Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues and Options for Congress

Congressional research reportNov 22, 2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens

United v. Federal Election Commission: Issues

and Options for Congress

name redacted

Analyst in American National Government

November 22, 2011

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41054

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Summary

Following the Supreme Court’s January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election

Commission, questions have emerged about which policy options could be available to Congress.

This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy options that may be

relevant. It also briefly comments on how Citizens United might affect political advertising. A

complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the campaign and policy environments

is likely to be unavailable until at least the conclusion of the 2010 election cycle.

As Congress considers legislative responses, at least two broad choices could be relevant. First,

Congress could provide candidates or parties with additional access to funds to combat corporate

influence in elections. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or

require those making expenditures post-Citizens United to provide additional information to

voters or regulators. Options within both approaches could generate substantial debate. Some may

contend that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the

ruling would be to amend the Constitution.

More than 40 bills introduced during the 111th Congress may be relevant for legislative responses

to Citizens United. These include H.Con.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 13, H.J.Res. 68, H.J.Res. 74 ,H.J.Res.

82, H.J.Res. 84, H.Res. 1275, H.R. 158, H.R. 1095, H.R. 1826, H.R. 2038, H.R. 2056, H.R. 3574,

H.R. 3859, H.R. 4431, H.R. 4432, H.R. 4433, H.R. 4434, H.R. 4435, H.R. 4487, H.R. 4510, H.R.

4511, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4522, H.R. 4523, H.R. 4527, H.R. 4537, H.R. 4540, H.R. 4550, H.R.

4583, H.R. 4617, H.R. 4630, H.R. 4644, H.R. 4749, H.R. 4768, H.R. 4790, H.R. 5175, S.J.Res.

28 ,S.J.Res. 36, S. 133, S. 752, S. 2954, S. 2959, S. 3004, S. 3295, and S. 3628. The House

passed H.R. 5175, a version of the DISCLOSE Act (an acronym for “Democracy is Strengthened

by Casting Light on Spending in Elections”), on June 24, 2010. (For additional discussion, see

CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted), (name red

acted), and (name redacted)). Given the pace of developments since the ruling, this report is

not intended to be exhaustive. Relevant legislation that has been introduced thus far is reflected

through selected examples and in Table 1 at the end of this report.

This report is not intended to provide a legal analysis of Citizens United or of constitutional issues

that might affect the policy options discussed here. CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of

Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens

United v. FEC, by (name redacted), and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens

United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues, by (name redacted) et al., discuss legal and

constitutional issues.

Events described in this report are current as of September 2010, when the report was last

substantively updated. No major additional campaign finance activity occurred during the 111th

Congress. For discussion of the ongoing evolution of Citizens United policy issues, see CRS

Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for

Congress, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background on Key Issues .............................................................................................................. 1

Legislative Action Thus Far............................................................................................................. 3

Provisions in H.R. 5175 as Passed by the House, S. 3295 as Introduced, and S. 3628

as Introduced .......................................................................................................................... 4

Overarching Questions .............................................................................................................. 5

Selected Campaign Finance Policy Options for Congress............................................................... 5

Maintain the Status Quo ............................................................................................................ 6

Amend the Constitution............................................................................................................. 6

Enact Public Financing.............................................................................................................. 6

Provide Campaigns or Parties With Additional Access to Funds .............................................. 7

Restrict Certain Types of Expenditures ..................................................................................... 8

Revisit Disclosure or Disclaimer Requirements........................................................................ 9

Concluding Comments .................................................................................................................. 11

Tables

Table 1. Legislation Introduced in the 111th Congress Containing Policy Options that

Could Be Relevant for Responses to the Citizens United Ruling............................................... 12

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Introduction

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal

Election Commission. The ruling has the potential to reshape the campaign finance environment

politically and legislatively because previously restricted political advertising is now apparently

permissible. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy issues that

may be relevant for Congress as the House and Senate consider how or whether to respond to the

ruling.

At least two broad approaches may be available. First, Congress could raise limits on

contributions or coordinated party expenditures to increase the amount of money available to

candidates facing advertising aired by corporations or opponents. Second, Congress could restrict

spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures to provide additional

information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches may generate debate and

would entail advantages and disadvantages. Some may argue that the only way to provide

Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the

Constitution—an option that is likely to be controversial and laborious. As Table 1 at the end of

this report shows, and as the text of the report discusses, proposed legislative responses to

Citizens United contain elements of both approaches. Most bills have focused on requiring

additional disclosure (reporting of information). Some have also proposed restricting spending by

particular types of companies or groups.

This report is intended to respond to Congress’s ongoing interest in campaign finance policy

options following Citizens United. Given the pace of developments since the ruling, the report is

not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it provides an overview of those issues and options that

appear to be potentially relevant; it will be updated regularly as developments warrant. Additional

legislation will be reflected in future updates. This report does not provide—nor is it intended to

provide—a legal analysis of Citizens United or of legal issues that might affect the policy options

discussed here. CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate

Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by (na

me redacted), and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC:

Constitutional and Legal Issues, by (name redacted) et al., discuss legal and constitutional

issues. Another CRS report, CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis,

by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted), discusses the DISCLOSE Act

(discussed below) in more detail.

Events described in this report are current as of September 2010, when the report was last

substantively updated. No major additional campaign finance activity occurred during the 111th

Congress. For discussion of the ongoing evolution of Citizens United policy issues, see CRS

Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for

Congress, by (name redacted).

