Campaign Financing Page: 3 of 19
19 pages.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
IB87020
Campaign Financing
SUMMARY
Concerns over financing federal elections
have become a seemingly perennial aspect of
our political system. The most enduring issues
have been high campaign costs and reliance on
interest groups for needed campaign funds.
Rising election costs have fostered a
sense in some quarters that spending is out of
control, with too much time spent raising
funds and elections "bought and sold." But
many see spending in line with costs of other
goods and services, especially media, with high
spending reflecting a desirable level of elec-
toral competition.
Debate has also centered on the role of
interest groups in campaign funding, especially
through political action committees (PACs).
But funds from that component have dropped
since 1988 and, while interest groups' role still
underlies the debate, PACs per se have been
increasingly supplanted by other concerns.
Especially since the 1996 elections,
concerns grew over large sums of money
raised outside federal election law. Devices
such as soft money and issue advocacy raised
questions over current regulations' integrity
and feasibility of any campaign money limits.
The differences in perceptions of the
campaign finance system are compounded by
different reform approaches of the major
parties. Democrats have tended to favor
spending limits, usually with public funding or
benefits to induce voluntary adherence. Re-
publicans have, in general, opposed such limitsand public funding, seeking instead to change
the mix of funding sources and encourage
competition and local resident giving.Democrats in the 101st-103rd Congresses
passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and
PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd
Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102"d
Congress conference bill was vetoed.
Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a
similar measure but failed on a Senate cloture
vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving
parties and local citizens a greater role, which
was defeated, as was a Democratic alternative.
The 105th Congress saw 135 proposed
reform bills and numerous hearings. The
House debated reform twice. On March 30,
1998, it considered a GOP-leadership bill and
three narrower measures under suspension of
rules, passing one bill to ban foreign national
contributions and one to improve disclosure
and enforcement and defeating the leadership
bill and the Paycheck Protection Act. In
response to a discharge petition drive, the
House renewed consideration of the issue on
May 21, in a lengthy process focused on the
"freshman bipartisan bill" (H.R. 2183), 11
substitutes, and a constitutional amendment.
Debate ended August 6, with passage of H.R.
2183, as revised (the Shays-Meehan bill).
On three occasions in the 105th Congress,
the Senate debated the McCain-Feingold bill
(the Shays-Meehan companion), each time
ending in failed cloture votes: three in October
1997, and one each in February and September
1998 on a narrowed version of the bill. With
the latter vote, the campaign finance issue died
for the 105th Congress.In the 106th Congress, the House passed
the Shays-Meehan bill, as amended, on
September 14. Senate debate on the issue
began October 13 and ended October 20,
following two unsuccessful cloture votes.
CRSICongressional Research Service . The Library of Congress
01-12-00
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Cantor, Joseph E. Campaign Financing, report, January 12, 2000; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1152/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.