Opponents also contend that the program has failed to improve competition. These measures include H.R. 94 , H.R. 95 , H.R. 260 , H.R. 270 , H.R. 1724 , H.R. 2857 , and S. 118 . 2019 , which would terminate public financing of presidential nominating conventions. The Committee on House Administration has reported two related bills, H.R. 359 ; that measure would have terminated public funding of presidential campaigns and nominating conventions by repealing the checkoff mechanism. Unlike bills that would repeal the presidential public financing system, two bills introduced by Representative Price (NC) would have maintained the current system but altered the amounts available to, and restrictions on, participating candidates. 414 and Senate companion S. 3312 included
raising the checkoff designation to $10 for individuals and $20 for married couples filing jointly; eliminating spending limits on publicly financed candidates; eliminating public financing of conventions; providing primary candidates with up to $100 million in matching funds through a 400% federal match of contributions up to $200; raising the qualifying threshold for private fundraising by primary candidates from $5,000 in 20 states to $25,000 in 20 states; requiring primary candidates who choose to accept public funds to limit the private contributions they receive to $1,000 (compared with the higher limit for traditional private fundraising, $2,400 in 2008); and decreasing general election grants to $50 million, but adding a matching fund component of up to $150 million (also a 400% federal match of contributions of $200 or less), for a total general election public financing allocation of up to $200 million. Despite relatively minor changes, the presidential public financing program has essentially remained unchanged since the 1974 FECA amendments. In short, participating (or not) in the checkoff designation does not affect a taxpayer's liability or refund. Taxpayer Participation

Taxpayer participation has never been particularly strong. Financial Status of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund

The amount of money in the PECF depends on taxpayer designations and candidate use. Analysis of Policy Options for Maintaining Public Financing

Various policy options exist for updating the public financing system. Others discussed below present alternatives for addressing concerns surrounding presidential public financing, but are not components of recent legislation. None of the policy options discussed in this report and elsewhere is likely to be considered in isolation, as the public financing program has always contained a combination of benefits and requirements. If Congress believes that funding candidates should be the top priority in the public financing program, de-prioritizing convention funding could be an attractive option. Perhaps more fundamentally, if Congress chooses to reform the program, doing so will require consensus among lawmakers about one of the most complex and contentious areas of campaign finance policy.
The presidential public campaign financing program (the Presidential Election Campaign Fund [PECF]) is funded through "checkoff" designations on individual income tax returns. Choosing to participate (or not) in the checkoff does not affect one's tax liability or refund. Candidates who choose to participate in the program may receive taxpayer-funded matches of privately raised funds during primary campaigns, and grants during the general-election contest. Public funds also subsidize nominating conventions. The public financing system has remained largely unchanged since the 1970s. However, there is general agreement that, if the program is to be maintained, updates are necessary to provide greater financial resources and higher spending limits to participants. Some contend that the program should be curtailed or eliminated.
This report discusses current controversies and arguments for and against public financing of presidential campaigns, legislative history, elements of the program, taxpayer and candidate participation, financial status of the program, recent legislation, and analysis of various policy proposals. If Congress chooses to alter the program, consensus will be necessary in what has historically been a particularly complex and contentious area of campaign finance policy.
In recent Congresses, most legislative activity has concerned efforts to curtail the program. In the 113th Congress, the House has passed legislation (H.R. 2019) to eliminate funding for presidential nominating conventions. The Committee on House Administration has reported two related bills (H.R. 94; H.R. 95). Other bills that would eliminate convention financing include H.R. 260; H.R. 1724; H.R. 2857; and S. 118. Another bill, H.R. 270, would eliminate convention financing but modernize other parts of the presidential public financing program.
As this report discusses, various options, each with potential strengths and weaknesses, exist for revisiting the presidential public financing system. Two other CRS reports contain overviews of specific topics addressed in this report. These include CRS Report R41604, Proposals to Eliminate Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns, by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL34630, Federal Funding of Presidential Nominating Conventions: Overview and Policy Options, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
This report will be updated occasionally to reflect major developments.