Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act House of Representatives Results

2002 American law regulating political campaigns

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Long title	An human activity to better the Federal Election Entrada Deed of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.
Acronyms (colloquial)	BCRA
Nicknames	McCain–Feingold, Shays–Meehan
Enacted past	the 107th U.s. Congress
Effective	November half-dozen, 2002
Citations
Public law	107-155
Statutes at Large	116 Stat. 81 thru 116 Stat. 116
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" (H.R. 380) by Chris Shays (R–CT) on June 28, 2001 Passed the House on February 14, 2002 (H.R. 2356) (240–189 [R – 41–176, 5 NV ; D – 198–12, 1 NV ; I – 1–i, 0 NV]) Passed the Senate every bit the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Deed of 2001" on March 20, 2002 (threescore–40 [R – eleven–38, 0 NV ; D – 48–2, 0 NV ; I – 1–0, 0 NV]) Signed into law past President George West. Bush-league on March 27, 2002
United states of america Supreme Courtroom cases
McConnell v. FEC FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Davis v. FEC Citizens United v. FEC

The Bipartisan Entrada Reform Act of 2001 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.Fifty. 107–155 (text) (PDF), 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is a United States federal police that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.^[1]

As noted in McConnell five. FEC, a Us Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Deed was designed to address two issues:

• The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political political party committees from raising or spending any funds non discipline to federal limits, even for country and local races or issue give-and-take;
• The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, past defining circulate ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a principal or caucus or 60 days of a general election every bit "electioneering communications", and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit event organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or wedlock general treasury funds. The conclusion in Citizens United v. FEC overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.^[2]

Although the legislation is known as "McCain–Feingold", the Senate version is not the neb that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356—introduced by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), is the version that became constabulary. Shays–Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380.^[3]

History of the bill [edit]

In the aftermath of Watergate, Congress passed the Federal Election Entrada Act Amendments of 1974, which put new limits on contributions to campaigns.^[four] Four years later, the FEC ruled that donors could donate unlimited money to political parties (only not the candidates themselves) if the party used that money for "party building activities" such equally voter registration drives, but not to directly back up candidates.^[4] Both the Republican and Democratic parties all the same used this money to back up their candidates, and money donated to parties became known as soft coin.^[4] In 1992, President George H. W. Bush vetoed a bill passed by the Democratic Congress that would have, amid other things, restricted the use of soft money.^[5] President Clinton pushed for a similar nib, but was unable to go both houses to agree on i bill.^[4]

In 1995, senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) jointly published an op-ed calling for campaign finance reform, and began working on their own bill.^{[4] [6]} In 1998, the Senate voted on the pecker, but the beak failed to see the lx vote threshold to defeat a filibuster. All 45 Senate Democrats and six Senate Republicans voted to invoke cloture, but the remaining 49 Republicans voted against invoking cloture. This effectively killed the bill for the remainder of the 105th Congress.^[7]

McCain's 2000 campaign for president and a series of scandals (including the Enron scandal) brought the outcome of campaign finance to the fore of public consciousness in 2001.^[4] McCain and Feingold pushed the bill in the Senate, while Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) led the endeavour to pass the bill in the Business firm.^[4] In just the second successful use of the discharge petition since the 1980s, a mixture of Democrats and Republicans defied Speaker Dennis Hastert and passed a campaign finance reform bill.^[8] The House canonical the bill with a 240–189 vote, sending the neb to the Senate.^[9] The bill passed the Senate in a 60–xl vote, the bare minimum required to overcome the filibuster.^[half-dozen] Throughout the congressional battle on the nib, President Bush declined to take a strong position,^[9] just Bush signed the law in March 2002 after it cleared both houses of Congress.

Legal disputes [edit]

Provisions of the legislation were challenged every bit unconstitutional by a group of plaintiffs led by then–Senate bulk whip Mitch McConnell, a long-time opponent of the pecker.^[x] President Bush signed the law despite "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising."^[eleven] He appeared to expect that the Supreme Court would overturn some of its central provisions. Simply, in Dec 2003, the Supreme Courtroom upheld most of the legislation in McConnell v. FEC.

Afterward, political parties and "watchdog" organizations have filed complaints with the FEC concerning the raising and spending of soft money past so-called "527 organizations"—organizations claiming taxation-exemption equally "political organizations" under Department 527 of the Internal Acquirement Code (26 United statesC. § 527), but not registering as "political committees" under the Federal Election Campaign Human activity, which uses a different legal definition.^[12] These organizations have been established on both sides of the political alley, and have included high-profile organizations such as the Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 527s are financed in large part by wealthy individuals, labor unions, and businesses.^[xiii] 527s pre-dated McCain–Feingold but grew in popularity subsequently the law took event. In May 2004, the FEC voted to not write new rules on the awarding of federal campaign finance laws to 527 organizations. Although the FEC did promulgate a new rule in the autumn of 2004 requiring some 527s participating in federal campaigns to use at least 50% "hard money" (contributions regulated by the Federal Election Entrada Deed) to pay their expenses, the FEC did non change its regulations on when a 527 organization must register as a federal "political committee"-prompting Representatives Shays and Meehan to file a federal courtroom lawsuit against the FEC for the Commission's failure to prefer a 527 dominion. In September, 2007, a Federal District Court ruled in favor of the FEC, confronting congressmen Shays and Meehan.

In December 2006 the FEC entered settlements with three 527 groups the commission found to have violated federal law by declining to annals as "political committees" and bide past 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. In February 2007, the 527 system Progress for America Voter Fund was too fined $750,000 for its failure to bide by federal campaign finance laws during the 2004 election cycle.

