You limited your search to:
Resource Type:
Text
Collection:
Congressional Research Service Reports
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law
Date: May 3, 2002
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was enacted on March 27, 2002 as P.L. 107-155. It passed the House on February 14, 2002, as H.R. 2356 (Shays- Meehan), by a 240-189 vote. Its companion measure, on which it was largely based, had initially been passed by the Senate in 2001 as S. 27 (McCain-Feingold). On March 20, 2002, however, the Senate approved the House-passed H.R. 2356 by a 60- 40 vote, thus avoiding a conference to reconcile differences between S. 27 and H.R. 2356. The two primary features of P.L. 107-155 are restrictions on party soft money and issue advocacy.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6524/
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law
Date: January 9, 2004
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was enacted on March 27, 2002 as P.L. 107-155. It passed the House on February 14, 2002, as H.R. 2356 (Shays- Meehan), by a 240-189 vote. Its companion measure, on which it was largely based, had initially been passed by the Senate in 2001 as S. 27 (McCain-Feingold). On March 20, 2002, however, the Senate approved the House-passed H.R. 2356 by a 60- 40 vote, thus avoiding a conference to reconcile differences between S. 27 and H.R. 2356. The two primary features of P.L. 107-155 are restrictions on party soft money and issue advocacy.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5854/
Business and Labor Spending in U.S. Elections
Date: October 28, 1997
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Federal election law has long prohibited corporate and union spending in federal elections, but distinctions in statutes and judicial rulings have opened avenues by which these groups have been able to spend money in the electoral process. Business groups make particular use of political action committee (PAC) donations to candidates and soft money donations to parties. Unions made prominent use of issue advocacy in 1996, but labor’s political strength lies in exempt activity communications with members. This report explains these tools and their use in today’s elections.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs468/
Campaign Finance
Date: May 19, 2005
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. This report discusses campaign finance practices, enduring issues and today’s paramount issues. In addition it presents the Legislative Action in the 108th and 109th Congress, as well as the Congressional efforts to close perceived loopholes in Federal Election Law.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6417/
Campaign Finance
Date: May 25, 2005
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. This report discusses campaign finance practices, enduring issues and today’s paramount issues. In addition it presents the Legislative Action in the 108th and 109th Congress, as well as the Congressional efforts to close perceived loopholes in Federal Election Law.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6418/
Campaign Finance
Date: June 27, 2005
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. This report discusses campaign finance practices, enduring issues and today’s paramount issues. In addition it presents the Legislative Action in the 108th and 109th Congress, as well as the Congressional efforts to close perceived loopholes in Federal Election Law.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6419/
Campaign Finance
Date: April 20, 2005
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. This report discusses campaign finance practices, enduring issues and today’s paramount issues. In addition it presents the Legislative Action in the 108th and 109th Congress, as well as the Congressional efforts to close perceived loopholes in Federal Election Law.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6213/
Campaign Finance
Date: February 8, 2006
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. This report discusses campaign finance practices, enduring issues and today’s paramount issues. In addition it presents the Legislative Action in the 108th and 109th Congress, as well as the Congressional efforts to close perceived loopholes in Federal Election Law.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8651/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 105th Congress: Comparison of H.R. 2183 (Hutchison -Allen), H.R. 3526 (Shays-Meehan), and Current Law
Date: July 22, 1998
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: 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.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs628/
Campaign Finance Bills in the 106th Congress: Comparison of Shays-Meehan, as passed, with McCain-Feingold, as considered
Date: January 12, 2000
Creator: Cantor, Joseph E
Description: On September 14, 1999, the House passed the Shays-Meehan bill--H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, as amended, by a vote of 252-177. Senate sponsors of the companion measure, S. 26 (McCain-Feingold), revised their proposal and, on September 16, introduced S. 1593, containing just four sections of H.R. 417 and S. 26. The Senate debated S. 1593 from October 13-20, culminating in unsuccessful cloture votes October 19 on two amendments: Daschle amendment 2298, substituting text nearly identical to the House-passed H.R. 417; and Reid amendment 2229 (a perfecting amendment to no. 2298), substituting text of S. 1593 as offered, plus McCain amendment 2294 (adopted October 14), which added certain disclosure requirements. This report compares provisions of the House-passed bill with the one considered by the Senate in October 1999. No further updates are planned.
Contributing Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department
Permallink:digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1160/