Enacted in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly called the McCain-Feingold Act, is a major federal law regulating financing for federal political candidates and campaigns. The law was designed to address two key campaign finance issues: soft money and issue advocacy. Show According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money is "a term of art referring to funds generally perceived to influence elections but not regulated by campaign finance law." Prior to the enactment of McCain-Feingold, this included "large contributions from otherwise prohibited sources, [which] went to party committees for 'party-building' activities that indirectly supported elections." The law prohibited national political parties, federal candidates, and officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions in federal elections.[1][2] In addition, McCain-Feingold barred corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to finance issue advertisements (sometimes called electioneering communications), which are defined as "broadcast ads referring to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election or caucus." In 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that this provision was unconstitutional.[1][2] Legislative history On January 22, 2001, Senators John McCain (R) and Russ Feingold (D) and Representatives Marty Meehan (D) and Christopher Shays (R) held a press conference in which they proposed the bill that would become the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Shays introduced the bill (HR 2356) in the United States House of Representatives on June 28, 2001. The bill passed the House on February 14, 2002, by a vote of 240-189. Of the 240 votes in favor of the bill, 198 came from Democrats, 41 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Of the 189 votes against the bill, 12 came from Democrats, 176 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Six members did not vote.[3][4][5] On March 20, 2002, the bill passed the United States Senate by a vote of 60-40. Of the 60 votes in favor of the bill, 48 came from Democrats, 11 from Republicans, and one from an independent. Of the 40 votes against the bill, two came from Democrats and 38 from Republicans. Although he expressed some concerns with the law as passed, President George W. Bush (R) nonetheless signed it into law on March 27, 2002:[6][7]
Key featuresSoft moneyAccording to the Federal Election Commission, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act "includes several provisions designed to end the use" of soft money in federal elections. Soft money is defined as "money raised outside the limits and prohibitions of federal campaign finance law." Soft money is sometimes referred to as nonfederal money (meaning that the money is not subject to federal law). Specifically, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act does the following:[9]
Issue advocacySee also: Issue advocacyIssue advocacy refers to political advertising focused on "broad political issues rather than specific candidates." It does not attempt to persuade the public of particular electoral outcomes, but rather seeks to highlight broader political or social issues. Issue advocacy is distinguished from express advocacy, which expressly and clearly supports or opposes a particular electoral outcome. Express advocacy advertisements include "for" or "against" statements. Candidate-supported advertisements, for instance, which expressly state whether to vote for or against a candidate, are by definition express advocacy. Advertisements focused on broader issues, which do not use express statements of support or opposition, are by definition issue advocacy. Issue advertisements may make specific mention of a candidate or official, but such advertisements not explicitly call for the election or defeat of that candidate or official (instead, such ads may urge viewers to contact the named candidate or official).[10][11] The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act defined issue advertisements as electioneering communications. Electioneering communications are distributed within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. The law prohibited corporations and labor unions from funding issue advertisements. This prohibition was struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 (see below for further details).[9] Contribution limitsThe Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act raised contribution limits for individuals and select political committees to federal candidates. Some of these limits were also indexed to inflation; these limits were set to be adjusted during odd-numbered years. These changes are summarized in the table below.[9]
The law also raised aggregate individual contribution limits from $25,000 per year to $95,000 every two years. This aggregate limit was indexed to inflation. Aggregate individual contribution limits were struck down by the United States Supreme Court in 2014 (see below for further details).[9] Subsequent developmentsFederal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for SenateSee also: Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for SenateOn May 16, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held that a federal law limiting the monetary amount of post-election contributions a candidate could use to pay back personal campaign loans impermissibly limited political speech and violated the First Amendment. Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) capped personal loan repayment using post-election campaign contributions at $250,000. Writing for the 6-3 majority striking down the law, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech."[12] Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionOn January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to freedom of expression applies to corporations; thus, the government cannot limit political spending by corporations. Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.[13][14]
The court upheld requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by the sponsors of political advertisements. The court also sustained the prohibition against direct contributions by corporations to candidates.[16] McCutcheon v. Federal Election CommissionChief Justice John Roberts On April 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled that biennial aggregate contribution limits were unconstitutional. The Federal Campaign Act of 1971 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act imposed biennial aggregate contribution limits on campaign donors, limiting the total amount donors could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. At the time of the court's ruling, an individual could donate no more than $123,000 total to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle. In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down this cap. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court's majority, reaffirmed the federal government's right to place certain limits on campaign contributions "to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption." He added, however, that the federal government can only limit contributions to prevent "quid pro quo" corruption.[17]
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms McCain Feingold Act. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. See alsoExternal links
|
What replaced soft money once it was banned by the BCRA of 2002
Postagens relacionadas
direito autoral © 2024 mesadeestudo Inc.