Background on Key Issues

From a campaign finance policy perspective, Citizens United appears to be most relevant for

political advertising funded by corporate or union treasuries. Two issues are particularly

noteworthy. First, corporations and unions now appear to be permitted to fund advertising

explicitly calling for the election or defeat of federal (or state) candidates. Second, previous

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

restrictions on corporate- or union-funded broadcast ads known as electioneering communications

have been eased. Despite these changes, corporate and union advertising purchases must be made

independently—meaning that the advertising may not be coordinated with the campaigns that are

supported or opposed in the advertising. The ban1 on corporate or union contributions to political

committees (candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees (PACs)),

remains in effect.

Before Citizens United, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)2, as amended, generally

prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds for making expenditures

influencing federal elections—including political advertising known as express advocacy, which

explicitly calls for election or defeat of federal candidates.3 Corporations and unions could,

however, establish separate segregated funds (PACs) to fund express advocacy or make

contributions to candidate campaigns, political party committees, or other PACs. Following

Citizens United, corporations may now fund unlimited express advocacy messages—provided

that the advertisements are independent expenditures, meaning that they are uncoordinated with

the campaign that is supported or opposed.

Also before Citizens United, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited

corporate and union treasuries from funding broadcast advertisements known as electioneering

communications that mention clearly identified federal candidates (but not necessarily calling for

their election or defeat) within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election.4 As

a result, corporations that wanted to air at least some messages referring to federal candidates

during periods preceding elections either had to establish a PAC to receive voluntary

contributions to fund the ads or forgo the advertising altogether.5 Now, however, corporations and

unions appear to be free to fund electioneering communications from their treasuries at any time.

Given these developments, questions have emerged about how political advertising might be

affected and whether the airwaves will be flooded with corporate express advocacy. The answers

to those questions are currently unknown, but they have implications for how campaigns at the

federal (and state) levels will be waged. Depending on the outcome—or potential outcome—

Congress might choose to enact legislation restricting political advertising or other aspects of

federal election policy. Because this is the first time in modern history that such expenditures

have been permitted at the federal level, it remains to be seen how much additional money, if any,

might flow into the political system. A more complete understanding of how Citizens United will

affect the political environment, including campaign spending, will likely be unavailable until

after the 2010 election cycle.

2 U.S.C. § 441b.

2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.

2 U.S.C. § 441b.

2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3). It appears that Citizens United upheld disclosure and disclaimer requirements for electioneering

communications. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate

Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, by (name redacted).

The Supreme Court arguably relaxed corporations’ abilities to fund electioneering communications in its 2007

decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Commission. For additional discussion, see CRS Report

RS22687, The Constitutionality of Regulating Political Advertisements: An Analysis of Federal Election Commission v.

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislative Action Thus Far

The legislative response to Citizens United began developing immediately after the January 21

ruling. In fact, some legislation relevant for the ruling was introduced even before the Court

announced its decision.6 The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held the first

Citizens United hearing on February 2, 2010. Both the Committee on House Administration and

House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held Citizens

United hearings on February 3, 2010. Each of the hearings assessed the ruling and considered

various policy options, as did a March 10, 2010, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Thus far, three hearings have considered specific legislation. First, on March 11, the House

Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government

Sponsored Enterprises, held a hearing addressing corporate governance and shareholder

protection after Citizens United. In addition to exploring general themes, various legislative

proposals, including Representative Capuano’s Shareholder Protection Act (H.R. 4790), were

discussed.7 Among other provisions, the legislation would require a majority of shareholders to

approve certain expenditures for “political activities” for the following fiscal year and board

approval for political activities exceeding $50,000. On July 29, 2010, the Committee on Financial

Services ordered an amended version of H.R. 4790 reported. Second, on May 6, 2010, the

Committee on House Administration held a hearing on H.R. 5175, the House version of the

DISCLOSE Act (discussed below). The committee held a second hearing (the third on specific

legislation) on H.R. 5175 on May 11, 2010.

Table 1 at the end of this report provides an overview of legislation that may be or has been

relevant for a congressional response to Citizens United. Most of the bills introduced concentrate

on one or two major policy issues (e.g., spending restrictions, shareholder protection, public

financing, etc.) and were introduced within a month of the Court’s ruling. By contrast, three bills

that have been the subject of more recent attention are House and Senate versions of the

DISCLOSE Act (an acronym for “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in

Elections”), sponsored by Representative Van Hollen and Senator Schumer respectively. These

bills include a variety of provisions, including many that appeared in other legislation noted

throughout this report. Representative Van Hollen introduced the House measure, H.R. 5175, on

April 29, 2010. Senator Schumer introduced the Senate version, S. 3295, the next day. After the

House Administration Committee reported8 an amended version of H.R. 5175 on May 25, the

House of Representatives passed the bill, with additional amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a

219-206 vote.9 Senator Schumer introduced a revised version of his bill, S. 3628, on July 21,

2010. The Senate chose not to invoke cloture on July 27, 2010. The bill remains on the calendar.

Two types of provisions in the DISCLOSE Act have been the subject of most legislative attention

thus far. First, provisions in the bill would provide greater information to the public and the FEC

For example, as Table 1 shows, Representative Grayson introduced several bills on January 13, 2010.

The Legislative Information Session and Congressional Record Daily Digest do not, however, note that a hearing was

held on H.R. 4790 per se.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on House Administration, DISCLOSE Act, report to accompany H.R. 5175, 111th

Cong., 2nd sess., May 25, 2010, H.Rept. 111-492 (Washington: GPO, 2010).

“Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,” House vote 391, Congressional Record,

daily edition, vol. 156 (June 24, 2010), p. H4828.

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

about certain political spending. In particular, the bill proposes additional disclosure (i.e.,

reporting) and disclaimer (i.e., sponsor identification) requirements surrounding independent

expenditures and electioneering communications funded by corporations, unions, and certain taxexempt organizations. Second, the bill proposes to restrict the ability of certain government

contractors, corporations subject to foreign influence, and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)

recipients from making expenditures or contributions in federal elections. These provisions, and

the other bills discussed in this report, generally appear to be focused on providing additional

information about, or limiting, the increased political advertising that some argue Citizens United

will facilitate.

