Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview Page: 4 of 12
This report is part of the collection entitled: Congressional Research Service Reports and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview
What Are Coordinated Party Expenditures?
Federal campaign finance law provides political parties with three major options for providing
financial support to House, Senate, and presidential candidates: (1) direct contributions, (2)
coordinated expenditures, and (3) independent expenditures.' With direct contributions, parties
give money (or in the case of in-kind contributions, financially valuable services) to individual
campaigns, but such contributions are subject to strict limits; most party committees are limited to
direct contributions of $5,000 per candidate, per election.2 Since the 1996 Colorado I Supreme
Court ruling (discussed below), parties may make independent expenditures, which are not
limited, on anything allowable by law, but may not coordinate those expenses with candidates.
Coordinated expenditures3 allow parties (notwithstanding other provisions in the law regulating
contributions to campaigns) to buy goods or services on behalf of a campaign, and to discuss
those expenditures with the campaign. Candidates may request that parties make coordinated
expenditures, and may request specific purchases, but parties may not give this money directly to
campaigns. Because parties are the spending agents, they (not candidates) report their coordinated
expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Coordinated party expenditures are subject to limits based on office sought, state, and voting-age
population (VAP). Exact amounts are determined by formula and updated annually by the FEC.4
Limits for Senate candidates in 2014, adjusted for inflation, ranged from $94,500 in states with
the smallest VAPs to approximately $2.8 million in California.5 In 2014, parties could make up to
$47,200 in coordinated expenditures in support of each House candidate in multi-district states,
and $94,500 in support of House candidates in single-district states.6 State party committees may
authorize their national counterparts to make coordinated-party expenditures on their behalf (or
vice versa). If such agreements exist, one party could essentially assume the spending limit for
another in particular states, in which case the designated party could spend up to its own limit and
1 For a discussion of campaign finance policy generally, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance
Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
2 52 U.S. C. 30116(a), (formerly codified at 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)). Effective September 1, 2014, the Office of Law
Revision Counsel announced that parts of federal election law were being reclassifieded" to a new Title 52 of the U.S.
Code. The citations in this updated report reflect the new and former citations for reader convenience. For background
on the reclassification, see Office of Law Revision Counsel, "Editorial Reclassification," at http://uscode.house.gov/
editorialreclassification/t52/index.html.
3 Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations define "coordinated" as "cooperation, consultation or concert with,
or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party committee." 11
C.F.R. 109.20.
4 Senate limits are based primarily on VAP, whereas House limits are based primarily on a flat allocation. Specifically,
the limits for Senate candidates and House candidates in single-district states are the greater of 2 cents multiplied by the
VAP, adjusted for inflation, or $20,000, adjusted for inflation. The limit for House candidates in multi-district states is
$10,000 (the 1974 base amount) plus adjustments for inflation, which have greatly increased the current limits over
base amounts. See 52 U.S. C. 30116(d)(3), (formerly codified at 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3)).
s For 2014 limits, see Federal Election Commission, "Price Index Adjustments for Expenditure Limitations and
Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold," 79 Federal Register 7190-7192, February 6, 2014. If a joint expenditure
designation between state and national parties were in place, the spending party, relying on both parties' limits, could
spend $189,000 and $5.6 million respectively.
6 52 U.S. C. 30116(d)(3), 30116(c), (formerly codified at 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3), 441a(c)). If a joint expenditure
designation between state and national parties were in place, the spending party, relying on both parties' limits, could
spend $94,400 and $189,000 respectively.Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
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.
Garrett, R. Sam & Whitaker, L. Paige. Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview, report, December 8, 2014; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817664/m1/4/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.