Federal Election Commission
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency in the United States responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws. It oversees the financing of federal elections, including the disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. The FEC also administers the public funding of presidential elections and investigates and prosecutes violations of campaign finance laws.
4 Key excerpts on "Federal Election Commission"
eBook - ePubCampaigns and Elections American Style
The Changing Landscape of Political Campaigns
- Candice J. Nelson, James A. Thurber(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Three kinds of entities, known as “political committees,” are principally governed by FECA and related FEC regulations. Political committees include candidate campaign committees (e.g., Johnson for Senate), party committees (e.g., the Democratic or Republican national committees), and PACs. All political committees must regularly report their financial activities to the FEC (or, in the case of Senate political committees, to the secretary of the Senate, who transmits them to the FEC). 12 Political advertising and other activities classified as “independent expenditures” and “electioneering communications” (discussed below) must also report those activities to the FEC. Finally, the 1974 FECA amendments established the FEC; the 1976 amendments reconstituted the agency after the Buckley decision. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was perhaps the most consequential campaign finance decision the US Supreme Court has ever issued. 13 In brief, the case considered several challenges to the 1974 FECA amendments. The court upheld most of the amendments’ major provisions but also found some aspects unconstitutional. In one of the most important holdings, the court distinguished between permissible limits on contributions versus expenditures. Even though contribution limits constrained the donor’s political speech, the court held, doing so was a reasonable effort to limit potential corruption. The decision struck down limits on independent expenditures (e.g., funds spent to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate without coordinating with that candidate). 14 As election scholar Michael Ortiz explains, different potential for corruption influenced the court’s distinction between contributions and spending. According to Ortiz, Simply put, the Court believed that a candidate could become beholden to a contributor but not to someone who merely expended monies on his or her behalf...
eBook - ePubCampaigns and Elections
Players and Processes
- Stephen K. Medvic(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Mann (2005) “The FEC: Administering and Enforcing Campaign Finance Law,” in Anthony Corrado, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel R. Ortiz, and Trevor Potter (eds.), The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 233–234, 238. See 2020 reporting deadlines at Federal Election Commission, “2020 Monthly Reports,” www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/dates-and-deadlines/2020-reporting-dates/2020-monthly-filers/ (accessed April 5, 2021). Gregory Giroux (2013) “Crossroads GPS to FEC: No Means No,” Bloomberg.com, April 10, littp://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013–04–10/crossroads-gps-to-fec-no-means-no (accessed May 15, 2013). Jackie Calmes (2015) “Senate Report Cites IRS Mismanagement in Targeting of Tea Party Groups,” The New York Times, August 5, www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/sen-ate-report-cites-irs-mismanagement-in-targeting-of-tea-party-groups.html (accessed January 2, 2017). Federal Election Commission (n.d.) “Presidential Spending Limits for 2020,” www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/understanding-public-funding-presidential-elections/presidential-spending-limits-2020/ (accessed February 15, 2021). Center for Responsive Politics (n.d.) “2020 Presidential Race,” based on FEC reports as of January 11, 2021, www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race (accessed February 15, 2021). See Jamin B. Raskin and John Bonifaz (1994) The Wealth Primary: Campaign Fundraising and the Constitution, Washington, DC: Center for Responsive Politics....
eBook - ePubInterest Groups in American Politics
Pressure and Power
- Anthony J. Nownes(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...FECA 1974 essentially elaborated on FECA 1971. FECA was amended twice more in the 1970s—once in 1976 and once in 1979. Henceforth FECA 1971 and all of its amendments will be referred to simply as “FECA.” FECA mandated five major changes in federal campaign finance law. First, it established contribution limits—that is, limits on how much individuals, parties, and PACs were allowed to contribute to federal candidates. For example, individuals were limited to giving $1,000 per candidate per election (a primary and a general election count as two separate elections), up to a total of $25,000 per calendar year to all candidates and political action committees. In addition, PACs (which will receive more attention later in this chapter) were limited to giving $5,000 per candidate per election, with no aggregate limit. Second, FECA instituted a disclosure regime. Specifically, FECA required all candidates for federal office to file itemized reports of all contributions and expenditures over $200. Third, FECA created the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the federal agency charged with enforcing federal campaign finance law. Fourth, FECA created a system of public financing for presidential election campaigns. This system is extremely complex, but its basic contours are as follows. During the presidential primaries, the federal government provides matching funds for small donations to viable presidential candidates. During the general election, presidential candidates are eligible to receive full public financing for their campaigns. The money used for matching funds and public financing comes from the voluntary check-off on your tax return. In return for public money, presidential candidates in both the primaries and the general election agree to limit their spending. In the general election, the recipients of federal funds agree not to raise or spend money from other sources. Fifth, FECA instituted spending limits for congressional candidates...
eBook - ePubContested Words
Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Speech in Liberal Democracies
- Ian Cram(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The inequalities between parties can be compounded where private organizations, corporations and trades unions pay for advertisements that advance directly or indirectly the campaign of their preferred party. This chapter is not intended as a comprehensive statement of legal regulation in any of the jurisdictions discussed herein. Instead, it will set out to consider on a selective basis legislative reform of electoral finance laws and the outcome of constitutional challenges to such reforms. In the US, for example, Congress passed a set of measures aimed at eliminating perceived or real corruption among candidates for federal office in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 (hereafter BCRA). As would have been anticipated, the constitutional validity of BCRA was promptly challenged in the courts. In December 2003 the Supreme Court in McConnell v Federal Election Commission gave its verdict on the Act’s key anti-corruption measures. 5 The ruling of the Court had significant implications for the financing of the 2004 federal elections and is generally thought to have given the Republicans an advantage over their Democrat rivals. In Canada, judicial attention has focused on the question of expenditure limits during referendums and the extent to which citizens wishing to incur independent expenditures outside the two national committees expressly created to advance the case (including providing funds) for each option may challenge such limits under freedom of expression guarantees. On this side of the Atlantic, recent reforms to UK election law have sought to bring a measure of transparency to political donations as well as taking seriously the importance in referenda of facilitating the effective communication of each side’s arguments via provisions for core state funding. Aspects of each jurisdiction’s laws will be analysed in the following pages...