Provisions in H.R. 5175 as Passed by the House, S. 3295 as

Introduced, and S. 3628 as Introduced

A comprehensive overview of this lengthy and complex legislation is beyond the scope of this

report. (For additional discussion of the DISCLOSE Act, see CRS Report R41264, The

DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name red

acted).) In brief, however, the various versio ns of the DISCLOSE Act would generally:

•

expand the current definitions of independent expenditure and electioneering

communication, thereby mandating expanded disclosure and disclaimer

requirements for certain political communications run by corporations, unions,

and certain tax-exempt § 527 and § 501(c) organizations (covered organizations),

and broadening the kind of communications that may be subject to FECA

prohibitions;

•

require covered organizations to report to the FEC information about their donors

(including transfers) and spending for certain independent expenditures and

electioneering communications;

•

require corporate chief executive officers or other high-ranking officials in

covered organizations to state their approval for advertising content, similar to

current “stand by your ad” requirements for candidate ads;

•

prohibit certain government contractors from making independent expenditures

and electioneering communications in federal elections; prohibit TARP recipients

from making contributions, independent expenditures, and electioneering

communications in federal elections; and prohibit corporations subject to certain

control or ownership by foreign nationals (e.g., U.S. subsidiaries of foreign

corporations) from making contributions, independent expenditures, and

electioneering communications in federal, state, and local elections; and

•

remove existing limits on coordinated party expenditures if a candidate or

candidate campaign does not control the expenditure.

Discussion of differences between the measures appears in CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE

Act: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Overarching Questions

Regardless of the particular legislative path proposed, major policy questions relevant for the bills

introduced thus far—and which may well influence debate over that legislation—include the

following:

•

Should corporate or labor entities be restricted in their abilities to make

independent political expenditures, and if so, how? In particular, should spending

by subsidiaries of foreign corporations be treated differently than other entities?

If so, what characteristics (e.g., ownership amounts, etc.) should be used to

determine which corporations will be subject to additional regulation?

•

What information about corporate or labor independent expenditures should be

reported to regulators such as the FEC or Securities and Exchange Commission,

shareholders, or voters? In particular, should corporate advertising be required to

personally identify chief executives in ads, corporate funders for ads, etc.?

•

Should Congress restructure the political financing system to provide candidates

with additional tools to respond to independent corporate or labor expenditures?

In particular, should public financing of campaigns be permitted as an alternative

to private fundraising; should a constitutional amendment be adopted permitting

Congress to otherwise regulate political money?

•

To what extent should the provisions of any legislative proposal apply equally to

various types of organizations? In particular, how should corporations, unions,

tax-exempt organizations (some of which may be incorporated), or other entities

be regulated, if at all?

As discussed below, existing law addresses some aspects of those and other questions, but

Congress could choose to enact additional provisions.

Selected Campaign Finance Policy Options for

Congress

In the wake of Citizens United, Congress must contend with how, or whether, to respond through

enacting legislation. This section provides an overview of various issues and options that have

emerged thus far and that might be relevant. The discussion here emphasizes those options most

closely related to campaign finance policy, such as restrictions on spending, advertising, or

fundraising. Additional options, legislation, or discussion will be reflected in future updates to

this report as warranted. Constitutional or legal issues that are beyond the scope of this report

may be relevant for the policy options discussed here; other CRS products provide relevant

analysis.10

See, for example, CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo

and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Maintain the Status Quo

If Congress chooses to take no action, the Citizens United decision would presumably be

unaffected. As noted above, corporations would be permitted to make independent expenditures,

including airing express advocacy messages, as much or as little as they chose. For those who

believe that Citizens United correctly strengthens corporate abilities to participate in federal

elections, or those who otherwise believe that a congressional response is unnecessary,

maintaining the status quo could be a preferred option. Those who believe that additional

regulation is necessary, however, may choose (or have chosen) to pursue legislation.11

Amend the Constitution

Both before and after Citizens United, proposals have emerged to amend the Constitution to

permit Congress to further regulate campaign finance. In fact, proposals to amend the

Constitution to give Congress more power to regulate political spending have been regularly

introduced since at least the 1970s. As of this writing, the following relevant constitutional

amendments have been introduced during the 111th Congress: H.J.Res. 13 (Kaptur), H.J.Res. 68

(Boswell), H.J.Res. 74 (Edwards, MD), H.J.Res. 82 (Hodes), H.J.Res. 84 (Schrader), S.J.Res. 28

(Dodd), and S.J.Res. 36 (Baucus). These measures illustrate that there are potentially multiple

ways in which Congress could frame a constitutional amendment, such as by providing additional

leeway to regulate campaign spending (or contributions) generally, or specifically with respect to

corporate campaign activities. Amending the Constitution, however, would likely be controversial

and time-consuming.

Enact Public Financing

Public financing of campaigns has long been seen as a potential solution to “big money” in

politics, including following Citizens United. Proponents argue that public financing would

reduce or eliminate candidates’ dependence on private funds, thereby limiting the potential for

conflicts of interest and permitting candidates more time to focus on policy matters. Public

financing of presidential campaigns has been in place since 1976, and 16 states offer public

financing of state legislative or executive campaigns.12 Several attempts to enact public financing

of U.S. House and Senate campaigns have been unsuccessful, although proposals have been

introduced regularly since the 1970s.

