About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (March 20, 2001)

handle is hein.crs/crsahon0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Order Code RS20849 Updated March 20, 2001 Campaign Finance Reform: Constitutional Issues Raised by Disclosure Requirements L. Paige Whitaker Legislative Attorney American Law Division Summary Current federal election law contains reporting and disclosure requirements related to campaign financing.1 The Supreme Court has generally upheld such provisions, although imposing disclosure requirements on spending for communications that do not meet the strict standard of express advocacy may be held unconstitutional. Campaign finance reform legislation often contains provisions that would impose additional reporting and disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). For example, S. 27 (McCain/Feingold), would require disclosure of disbursements of expenditures over $10,000 for electioneering communications, which are defined to include broadcast ads that refer to federal office candidates, with identification of donors of $500 or more. S. 22 (Hagel/Landrieu) would increase and expedite current disclosure requirements under FECA. H.R. 380 (Shays/Meehan) would lower the current FECA threshold for contribution reporting from $200 to $50 and impose reporting requirements for soft money disbursements by persons other than political parties. This report will discuss some of the constitutional issues relating to these and other such disclosure requirements. Reporting of Contributions and Candidate/Party Expenditures In its landmark decision, Buckley v. Valeo,2 the Supreme Court upheld the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) applicable to contributions and expenditures by candidates and political parties. In Buckley, the Court determined that disclosure requirements can serve three governmental interests that were 12 U.S.C. §§ 432,433,434. Furthermore, since the promulgation of Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations in 1991, disclosure of political party soft money has been required. 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.8(e),(f), 104.9(c),(d),(e) (2000). 2 424 U.S. 1 (1976). For further discussion of the Supreme Court's holdings in Buckley and subsequent related decisions, see CRS Report RL30669, Campaign Finance Regulation Under the First Amendment: Buckley v. Valeo and its Supreme Court Progeny, by L. Paige Whitaker. Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Library of Congress