Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted 2002-03-27) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on 1 January 2003.
As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:
- The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
- The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.
Contents |
[edit] History
The first version of the McCain–Feingold Act was introduced in 1995 (S. 1219 introduced September 7, 1995). Over the next several Congresses various versions of the bill made it to the Senate floor, but were filibustered. Efforts to close debate were unsuccessful on several occasions (1996, 1998, 1999), even though the companion "Shays–Meehan" bill passed the House of Representatives several times (the last time by means of a discharge petition to bring the bill to the floor without the cooperation of the leadership, and on previous occasions by the threat of a discharge petition). In the spring of 2001 the full Senate finally approved the bill. The House then approved the companion Shays-Meehan bill, 240-189,[1] on 14 February 2002, a day after the White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer had indicated the President would sign (i.e. not veto) a bill "that improves the current situation". The Senate voted for the House's version of the bill by 60-40, on 20 March 2002, avoiding the need for a conference committee that might block key provisions of the bill. A filibuster was previously ended by cloture 68-32.
Campaign finance reform was a significant issue in the 2000 Presidential campaign, and Republican candidate George W. Bush said that he would support the bill if it were amended to regulate traditionally pro-Democratic sources (labor and government unions) as well as traditionally pro-Republican sources (businesses). The 2000 election campaign had seen an unprecedented growth in soft money, with the combined total for Democrats and Republicans rising from $519 million in 1996 to $629 million in 2000. The scandal enveloping Enron, a company which had been a major soft money donor, also helped build support for the bill.[citation needed] Bush signed the bill on 27 March. In an official statement, he said "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for Federal campaigns".
[edit] Legal disputes
- See also: Campaign finance reform
Provisions of the legislation were challenged as unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then-Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a long-time opponent of the bill. In December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. FEC.
Subsequently, Republicans and "watchdog" organizations have filed complaints with the FEC concerning the raising and spending of soft money by so-called "527 organizations" — organizations claiming tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (), but refusing to register as "political committees" subject to campaign finance law contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements. These organizations have been established on both sides of the political aisle, for example, Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 527s are financed in large part by wealthy individuals, labor unions, and businesses[citation needed]. In May 2004, the FEC voted to not write new rules clarifying the application of federal campaign finance laws to 527 organizations, thus leaving unsettled the legality of the organizations' activities in connection with federal elections. Although the FEC did promulgate a new rule in the fall of 2004 requiring some 527s participating in federal campaigns to use at least 50% "hard money" (contributions regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act) to pay their expenses, the FEC left unanswered the fundamental question of when a 527 organization must register as a federal "political committee"-prompting Representatives Shays and Meehan to file a federal court lawsuit against the FEC for the Commission's failure to adopt a 527 rule. In September, 2007, a Federal District Court ruled in favor of the FEC, against Congressmen Shays and Meehan.
In December 2006, however, the FEC did enter settlements with three 527 groups the Commission found to have violated federal law by failing to register as "political committees" and abide by contribution limits, source prohibitions and disclosure requirements during the 2004 election cycle. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was fined $299,500; the League of Conservation Voters was fined $180,000; MoveOn.org was fined $150,000. Then, in February 2007, the 527 organization Progress for America Voter Fund was likewise fined $750,000 for its failure to abide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle.
In June of 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow. The Federal Election Commission's interpretation and application of the new exception during the 2008 election cycle will determine the true scope and impact of the Court's decision.
[edit] Impact
The impact of BCRA first started being felt nationally with the 2004 elections. One immediately recognizable impact was that, as a result of the so-called "stand by your ad" provision, all campaign advertisements included a verbal statement to the effect of "I'm [insert candidate's name] and I approved this message."