Traditionally, public financing programs offer grants or matching funds designed to cover full

campaign costs. In exchange for receiving public funds, candidates must usually agree to limit

their private fundraising and spending. Two public financing measures introduced in the 111th

Congress—H.R. 158 (Obey) and H.R. 2056 (Tierney)—would take such an approach (although

the two bills differ substantially). Also in the 111th Congress, three similar measures—H.R. 6116

In addition, the Federal Election Commission has stated that it will issue guidance to the regulated community. See

Federal Election Commission, “Supreme Court Issues Opinion in Citizens United v. FEC,” press release, January 21,

2010, http://www.fec.gov/press/press2010/20100121CitizenUnited.shtml.

For additional detail on the presidential public financing program, see CRS Report RL33814, Public Financing of

Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted). On proposals for public financing of

congressional campaigns and discussion of state programs, see CRS Report RL33814, Public Financing of

Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

(Larson), H.R. 1826 (Larson), and S. 752 (Durbin)—would not require candidates to limit their

spending, provided that campaign funds came only from public funds and small, private

contributions (i.e., $100 or less).

Enacting public campaign financing could arguably achieve various policy goals, such as

enhancing the role of small contributions and grassroots donors—potentially an attractive

alternative for those who feel that the status quo unduly focuses on large contributions. Some

candidates may also view participating in public financing as a way to deemphasize corporate

money in politics following Citizens United (although, as noted previously, the ban on corporate

campaign contributions remains in place).

On the other hand, publicly financed candidates may face challenges following Citizens United if

they encounter high levels of outside advertising targeting their campaigns. For example, even if

two competing candidates had roughly equal resources based on participation in public financing,

their abilities to raise funds in response to outside political advertising would be limited to public

financing amounts or additional “small dollar” fundraising (depending on the public financing

mechanism Congress adopted). Regardless of Citizens United, however, these same obstacles

could occur even without corporate express advocacy if a publicly financed candidate were the

object of high levels of opposition spending by privately financed opponents, parties, or interest

groups.

Provide Campaigns or Parties With Additional Access to Funds

If political advertising increases following Citizens United, political campaigns may feel

additional pressure to raise funds to counter outside advertising. At least two options exist for

providing additional resources to campaigns, parties, or both. First, contribution limits could be

increased. This option could allow those who wish to give more to do so, thereby increasing the

funds available to candidates or parties waging campaigns.13

Second, the existing caps on party coordinated expenditures could be raised or eliminated.14

Coordinated expenditures allow parties to buy goods or services on behalf of a campaign—in

limited amounts—and to discuss those expenditures with the campaign.15 In recent years, some

Members of Congress have called for increasing or repealing the caps on coordinated party

expenditures to provide parties with greater flexibility to support their candidates.16 In a postCitizens United environment, additional party coordinated expenditures could provide campaigns

facing increased outside advertising with additional resources to respond. Permitting parties to

provide additional coordinated expenditures may also strengthen parties as institutions by

For the 2010 election cycle, individuals may contribute no more than $2,400 per candidate, per election (for a

combined primary and general election limit of $4,800). Individuals may contribute no more than $5,000 to

multicandidate PACs (which includes most PACs) annually, and no more than $30,400 to a national party committee

annually. Contribution limits for 2010 are available on the FEC website at http://www.fec.gov/ans/

answers_general.shtml#How_much_can_I_contribute.

This option would not provide campaigns with additional funding per se, but it could ease the financial burden on

campaigns for those purchases that parties make on the campaign’s behalf.

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.

For additional information, including a discussion of legislation introduced in the 110th Congress to lift the caps on

party coordinated expenditures, see CRS Report RS22644, Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An

Overview, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

increasing their relevance for candidates and the electorate. A potential drawback of this

approach, however, is that some campaigns may feel compelled to adopt party strategies at odds

with the campaign’s wishes in order to receive the benefits of coordinated expenditures.17 H.R.

5175 (Van Hollen), S. 3295 (Schumer), and S. 3628 (Schumer) propose to exempt certain

spending from coordinated party expenditure limits if a candidate campaign does not direct or

control the spending.

Those concerned with the influence of money in politics may object to any attempt to increase

contribution limits or coordinated party expenditures, even if those limits were raised in an effort

to respond to corporate-funded advertising. Additional funding in some form, however, may be

attractive to those who feel that greater resources will be necessary to compete in a post-Citizens

United environment, or perhaps to those who support increased contribution limits as a step

toward campaign deregulation.

Restrict Certain Types of Expenditures

Following Citizens United, some debate has focused on whether Congress could restrict

independent expenditures, particularly if a potential risk of corruption—a historic rationale for

campaign finance regulation—could be established. At least three areas appear to be particularly

relevant: (1) spending restrictions on foreign corporations or U.S. subsidiaries, (2) restrictions on

government contractors, and (3) shareholder protection issues.

First, foreign nationals—including companies incorporated or having principal places of business

in foreign countries—already appear to be prohibited from making expenditures (including

independent expenditures and electioneering communications) in federal or state elections.18

Congress may choose, however, to pursue additional restrictions concerning U.S. subsidiaries of

foreign corporations or other corporations subject to foreign influence, such as amending FECA’s

current definition of “foreign national” to include additional types of corporations. Congress

could also clarify restrictions on PAC activity by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations.19 In

the 111th Congress, for example, H.R. 3859 (Kaptur) would prohibit PACs affiliated with

organizations or corporations controlled by foreign entities from making expenditures or

contributions. Other bills, such as H.R. 4510 (Grayson), H.R. 4517 (Hall), H.R. 4522 (Pascrell),

H.R. 4523 (Perriello), H.R. 4540 (DeLauro), S. 2954 (Menendez), S. 2959 (Franken), and S. 3004

(Brown, OH), could extend contribution or expenditure restrictions to corporations owned or

controlled by foreign principals. The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175, S. 3295, and S. 3628) also

proposes to amend the existing foreign national prohibitions.

