Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns (CRS Report for Congress)
Release Date |
Revised Feb. 7, 2017 |
Report Number |
R41604 |
Report Type |
Report |
Authors |
R. Sam Garrett, Acting Section Research Manager/Specialist in American National Government |
Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised Feb. 11, 2016 (8 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised March 4, 2015 (8 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised March 3, 2015 (8 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Jan. 8, 2014 (7 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Dec. 9, 2013 (7 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised May 10, 2013 (6 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Nov. 28, 2011 (5 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
Congress is faced with determining whether it wants public financing of presidential campaigns
to continue and, if so, how. The 113th Congress and President Obama chose to eliminate part of
the program—public funding for nominating conventions—in April 2014 via P.L. 113-94 (H.R.
2019).1 The 2016 conventions were the first to be entirely privately financed since 1972. Public
matching funds and grants remain in place for candidates who choose to participate. There is,
however, a consensus even among supporters that the presidential public financing program is
antiquated and offers insufficient benefits to attract the most competitive candidates.
Most major presidential candidates have declined to participate in public financing since at least
2008. In 2016, Democratic candidate Martin O’Malley’s campaign qualified for primary
matching funds, as did Green Party nominee Jill Stein. No major candidate accepted public funds
in 2012. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama became the first person, since the public
financing program’s inception, elected President without accepting any public funds. For some,
these developments signal an urgent need to save the public campaign financing program that has
existed since the 1970s; for others, they suggest that the program is unnecessary.
Proposals to curtail the presidential public financing program have been a consistent theme in
recent Congresses. In the 115th Congress, H.R. 133, H.R. 25, and S. 18 would eliminate the
program, although the latter two bills primarily address other topics. On February 7, 2017, the
Committee on House Administration ordered H.R. 133 reported favorably. In the 114th Congress,
H.R. 412 would have eliminated candidate funding—the only remaining component of the
program. By voice vote and without debate or amendments, on March 4, 2015, the Committee on
House Administration ordered the bill reported favorably. The committee issued its report on
December 3, 2015.
2 Eight bills introduced in the 113th Congress—H.R. 94, H.R. 95, H.R. 260,
H.R. 270, H.R. 1724, H.R. 2019, H.R. 2857, and S. 118—would have terminated all or parts of
the program. As noted previously, one of those measures, H.R. 2019, became law.
The 112th Congress also considered terminating the program. Two bills passed the House but died
in the Senate. On January 26, 2011, the House passed H.R. 359 to repeal public financing of
presidential campaigns and nominating conventions. In addition, on December 1, 2011, the House
passed H.R. 3463. The latter bill proposed to terminate the public financing program (in addition
to eliminating the Election Assistance Commission) and transfer remaining amounts to the
general fund of the U.S. Treasury for use in deficit reduction.
This report provides a brief policy overview and raises potential issues for congressional
consideration. Readers may consult the following CRS products for additional background.
CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview
and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett
CRS Report R43976, Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: An
Overview, by R. Sam Garrett and Shawn Reese; and
CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent
Developments and Issues for Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
For discussion of increased contribution limits for political parties, including for privately
financed conventions, see CRS Report R43825, Increased Campaign Contribution Limits in the
FY2015 Omnibus Appropriations Law: Frequently Asked Questions, by R. Sam Garrett. For a
discussion of constitutional considerations, which are beyond the scope of this report and those
noted above, readers may consult CRS Report R43719, Campaign Finance: Constitutionality of
Limits on Contributions and Expenditures, by L. Paige Whitaker.