{
  "id": "98-282",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "98-282",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 103626,
      "date": "2002-03-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:13:53.000941",
      "title": "Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy",
      "summary": "Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular in recent federal election\ncycles. \nThese advertisements are often interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving\nto inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate\nthe election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has determined that issue\nads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech that cannot be regulated in any manner. \nAccording to most lower court rulings, only speech containing express words of advocacy of election\nor defeat, also known as \"express advocacy\" or \"magic words\" can be regulated as election-related\ncommunications and therefore be subject to the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act\n(FECA). Unlike express advocacy communications, therefore, issue ads may be paid for with funds\nunregulated by federal law,  i.e.,  soft money. \n   H.R. 2356  (Shays/Meehan), as passed by the House, would create a new term in\nfederal election law, \"electioneering communication,\" which would regulate political ads that: \n\"refer\" to a clearly identified federal candidate, are broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days\nof a general election, and, for House and Senate elections, are \"targeted to the relevant electorate.\" \nGenerally, it would require disclosure of disbursements over $10,000 for such communications,\nincluding identification of each donor of $1,000 or more, and would prohibit the financing of such\ncommunications with union or certain corporate funds. Likewise,  S. 27 \n(McCain/Feingold), as passed by the Senate, would regulate the same communications as\n H.R. 2356  in the same manner except, with regard to the audience receiving the\ncommunication,  S. 27  provides that the communication be made to an audience that\n\"includes\" voters in that election.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/98-282",
          "sha1": "3aa17bd8c6dd93a552eb47daeb25f9fcb636d968",
          "filename": "files/20020315_98-282_3aa17bd8c6dd93a552eb47daeb25f9fcb636d968.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-282",
          "sha1": "8d97ba41318ff3bfd97a70469520cc9dac7fefc1",
          "filename": "files/20020315_98-282_8d97ba41318ff3bfd97a70469520cc9dac7fefc1.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9626/",
      "id": "98-282 2001-07-10",
      "date": "2001-07-10",
      "retrieved": "2007-06-12T13:49:36",
      "title": "Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy",
      "summary": "Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular over the federal election cycles. Often these advertisements could be interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving to inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has ruled that issue ads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech and cannot be regulated in any manner. According to most lower court rulings, only speech containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, also known as \u201cexpress advocacy\u201d or \u201cmagic words\u201d can be regulated as election-related communications and therefore be subject to the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Unlike express advocacy communications, therefore, issue ads may be paid for with funds unregulated by federal law, i.e., soft money",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20010710_98-282_b80984a1bf3f619ef2ad6940d07c8207d62dd79a.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010710_98-282_b80984a1bf3f619ef2ad6940d07c8207d62dd79a.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Elections",
          "name": "Elections"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Campaign finance reform - Law and legislation",
          "name": "Campaign finance reform - Law and legislation"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808389/",
      "id": "98-282_1998May15",
      "date": "1998-05-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Campaign Finance Reform: A Legal Analysis of Issue and Express Advocacy",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/19980515_98-282_895b798afab2ecf8676ae951bbb716750285308f.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980515_98-282_895b798afab2ecf8676ae951bbb716750285308f.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}