Second, Congress could pursue restrictions on the amount of independent expenditures made by

firms that hold government contracts or receive federal assistance.20 FECA already prohibits

The long-running debate about relationships between parties and candidates is well documented. For a brief

overview, see, for example, Marjorie Randon Hershey, Party Politics in America, 12th ed., pp. 65-83; and Paul S.

Herrnson, Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington, 4th ed., pp. 86-128.

2 U.S.C. § 441e; and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

The FEC has determined through the advisory opinion process that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies may form

PACs under certain circumstances. For an overview, see Federal Election Commission, Corporate and Labor

Organizations, Campaign Guide, Washington, DC, January 2007, p. 17, http://www.fec.gov/pdf/colagui.pdf. In

general, however, the issue of PACs among U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations appears not to be addressed in

detail in FECA or FEC regulations.

On constitutional issues, see, for example, pages 21-30 in CRS Report RL34725, “Political” Activities of Private

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

individual government contractors from making campaign contributions or from soliciting

campaign funds. Government contractors may, however, form PACs.21 In addition to these

measures, the House and Senate could consider restricting the ability of firms with government

contracts from funding express advocacy messages, either in general or at certain monetary

thresholds. In the 111th Congress, bills such as H.R. 1095 (Maloney), H.R. 4434 (Grayson), H.R.

4617 (Walz), H.R. 4768 (Grayson), and S. 133 (Feinstein) propose additional regulation on

political expenditures by firms that hold government contracts, received federal economic

assistance, or both. Some of those measures also include restrictions on lobbying expenditures.22

The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175, S. 3295, and S. 3628) also proposes to amend the existing

government contractor prohibitions.

Third, some advocates of additional campaign finance regulation have proposed that Congress

consider measures to give shareholders additional voice in corporations’ political spending

decisions. Examples include requiring corporations to obtain permission from a majority of

shareholders before engaging in political spending (such as express advocacy) or requiring

corporations to provide advance notice of political expenditures.23 Both options could be applied

in general or with respect to particular levels of spending (or perhaps in certain races, at specific

times, etc.). Relevant measures introduced thus far include H.R. 4487 (Grayson), H.R. 4537

(Capuano), H.R. 4644 (Sestak), H.R. 4630 (Ackerman), H.R. 4790 (Capuano), and S. 3004

(Brown, OH). The DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175, S. 3295, and S. 3628) would require corporations

to provide additional information about certain campaign-related expenditures in reports to

shareholders, but would not require shareholder approval of such expenditures.

Shareholder protection measures could have the advantage of increasing the likelihood that

corporations’ political spending decisions will be consistent with a majority of shareholders’

wishes—or at least that shareholders will have notice of those decisions in advance. Notice or

permission requirements that are perceived as burdensome might also discourage corporations

from making political expenditures. This scenario, however, could raise questions about whether

the requirements were essentially stifling corporate political speech—a topic that is beyond the

scope of this report but may, nonetheless, be controversial.

Revisit Disclosure or Disclaimer Requirements

Congress might also wish to require corporations to provide information about political

advertising or other independent expenditures. Additional disclosure would likely entail reporting

information about political spending to government regulators. By contrast, additional

disclaimers would likely entail including identifying information within the advertising itself.

These two approaches could be pursued separately or jointly.

(...continued)

Recipients of Federal Grants or Contracts, by (name redacted).

2 U.S.C. § 441c.

On a related note, H.R. 4511 (Grayson) would restrict electioneering communications by corporations that employ or

retain lobbyists.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which generally advocates for greater campaign finance

regulation, has proposed both approaches. See, for example, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Corporate Campaign Spending:

Giving Shareholders a Voice, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University, New York, NY, January 2010,

http://brennan.3cdn.net/0a5e2516f40c2a33f6_3cm6ivqcn.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Disclosure, as the term is understood in campaign finance terminology, refers to reporting certain

information about contributions or expenditures, typically to the FEC. Political committees and

certain other individuals or organizations regulated under FECA must already file regular

disclosure reports with the FEC (or, in the case of Senate campaign committees, with the

Secretary of the Senate).24 Perhaps most notably for the purposes of this report, independent

expenditures aggregating at least $10,000 must be reported to the FEC within 48 hours; 24-hour

reports for independent expenditures of at least $1,000 must be made during periods immediately

preceding elections.25 The existing disclosure requirements concerning electioneering

communications mandate 24-hour reporting of communications aggregating at least $10,000.26

Both the independent expenditure disclosure requirements and the electioneering communication

requirements cover any “person,” including corporations and labor unions.27 Therefore, it is

possible that no legislative action is required to extend the current requirements to corporations

following Citizens United. Legislative action could, however, be required to amend those

requirements if Congress wished to do so.

The term disclaimers generally refers to identifying information that must be included in the

content of political advertising. Perhaps most relevant for the purposes of this report, FECA

requires that express advocacy messages funded by any “person” include

•

the name of the person (including a corporation or union) who paid for the

communication;28

•

the permanent street address, telephone number, or website address of the person

who paid for the communication;29

•

if applicable, that the communication “is not authorized by any candidate or

candidate’s committee.”30

If Congress determines that existing requirements, such as these, are sufficient, it is possible that

no additional legislative action will be necessary. If, however, Congress wanted corporations

engaging in express advocacy to provide additional indentifying information to the public, one

option could be to extend a model akin to the “stand by your ad” disclaimers currently required in

candidate advertising. These provisions, enacted in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, require

candidates to appear in broadcast advertising and state their approval of the ad.31 Thus far, bills

such as H.R. 4432 (Grayson), H.R. 4527 (Driehaus), H.R. 4583 (Boccieri), H.R. 4630

(Ackerman), H.R. 4749 (Price, NC), S. 2959 (Franken), and S. 3004 (Brown, OH) would require

additional disclosures or disclaimers following Citizens United. As noted previously, H.R. 5175

(Van Hollen) S. 3295 (Schumer), and S. 3628 (Schumer) propose additional disclosure and

disclaimer provisions.