In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in FEC 5. Wisconsin Correct to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor wedlock funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within xxx days of a chief or caucus or 60 days of a full general election are unconstitutional equally applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than every bit an appeal to vote for or confronting a specific candidate.^[xiv] Some ballot police experts^{[ who? ]} believed that the new exception would render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believed the new exception to be quite narrow.

In June 2008, the section of the act known equally the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Courtroom in Davis v. Federal Ballot Commission.^[15] This provision had attempted to "equalize" campaigns by providing that the legal limit on contributions would increase for a candidate who was substantially outspent by an opposing candidate using personal wealth. In 2008 one of the cosponsors of the legislation, Senator John McCain of Arizona, touted this piece of legislation and others that he sponsored in his bid for the presidency.^[16] Senator McCain consistently voiced concern over campaign practices and their funding. "'Questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics, and because they incite public distrust, they need to exist addressed no less directly than we would address testify of expressly illegal corruption,' McCain wrote in his 2002 memoir Worth the Fighting For. 'By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public'due south suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy admission in Washington, and admission increases influence that oft results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.'"^[17]

In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United five. Federal Election Committee, regarding whether or not a political documentary nearly Hillary Clinton could be considered a political advertizement that must be paid for with funds regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.^[18] In January 2010, the Supreme Courtroom struck sections of McCain–Feingold down which limited action of corporations, saying, "If the Get-go Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for merely engaging in political speech." Specifically, Citizens United struck downwardly entrada financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for past corporations in the 30 days before a presidential principal and in the 60 days before the general election. The ruling did not, as unremarkably thought, change the amount of coin corporations and unions can contribute to campaigns. The minority argued that the court erred in allowing unlimited corporate spending, arguing that corporate spending posed a detail threat to democratic self-government.^[19]

President Barack Obama expressed his business concern over the Supreme Court's decision during his 2010 State of the Wedlock Address, delivered January 27, saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open up the floodgates for special interests—including strange corporations—to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should exist bankrolled by America's well-nigh powerful interests, or worse, past foreign entities. They should exist decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right some of these problems."^[xx] President Obama also chosen the decision, "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, wellness insurance companies and the other powerful interests that align their ability every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."^[19]

Touch on [edit]

The BCRA decreased the role of soft coin in political campaigns as the law places limits on the contributions by interest groups and national political parties.^{[ citation needed ]} The BCRA had a "Stand up by Your Ad" Provision, which requires candidates in the United States for federal political office, as well as interest groups and political parties supporting or opposing a candidate, to include in political advertisements on tv set and radio "a statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has canonical the communication."^{[ citation needed ]}

The impact of BCRA outset started existence felt nationally with the 2004 elections.^{[ citation needed ]} One immediately recognizable result was that, equally a result of the so-called stand past your ad provision, all entrada advertisements included a verbal statement to the effect of "I'm [candidate'south name] and I approve this bulletin."

References [edit]

1. ^ "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act overview". Federal Ballot Commission. Archived from the original on 2012-03-24. Retrieved March 31, 2012.
2. ^ Electioneering Communications, Federal Election Commission. January 2010.
3. ^ "Religious Leaders Ask Senate to Pass McCain–Feingold As Written". National Council of Churches. March 20, 2001.
4. ^ ^{a b c d east f yard} Gitell, Seth (July 2003). "Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign-Finance Reform". The Atlantic . Retrieved sixteen Oct 2015.
5. ^ "Bush Rejects Campaign Finance Legislation". CQ Almanac. CQ Press. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
6. ^ ^{a b} Welch, William (20 March 2002). "Passage ends long struggle for McCain, Feingold". United states of america Today . Retrieved sixteen October 2015.
7. ^ "Campaign Finance Bill Likely Dead For The Year". CNN. 26 Feb 1998t. Retrieved xvi Oct 2015.
8. ^ Ehrenfreund, Max (29 June 2013). "The discharge petition's office in the clearing reform fence, explained". Washington Post . Retrieved 16 October 2015.
9. ^ ^{a b} Barrett, Ted (15 February 2002). "Entrada finance battle moves to Senate". CNN. Retrieved 16 Oct 2015.
10. ^ Cheves, John (xv Oct 2006). "Senator'southward pet issue: money and the ability it buys". Lexington Herald-Leader. Archived from the original on 2015-07-23. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
11. ^ "President Signs Campaign Finance Reform Human action". whitehouse.gov. March 27, 2002. Retrieved March 31, 2012 – via National Athenaeum.
12. ^ What is a 527 organization? Federal Election Commission.
13. ^ Justice, Glen (January xvi, 2004). "Finance Battle Shifts to Election Panel". The New York Times.
14. ^ Stohr, Greg (June 25, 2007). "Campaign Ad Limits Loosened By U.S. Supreme Court". Bloomberg.
15. ^ "Davis v. Federal Election Commission". Duke Law. 2007. Archived from the original on 2012-02-12. Retrieved March 31, 2012.
16. ^ Senator McCain's Voting Record, On the Issues.
17. ^ Nowicki, Dan; Muller, Bill (March i, 2007). "McCain Contour: McCain becomes the 'maverick'". The Arizona Republic.
18. ^ Liptak, Adam (March 24, 2009). "Justices Seem Skeptical of Scope of Campaign Police force". The New York Times.
19. ^ ^{a b} Liptak, Adam (January 21, 2010). "Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit". The New York Times.
20. ^ The White House Press Room, Remarks past the President in State of the Spousal relationship Accost Archived 2017-01-xx at the Wayback Machine, January 27, 2010.

External links [edit]

• McConnell v. FEC: Summary of the Supreme Courtroom's decision
• Now Playing at Reason.tv: One-time FEC Head Brad Smith on how campaign finance laws debauchee politics. And why John McCain won't shake his hand. Smith calls the BCRA, "Before Campaigning, Retain Attorney."
• Full text of the bill along with a summary

cummingsbefornes.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

Share this post