Campaign Finance Bills in the 107th Congress: Comparison of S. 27 (McCain-Feingold), H.R. 2356 (Shays-Meehan), H.R. 2360 (Ney-Wynn), and Current Law

Publication Date: January 2002

Publisher: Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

Author(s):

Research Area: Politics

Type:

Abstract:

S. 27 (McCain-Feingold), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, was introduced January 22, 2001 in a form similar to prior versions of the last two Congresses. On April 2, after a two-week debate and adoption of 22 amendments, the Senate passed S. 27 by a vote of 59-41. That measure's companion Shays-Meehan bill, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001, was initially introduced as H.R. 380 in a form similar to House-passed versions of the prior two Congresses; on June 28, the bill was modified and offered as H.R. 2356. H.R. 2360 (Ney-Wynn), the Campaign Finance Reform and Grassroots Citizen Participation Act of 2001, was introduced and ordered reported favorably by the House Administration Committee on June 28. (Shays-Meehan was ordered reported unfavorably at the same time.) The two primary features of the bills are restrictions on party soft money and issue advocacy. Party soft money. The Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold bills would ban the raising of soft money by national parties and federal candidates or officials, and would restrict soft money spending by state parties on what the bills define as federal election activities. The bills have been changed from earlier versions to allow restricted use of soft money for federal election activities by state and local parties. The Ney-Wynn bill would also ban soft money raising and spending by national parties for federal election activities, as it defines them. However, it would allow continued soft money use for generic party activities that do not refer to federal candidates, and for overhead and fundraising costs, subject to a $75,000 annual limit per donor. In addition, the Ney-Wynn bill would not curb the use of state and local party soft money. Issue advocacy. S. 27 and H.R. 2356 would create a new term in federal election law, "electioneering communication," thereby regulating political advertisements that "refer" to a clearly identified federal candidate and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. While S. 27 further specifies that the communication be made to an audience that "includes" prospective voters in the election, its House companion would require that, except for presidential elections, the communication be "targeted to the relevant electorate." Generally, disclosure would be required for disbursements over $10,000 for such communications, along with the identity of donors of $1,000 or more, and union and certain corporate funds would be prohibited from being used to finance them. The Ney-Wynn bill (H.R. 2360) would require disclosure of spending on broadcast communications made within 120 days of a federal election that "mention" a clearly identified federal candidate (by name, image or likeness) or, for non-broadcast ads, that "refer to or depict" such a candidate, are targeted to the relevant electorate, and involve total spending of over $50,000 in a year. H.R. 2360 would require disclosure of amounts spent, but not of sources of funds. All the bills would raise certain hard money contribution limits. Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold would adjust contribution limits for opponents of Senate candidates who spend large amounts of personal wealth. The latter two would also, among other provisions, change broadcast rules applying to the lowest unit rate (LUR) for political advertisements and add enforcement and disclosure provisions to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).