2 U.S.C. § 432(g).

See, for example, 2 U.S.C. § 434(g).

2 U.S.C. § 434(f).

2 U.S.C. § 431(11).

2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)(3).

Ibid.

2 U.S.C. § 441d(d).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Disclosure or disclaimer requirements could have the advantage of increasing transparency

surrounding corporate political advertising. Some corporations might also be unwilling to engage

in certain advertising if they do not wish to be publicly identified with particular political

positions. Although the effect of a possible extension of the stand by your ad requirement to

corporate advocacy is unclear, it might or might not affect the tone of such advertising.

Concluding Comments

Whether or how Congress chooses to respond to Citizens United will become clearer over time,

as will the decision’s impact on the political or policy environments. Corporations (and

presumably unions) now appear to be free to use their treasury funds to use political ads to call

for election or defeat of federal (or state) candidates as often as they wish. If corporations or

unions choose to do so extensively, such spending could dramatically affect the campaign

environment by increasing the amount of money in politics—some argue potentially

overshadowing candidates and parties. On the other hand, some potential safeguards appear to

remain in effect. First, the ban on corporate contributions in federal elections remains. Second,

the fact that corporations can spend political money in new ways does not necessarily mean that

they will choose to do so. Finally, it is possible that the corporations interested in spending money

on politics are already doing so to the extent they wish by supporting PACs, engaging in issue

advocacy, or making contributions to 527 or 501(c) groups.32

As the 2010 and 2012 election cycles unfold, Congress may wish to monitor various questions

about how the political spending appears to be affected by Citizens United. One of the most

fundamental questions may be whether Citizens United will, indeed, spur substantial new levels

of corporate advertising surrounding elections. If so, will that advertising—particularly express

advocacy—be funded directly by corporations? Or, will indirectly funded advertising, such as

commercials already funded by 527 and 501(c) organizations, continue to be prominent?

Similarly, will new advertising occur nationally or be targeted to specific races? How will

affected campaigns respond, and how will the relative power of campaigns, parties, and other

actors be affected? Will corporations continue to form PACs, pursue express advocacy alone, or

both? The answers to these and other questions, which are not yet available, may help Congress

determine how or whether to respond through public policy over the long term.

For an overview of 527s and 501(c) organizations, including a discussion of disclosure requirements, see, for

example, CRS Report RS22895, 527 Groups and Campaign Activity: Analysis Under Campaign Finance and Tax

Laws, by (name redacted) and (name redacted); and CRS Report R40141, 501(c)(3) Organizations and Campaign

Activity: Analysis Under Tax and Campaign Finance Laws, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Table 1. Legislation Introduced in the 111th Congress Containing Policy Options that

Could Be Relevant for Responses to the Citizens United Ruling

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.Con.Res. 13

—

Kaptur

Sense of Congress

resolution

Would express

sense of Congress

that the Supreme

Court

misinterpreted the

First Amendment

in Buckley v. Valeob

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

01/08/2009

H.J.Res. 13

—

Kaptur

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

contributions and

expenditures

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

01/08/2009

H.J.Res. 68

—

Boswell

Constitutional

amendment

Would prohibit

corporations and

unions from

funding advertising

related to federal

election campaigns

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

01/21/2010

H.J.Res. 74

—

Edwards

(MD)

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

expenditures by

corporations

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

02/02/2010

H.J.Res. 84

—

Schrader

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

contributions, and

expenditures for

certain political

advertising

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

05/13/2010

H.J.Res. 82

—

Hodes

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

expenditures by

corporations

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

06/15/2010

H.Res. 1275

—

Yarmuth

Sense of the House

resolution

Would express

sense of the House

that it disapproves

of the Supreme

Court’s ruling in

Citizens United

Referred to

Committees on

House

Administration,

Judiciary

Congressional Research Service

04/20/2010

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.R. 158

Let the People

Decide Clean

Campaign Act

Obey

Public financing

Would publicly

finance House

campaigns

Referred to the

Committees on

House

Administration,

Ways and

Means, and

Rules

01/06/2009

H.R. 1095

Troubled

Assets Relief

Program

Transparency

Reporting Act

Maloney

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

using certain

federal economic

assistance for

lobbying and

political

contributionsc

Referred to

Committee on

Financial

Services

02/13/2009

H.R. 1826

Fair Elections

Now Act

Larson

Public financing

Would publicly

finance House

campaigns

Hearing held by

Committee on

House

Administration

07/30/2009

H.R. 2038

Clean Law for

Earmark

Accountability

Reform

(CLEAR)d Act

Hodes

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

Members’

authorized

campaign

committees from

accepting

contributions from

entities (or

affiliated PACs) for

which they sought

earmarks, or from

senior executives

or lobbyists of

those entities

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

04/22/2009

H.R. 2056

Clean Money,

Clean Elections

Act of 2009

Tierney

Public financing

Would publicly

finance House

campaigns

Referred to

Committees on

House

Administration,

Energy and

Commerce,

Ways and

Means, and

Oversight and

Government

Reform

04/22/2009

H.R. 3574

Restoring

Confidence

Through

Smarter

Campaigns Act

Higgins

Spending restriction

Would limit House

campaign

expenditures to

$500,000

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

09/15/2009

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.R. 3859

Ethics in

Foreign

Lobbying Act of

2009

Kaptur

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

expenditures or

contributions in

federal elections by

PACs affiliated with

foreign

organizations or

corporations

Referred to

Committees on

House

Administration

and Judiciary

10/20/2009

H.R. 4431

Business Should

Mind its Own

Business Act

Grayson

Tax

Would levy 500%

tax on corporate

campaign

contributionsc or

electioneering

communications;

