{ "id": "RS22644", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RS22644", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 455162, "date": "2016-08-15", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:36:18.023551", "title": "Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview", "summary": "A provision of federal campaign finance law, codified at 52 U.S.C. \u00a730116(d) (formerly 2 U.S.C. \u00a7441a(d)), allows political party committees to make expenditures on behalf of their general election candidates for federal office and specifies limits on such spending. These \u201ccoordinated party expenditures\u201d are important not only because they provide financial support to campaigns, but also because parties and campaigns may explicitly discuss how the money is spent. Although they have long been the major source of direct party financial support for campaigns, coordinated expenditures have recently been overshadowed by independent expenditures.\nIn a 1996 ruling, Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Colorado I), the U.S. Supreme Court found that political parties have a constitutional right to make unlimited independent expenditures. Federal campaign finance law defines an independent expenditure to include spending for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, and is not made in cooperation or consultation with a candidate or a political party. In a subsequent case, Colorado II, however, the Court ruled that a political party\u2019s coordinated expenditures\u2014that is, expenditures made in cooperation or consultation with a candidate\u2014may be constitutionally limited in order to minimize circumvention of contribution limits. According to the Court, in contrast to independent expenditures, coordinated party expenditures have no \u201csignificant functional difference\u201d from direct party candidate contributions. \nDespite limited legislative activity on the topic in recent Congresses, coordinated party expenditures remain a component of the debate over the strength of modern political parties. In recent Congresses, provisions in some appropriations bills would have increased or abolished coordinated party expenditure limits, as would some public financing bills (H.R. 20; H.R. 424; H.R. 2143; S. 1176; S. 1910; S. 2132; and S. 3250 in the 114th Congress; and H.R. 20, H.R. 268, H.R. 269, H.R. 270, and S. 2023 in the 113th Congress). \nThose who support existing limits on coordinated party expenditures argue that the caps reduce potential corruption and the amount of money in politics. Opponents maintain that the limits are antiquated, particularly because political parties may make unlimited independent expenditures supporting their candidates. If the caps were lifted and fundraising patterns remained consistent with those discussed here, it appears that neither party would have a substantial resource advantage over the other. It is important to note, however, that individual circumstances would determine particular fundraising and spending decisions.\nThis report will be updated occasionally as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22644", "sha1": "57c1e40b7ce0fbfc2acd366eef1f2bfe7d619284", "filename": "files/20160815_RS22644_57c1e40b7ce0fbfc2acd366eef1f2bfe7d619284.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22644", "sha1": "3ce48408e95f4088f3669836313ce7074d57f9ea", "filename": "files/20160815_RS22644_3ce48408e95f4088f3669836313ce7074d57f9ea.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4745, "name": "Campaign Finance" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 436226, "date": "2014-12-08", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:51:35.896348", "title": "Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview", "summary": "A provision of federal campaign finance law, codified at 52 U.S.C. \u00a730116(d) (formerly 2 U.S.C. \u00a7441a(d)), allows political party committees to make expenditures on behalf of their general election candidates for federal office and specifies limits on such spending. These \u201ccoordinated party expenditures\u201d are important not only because they provide financial support to campaigns, but also because parties and campaigns may explicitly discuss how the money is spent. Although they have long been the major source of direct party financial support for campaigns, coordinated expenditures have recently been overshadowed by independent expenditures.\nIn a 1996 ruling, Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Colorado I), the U.S. Supreme Court found that political parties have a constitutional right to make unlimited independent expenditures. Federal campaign finance law defines an independent expenditure to include spending for a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, and is not made in cooperation or consultation with a candidate or a political party. In a subsequent case, Colorado II, however, the Court ruled that a political party\u2019s coordinated expenditures\u2014that is, expenditures made in cooperation or consultation with a candidate\u2014may be constitutionally limited in order to minimize circumvention of contribution limits. According to the Court, in contrast to independent expenditures, coordinated party expenditures have no \u201csignificant functional difference\u201d from direct party candidate contributions. \nDespite limited legislative activity on the topic in recent Congresses, coordinated party expenditures remain a component of the debate over the strength of modern political parties. In the 113th Congress, bills primarily related to public financing of campaigns (H.R. 20, H.R. 268, H.R. 269, H.R. 270, and S. 2023) would also permit additional coordinated party expenditures. Revisiting coordinated party expenditure limits might also be relevant following an April 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC. Recent media reports have also suggested that language to alter coordinated party expenditure limits could be included in appropriations bills or other measures during the remainder of the 113th Congress or early in the 114th Congress. \nThose who support existing limits on coordinated party expenditures argue that the caps reduce potential corruption and the amount of money in politics. Opponents maintain that the limits are antiquated, particularly because political parties may make unlimited independent expenditures supporting their candidates. If the caps were lifted and fundraising patterns remained consistent with those discussed here, it appears that neither party would have a substantial resource advantage over the other. It is important to note, however, that individual circumstances would determine particular fundraising and spending decisions.\nThis report will be updated occasionally as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22644", "sha1": "e345f3dcd897118ab9e76d9447a62ac78473efa7", "filename": "files/20141208_RS22644_e345f3dcd897118ab9e76d9447a62ac78473efa7.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22644", "sha1": "f6de00a1ccfbd0eb2f7e2bef029716556d527e9a", "filename": "files/20141208_RS22644_f6de00a1ccfbd0eb2f7e2bef029716556d527e9a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491338/", "id": "RS22644_2014May15", "date": "2014-05-15", "retrieved": "2015-01-27T19:40:46", "title": "Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview", "summary": "This report examines campaign finance law in the context of political party committee expenditures. It discusses relevant Supreme Court precedent and recent legislative activity.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140515_RS22644_7a0b5a866395da9d87fd5bc3d2d250dcec0790ad.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140515_RS22644_7a0b5a866395da9d87fd5bc3d2d250dcec0790ad.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Elections", "name": "Elections" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign funds", "name": "Campaign funds" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign contributors", "name": "Campaign contributors" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Campaign finance reform", "name": "Campaign finance reform" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc812065/", "id": "RS22644_2008Feb19", "date": "2008-02-19", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080219_RS22644_66326ecf2c1a01aa7e023ef5283cfdac135c9929.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080219_RS22644_66326ecf2c1a01aa7e023ef5283cfdac135c9929.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806855/", "id": "RS22644_2007Apr13", "date": "2007-04-13", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Coordinated Party Expenditures in Federal Elections: An Overview", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070413_RS22644_a4b2c14d7a381037b76a3ddb6023b52d565f1ba3.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070413_RS22644_a4b2c14d7a381037b76a3ddb6023b52d565f1ba3.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Appropriations", "Constitutional Questions" ] }