{ "id": "R44447", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44447", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 587706, "date": "2016-07-12", "retrieved": "2019-05-03T15:41:09.482762", "title": "Campaign Contributions and the Ethics of Elected Officials: Regulation Under Federal Law", "summary": "Allegations of political corruption often involve questions regarding a public official or candidate\u2019s use of campaign funds or the relationship between campaign contributors and the candidate or official. A common concern is that a particular individual, private organization, company, or other entity \u201cbought\u201d\u2014through large campaign contributions widely distributed\u2014particular official favors, official acts, or official forbearance from officers or employees of the federal government. These issues have been highlighted in several high-profile cases over recent years. In 2016, the Supreme Court clarified the boundaries of federal political corruption statutes in McDonnell v. United States, in which it examined which actions taken by public officials could be considered \u201cofficial acts.\u201d\nIn an effort to curb corruption in the political process, Congress has enacted laws that regulate campaign contributions made to federal office candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) regulates contributions in three general ways, by establishing limits, source restrictions, and disclosure requirements. Source restrictions include prohibitions on contributions from government contractors, foreign nationals, and the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions (corporate and labor union political action committee (PAC) contributions are permitted). Further, the law prohibits the converting of campaign funds for personal use; that is, it bans contributions from being used to fulfill any expense that would exist \u201cirrespective\u201d of the candidate\u2019s campaign or federal officeholder duties. Courts have generally upheld these regulations in order to maintain the integrity of the democratic process by protecting against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. In addition to civil penalties, it is notable that FECA sets forth a range of criminal penalties.\nIn addition to the direct federal regulation of campaign contributions, a number of federal political corruption provisions prohibit federal officials from receiving personal benefits that are related, in certain ways, to their official acts. Among some of the most common concerns raised in political corruption cases are bribery, illegal gratuities, and extortion. Laws criminalizing these activities bear upon the relationship of official acts to otherwise lawful contributions: The prohibition on bribery precludes officials from accepting contributions in exchange for performance of an official act. The prohibition on illegal gratuities does not require that the contribution be made in exchange for the official act, but instead precludes officials from accepting contributions made because of the official act. The prohibition on extortion precludes officials from using their position to demand contributions in exchange for official action. Additionally, a number of political corruption cases involve charges of so-called \u201chonest services\u201d fraud, alleged when public officials engage in schemes that deprive the public of honest services of government officials.\nThis report provides an overview of federal campaign finance and public corruption laws that may be relevant to the political campaigns of elected officials, including discussion of provisions that could be implicated in cases involving the misuse of campaign funds or malintent of campaign contributions.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44447", "sha1": "32d83e26e244ba34c3bebd43627859b2734fb512", "filename": "files/20160712_R44447_32d83e26e244ba34c3bebd43627859b2734fb512.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44447", "sha1": "6a578aec9a709d1a5906cdafd16b4834218c885f", "filename": "files/20160712_R44447_6a578aec9a709d1a5906cdafd16b4834218c885f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451460, "date": "2016-04-04", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T17:31:18.106029", "title": "Campaign Contributions and the Ethics of Elected Officials: Regulation Under Federal Law", "summary": "Allegations of political corruption often involve questions regarding a public official or candidate\u2019s use of campaign funds or the relationship between campaign contributors and the candidate or official. A common concern is that a particular individual, private organization, company, or other entity \u201cbought\u201d\u2014through large campaign contributions widely distributed\u2014particular official favors, official acts, or official forbearance from officers or employees of the federal government. These issues have been highlighted in several high-profile cases over recent years. Most recently, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider McDonnell v. United States, a case providing the opportunity to clarify the boundaries of federal political corruption statutes. Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for April 27, 2016.\nIn an effort to curb corruption in the political process, Congress has enacted laws that regulate campaign contributions made to federal office candidates. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) regulates contributions in three general ways, by establishing limits, source restrictions, and disclosure requirements. Source restrictions include prohibitions on contributions from government contractors, foreign nationals, and the general treasuries of corporations and labor unions (corporate and labor union political action committee (PAC) contributions are permitted). Further, the law prohibits the converting of campaign funds for personal use; that is, it bans contributions from being used to fulfill any expense that would exist \u201cirrespective\u201d of the candidate\u2019s campaign or federal officeholder duties. Courts have generally upheld these regulations in order to maintain the integrity of the democratic process by limiting the influence that one individual or entity may have on a particular elected official, and to protect against quid pro quo corruption and its appearance. In addition to civil penalties, it is notable that FECA sets forth a range of criminal penalties.\nIn addition to the direct federal regulation of campaign contributions, a number of federal political corruption provisions that prohibit federal officials from receiving personal benefits that are related, in certain ways, to their official acts. Among some of the most common concerns raised in political corruption cases are bribery, illegal gratuities, and extortion. Laws criminalizing these activities bear upon the relationship of official acts to otherwise lawful contributions: The prohibition on bribery precludes officials from accepting contributions in exchange for performance of an official act. The prohibition on illegal gratuities does not require that the contribution be made in exchange for the official act, but instead precludes officials from accepting contributions made because of the official act. The prohibition on extortion precludes officials from using their position to demand contributions in exchange for official action. Additionally, a number of political corruption cases involve charges of so-called \u201chonest services\u201d fraud, alleged when public officials engage in schemes that deprive the public of honest services of government officials.\nThis report provides an overview of federal campaign finance and public corruption laws that may be relevant to the political campaigns of elected officials, including discussion of provisions that could be implicated in cases involving the misuse of campaign funds or malintent of campaign contributions.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44447", "sha1": "74fa270884310a79eccec795dc7384462bf7d1c8", "filename": "files/20160404_R44447_74fa270884310a79eccec795dc7384462bf7d1c8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44447", "sha1": "fa8279adef671dbea1610b9f7bda6b62a9a1355c", "filename": "files/20160404_R44447_fa8279adef671dbea1610b9f7bda6b62a9a1355c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [] }