and deny tax

deduction for

political advocacy

expenditures

Referred to

Ways and

Means

Committee

01/13/2010

H.R. 4432

Corporate

Propaganda

Sunshine Act

Grayson

Disclosure/disclaimer

requirement

Would require the

SEC to revise

regulations to

require certain

corporations to

report

expenditures to

influence public

opinion on matters

other than

promotion of the

corporation’s

products or

services

Referred to

Financial

Services

Committee

01/13/2010

H.R. 4433

—

Grayson

PAC restriction

Would apply

antitrust law to

corporate PACs

Referred to

Judiciary

Committee

01/13/2010

H.R. 4434

End Political

Kickbacks Act

of 2009

Grayson

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

certain

corporations

receiving

government funds

from making

campaign

contributionsc;

would limit

employees of such

entities from

contributing more

than $1,000 per

year

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/13/2010

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.R. 4435

—

Grayson

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

national securities

exchanges from

effecting

transactions in

securities of a

corporation unless

the corporation

certifies that it is in

compliance with

FECA

contributionc and

expenditure

requirements

Referred to

Financial

Services

Committee

01/13/2010

H.R. 4487

End the

Hijacking of

Shareholder

Funds Act

Grayson

Shareholder

protection

Would require

approval from a

majority of

shareholders

before spending

corporate funds to

influence public

opinion on matters

not related to the

company’s

products or

services

Referred to

Financial

Services

Committee

01/21/2010

H.R. 4510

America is for

Americans Act

Grayson

Spending restriction

Would amend

FECA definition of

“foreign national”

to include

corporations with

one or more

foreign principals

with ownership

interests

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/26/2010

H.R. 4511

Pick Your

Poison Act of

2010

Grayson

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

corporations from

making

expenditures or

electioneering

communications as

defined in FECA if

the corporations

employ or retain

registered lobbyists

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/26/2010

H.R. 4517

Freedom from

Foreign-Based

Manipulation in

American

Elections Act

Hall

Spending restriction

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/26/2010

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.R. 4522

Prohibiting

Foreign

Influence in

American

Elections Act

Pascrell

Spending restrictions

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/26/2010

H.R. 4523

Save Our

Democracy

from Foreign

Influence Act of

2010

Perriello

Spending restriction

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/26/2010

H.R. 4527

Corporate and

Labor

Electioneering

Reform

(CLEAR) Acte

Driehaus

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Would extend

stand by your ad

requirements to

corporate and

labor ads

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/27/2010

H.R. 4537

Shareholder

Protection Act

of 2010f

Capuano

Shareholder

protection

Would require a

majority of

shareholders to

approve certain

political

expenditures

Referred to

Committee on

Financial

Services

01/27/2010

H.R. 4540

Prevent Foreign

Influence in Our

Elections Act

DeLauro

Spending restriction

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

01/27/2010

H.R. 4550

No Taxpayer

Money for

Corporate

Campaigns Act

Tsongas

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

using federal funds

for certain political

or lobbying

purposes

Referred to

Committees on

House

Administration

and the Judiciary

01/27/2010

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

H.R. 4583

Stand By Your

Ad Act of 2010

Boccieri

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Would extend

stand by your ad

disclaimer

requirements to

certain

independent

expenditures by

501(c) and 527

organizations;

would require

identification of the

five largest funders

for such ads

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

02/03/2010

H.R. 4617

Separate

Taxpayer

Dollars from

the Election

Process Act of

2010

Walz

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

using certain

federal funds for

expenditures or

electioneering

communications as

defined in FECA

Referred to

Committees on

Financial

Services and

House

Administration

02/05/2010

H.R. 4630

Corporate

Politics

Transparency

Act

Ackerman

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement;

Shareholder

protection

Would require

certain

corporations to

report information

to the SEC and to

shareholders

regarding

independent

expenditures

Referred to

Committee on

Financial

Services

02/22/2010

H.R. 4644

Fairness in

Corporate

Campaign

Spending Act of

2010

Sestak

Shareholder

protection

Would require a

majority of

shareholders to

approve certain

independent

expenditures

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

02/22/2010

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

Short Title

Sponsor

H.R. 4749

Stand By Every

Ad Act of 2010

Price (NC)

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Would extend

certain FECA

disclaimer

requirements to

communications

that are “the

functional

equivalent of

express advocacy”

and to certain

Internet, e-mail,

and automated

political telephone

call

communications;

would extend

“stand by your ad”

requirements to

certain advertising

funded by

individuals or

corporations;

would require

donor disclaimers

in certain

advertising

Referred to

Committee on

House

Administration

03/03/2010

H.R. 4768

Bailouts Are

Not For Sale

Act

Grayson

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

certain

corporations that

make

electioneering

communications or

independent

expenditures from

receiving Federal

Reserve economic

assistance

Referred to

Financial

Services

Committee

03/04/2010

H.R. 4790

Shareholder

Protection Act

of 2010g

Capuano

Shareholder

protection

Would require a

majority of

shareholders to

approve certain

expenditures for

“political activities”

for the following

fiscal year; would

require board

approval for

political activities

exceeding $50,000;

includes safe

harbor for votes

not constituting

campaign finance

coordination

Ordered

reported by

Financial

Services

Committee

Congressional Research Service

07/29/2010

(see also table

note g)

