provides a brief summary of the existing drug certification requirements for drug producing and drug-transit countries, background on the experience, criticisms, and reform efforts under these provisions; a summary of early congressional options and proposals advanced in 2001, with possible advantages and disadvantages; a summary of later initiatives with legislative activity; and (5) a tracking of legislative action on the major initiatives. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2555/
Drunk Driving: Should Each State Be Required to Enact a 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Law?
At the 0.08 BAC level of alcohol, braking, steering, lane changing, and judgment are degraded and the driving performance of virtually all drivers is substantially impaired. During the debate on reauthorization of the federal surface transportation programs, an amendment that would require each state either to enact a 0.08 BAC law or face the loss of a portion of its Federal Highway Trust Fund monies passed the Senate and will likely be considered in the House. This proposal raises questions about the effectiveness and impacts of a 0.08 BAC law, the rights of states versus the federal government, and alternative ways to encourage the states to adopt stronger impaired driving countermeasures. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs622/
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Paperwork in Special Education
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2552/
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Discipline Legislation in the 106th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1605/
The Americans with Disabilities Act: Eleventh Amendment Issues
This report provides a brief overview of the Eleventh Amendment to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1147/
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Selected Changes that Would be Made to the Law by H.R. 1350, 108th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4344/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): State Grant Formulas
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2551/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Reauthorization Legislation: An Overview
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs424/
Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs, 105th Congress Legislation, and Funding
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs619/
International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4328/
International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2546/
Martial Law and National Emergency
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6200/
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs4312/
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2536/
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress
No Description digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2535/
Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress
In the 107th Congress, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, House-passed H.R. 1699, would authorize the agency’s programs for FY2002. The report contains numerous provisions on Coast Guard operations and activities. H.R. 2481, as reported, includes certain housing and maritime safety provisions; S. 1214, as reported, would establish a seaport security program. P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), the FY2001 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, increased FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs2534/
Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress
In the 107th Congress, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, House-passed H.R. 1699, would authorize the agency’s programs for FY2002. The report contains numerous provisions on Coast Guard operations and activities. H.R. 2481, as reported, includes certain housing and maritime safety provisions; S. 1214, as reported, would establish a seaport security program. P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), the FY2001 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, increased FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million. digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1600/