Key Campaign Finance Laws

Why This Matters

Campaign finance law sits at the intersection of two core AP Government concepts: First Amendment protections and the tension between democratic equality and free expression. You're being tested on how the rules governing political money have evolved through legislation, court decisions, and regulatory structures—and why each shift matters for how campaigns actually operate. Understanding this topic means grasping the ongoing constitutional debate about whether money equals speech and whether limiting contributions protects democracy or undermines it.

Don't just memorize dates and dollar amounts. Know what principle each law or ruling established, how the Supreme Court has reshaped congressional intent, and why concepts like disclosure, contribution limits, and independent expenditures keep appearing in different forms. When you see a campaign finance question, you're really being asked: who gets to spend, how much, and with what transparency?

---

Foundational Legislation: Setting the Rules

These laws established the basic framework for regulating campaign money. Congress created these structures to promote transparency and limit the potential for corruption—but courts have repeatedly narrowed or expanded their reach.

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971

• Created the modern regulatory framework—established contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and reporting rules that still form the backbone of campaign finance law
• Established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as the independent agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance rules and monitoring compliance
• Mandated transparency through required reporting of all contributions and expenditures, making campaign funding publicly accessible

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002

• Banned soft money contributions to national parties—unregulated donations that had become a massive loophole in the FECA framework
• Restricted electioneering communications by prohibiting corporate and union-funded issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election
• Raised individual contribution limits to candidates while closing the soft money loophole, attempting to balance free expression with anti-corruption goals

---

Supreme Court Decisions: Redefining the Boundaries

The Court has fundamentally shaped campaign finance by applying First Amendment analysis to spending restrictions. The key principle: spending money to influence elections is constitutionally protected speech, but contributions can be limited to prevent corruption.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

• Established money-as-speech doctrine—ruled that spending money to influence elections is protected under the First Amendment
• Created the contribution/expenditure distinction by upholding limits on donations to candidates while striking down limits on independent spending
• Set the constitutional framework that every subsequent campaign finance case has built upon—this is the foundational precedent you must know

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

• Struck down restrictions on corporate independent expenditures—ruled that the First Amendment prohibits limiting corporate (and union) spending on political speech
• Enabled the rise of Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts as long as they don't coordinate with candidates
• Transformed campaign dynamics by allowing vastly increased outside spending, fundamentally changing how modern campaigns are funded

---

Current Regulatory Structure: How the Rules Work Today

These provisions represent the practical application of campaign finance law. Understanding these details helps you see how the legislative framework and court decisions translate into actual campaign operations.

Contribution Limits

• Individual contribution caps restrict how much one person can give directly to a candidate per election (currently $\$3,300$ per election as of 2024)
• PAC contribution limits are set lower than individual limits, with traditional PACs capped at $\$5,000$ per candidate per election
• Party committee limits exist to prevent national parties from becoming conduits for unlimited donations to specific candidates

Disclosure Requirements

• Mandatory reporting requires candidates and committees to file regular FEC reports detailing all contributions received and expenditures made
• Donor identification rules mean contributors above certain thresholds must be publicly identified, enabling voters to see who funds campaigns
• Enforcement mechanisms include fines and penalties for non-compliance, though critics argue FEC enforcement is often weak

Prohibition on Foreign Contributions

• Federal law bars foreign nationals from contributing to, donating to, or spending on any U.S. election at any level
• Protects electoral sovereignty by preventing outside governments or entities from directly influencing American democratic processes
• Carries serious penalties including criminal charges, reflecting the high priority placed on keeping foreign money out of elections

Restrictions on Corporate and Union Direct Contributions

• Direct contributions remain prohibited—corporations and unions still cannot give money directly from their treasuries to candidates
• Independent expenditures are permitted following Citizens United, allowing unlimited spending that isn't coordinated with campaigns
• PAC formation is allowed, enabling corporations and unions to establish separate funds that can make limited direct contributions

---

Alternative Funding Models

Public financing represents Congress's attempt to reduce candidates' dependence on private donors. This system offers an opt-in alternative to the private fundraising race.

Public Financing for Presidential Elections

• Provides federal matching funds to qualifying primary candidates and grants to general election nominees who agree to spending limits
• Requires demonstrated viability—candidates must raise a threshold amount in small donations across multiple states to qualify
• Has largely fallen into disuse as major candidates since 2008 have opted out to raise unlimited private funds, illustrating the system's limitations

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. How did Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United together shape the current distinction between contribution limits (which are constitutional) and expenditure limits (which largely are not)?

2. Compare FECA and BCRA: What problem was each law designed to address, and what loophole did BCRA specifically target that had emerged under FECA?

3. If an FRQ asks you to explain how campaign finance law balances anti-corruption goals with First Amendment protections, which two court cases and which regulatory mechanism would you cite?

4. Why can Super PACs spend unlimited amounts while traditional PACs face contribution limits? What legal distinction makes this possible?

5. Contrast the goals of disclosure requirements with the goals of contribution limits—how does each approach the problem of money in politics differently, and which has been more affected by Supreme Court decisions?