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

Short Title

Sponsor

H.R. 5175

Democracy is

Strengthened by

Casting Light on

Spending in

Elections

(DISCLOSE)

Act

Van Hollen

Spending restriction;

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Would extend

various disclaimer

and disclosure

requirements

applicable to

campaign-related

spending by

corporations,

unions, and taxexempt

organizations in

certain

circumstances;

would restrict

expenditures by

certain:

corporations or

other organizations

subject to foreign

influence, TARP

recipients, and

government

contractors

Passed by the

House (219206),

06/24/2010

H.R. 6116

Fair Elections

Now Act

Larson

Public financing

Would publicly

finance House

campaigns

Referred to

Committees on

House

Administration

and Energy and

Commerce

09/14/2010

S.J.Res. 28

—

Dodd

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

contributions and

expenditures

Referred to the

Judiciary

Committee

02/24/2010

S.J.Res. 36

—

Baucus

Constitutional

amendment

Would permit

Congress and the

states to limit

political

contributions and

expenditures

Referred to the

Judiciary

Committee

07/27/2010

S. 133

Troubled

Assets Relief

Program

Transparency

Reporting Act

Feinstein

Spending restriction

Would prohibit

using certain

federal economic

assistance for

lobbying and

political

contributionsc

Referred to

Committee on

Banking,

Housing, and

Urban Affairs

01/06/2009

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

Short Title

Sponsor

Type of Major

Policy Option

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

S. 752

Fair Elections

Now Act

Durbin

Public financing

Would publicly

finance Senate

campaigns

Referred to the

Committee on

Rules and

Administration

03/31/2009

S. 2954

Prohibiting

Foreign

Influence in

American

Elections Act

Menendez

Spending restriction

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations

Referred to the

Committee on

Rules and

Administration

01/26/2010

S. 2959

American

Elections Act of

2010

Franken

Spending restriction;

Disclaimer/

disclosure

requirement

Would amend the

FECA prohibition

on contributions

or independent

expenditures by

foreign nationals to

include certain

corporations;

would require

additional

disclosures and

disclaimers related

to foreign control

or sources

Referred to

Committee on

Rules and

Administration

01/27/2010

S. 3004

Citizens Right

to Know Act

Brown (OH)

Shareholder

protection; Spending

restriction;

Disclosure/disclaimer

requirement

Would require

additional

disclosure to

shareholders

regarding

electioneering

communications

and shareholder

approval for such

communications;

would prohibit

electioneering

communications by

certain

corporations with

foreign ownership

or control

interests; would

extend stand by

your ad

requirements to

certain corporate

political advertising

Referred to

Committee on

Banking,

Housing, and

Urban Affairs

02/04/2010

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

S. 3295

Short Title

Democracy is

Strengthened by

Casting Light on

Spending in

Elections

(DISCLOSE)

Act

Congressional Research Service

Sponsor

Schumer

Type of Major

Policy Option

Spending restriction;

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Would extend

various disclaimer

and disclosure

requirements

applicable to

campaign-related

spending by

corporations,

unions, and taxexempt

organizations in

certain

circumstances;

would restrict

expenditures by

certain:

corporations or

other organizations

subject to foreign

influence, TARP

recipients, and

government

contractors;

contains mediarate and electronic

filing provisions not

addressed in

House bill (H.R.

5175)

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

Referred to

Committee on

Rules and

Administration

04/30/2010

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Legislation

S. 3628

Short Title

Democracy is

Strengthened by

Casting Light on

Spending in

Elections

(DISCLOSE)

Act

Sponsor

Schumer

Type of Major

Policy Option

Spending restriction;

Disclaimer/disclosure

requirement

Summary of

Major Campaign

Finance

Provisionsa

Would extend

various disclaimer

and disclosure

requirements

applicable to

campaign-related

spending by

corporations,

unions, and taxexempt

organizations in

certain

circumstances;

would restrict

expenditures by

certain:

corporations or

other organizations

subject to foreign

influence, TARP

recipients, and

government

contractors;

contains mediarate and electronic

filing provisions not

addressed in

House bill (H.R.

5175)

Latest Major

Legislative

Action

Cloture not

invoked

07/27/2010

Source: CRS analysis of bill texts obtained via the Legislative Information System (LIS).

Notes: Information in the table is for overview purposes only; individual bill texts provide additional detail.

Additional legislation not reflected in the table may also be relevant. The table does not include bills that do not

appear to be explicitly related to campaign finance. This table will be updated periodically.

This column includes summary information only. The contents of individual bills vary, particularly with

respect to use of particular terms or definitions reflected in the column. See the text of the measures for

additional detail. In some cases, items labeled as “spending restriction” are primarily restrictions on

contributions.

For additional discussion of Buckley, see CRS Report RL30669, The Constitutionality of Campaign Finance

Regulation: Buckley v. Valeo and Its Supreme Court Progeny, by (name redacted).

Corporate and union treasury contributions remain prohibited per 2 U.S.C. § 441b.

H.R. 2038 and H.R. 4527 both use the “CLEAR” acronym. The two measures are not companions and have

different full titles.

H.R. 4527 and H.R. 2038 both use the “CLEAR” acronym. The two measures are not companions and have

different full titles.

H.R. 4537 and H.R. 4790 share the same title. Representative Capuano introduced both bills. H.R. 4790 is a

modified version of H.R. 4537.

H.R. 4790 and H.R. 4537 share the same title. Representative Capuano introduced both bills. H.R. 4790 is a

modified version of H.R. 4537. H.R. 4790 was discussed at the March 11, 2010, hearing mentioned in the

text of this report, although the hearing was on not on H.R. 4790 per se.

Congressional Research Service

Campaign Finance Policy After Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in American National Government

#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.