Congress has also required that certain information about campaigns' financial transactions be made public. The most notable recent statutory changes occurred in 2014, when Congress eliminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions and increased limits for some contributions to political parties. The 2010 Citizens United ruling spurred substantial legislative action during the 111 th Congress and continued interest during subsequent Congresses. In another 2010 decision, SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that contributions to political action committees (PACs) that make only independent expenditures cannot be limited—a development that led to formation of "super PACs." This report will be updated occasionally as events warrant. Nonetheless, major changes in campaign finance law have been rare. A generation passed between the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and BCRA, the two most prominent campaign finance statutes of the past 50 years. After Congress enacted BCRA, momentum on federal campaign finance policy issues arguably shifted to the FEC and the courts. What Has Changed

				Unlimited Corporate and Union Spending on Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications

In January 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . Aggregate Caps on Individual Campaign Contributions

On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon v. FEC . Specifically, the FY2015 omnibus appropriations law, P.L. 113-235 , increased contribution limits to national political party committees. Most relevant for federal campaign finance policy, P.L. 113-94 , enacted in April 2014, terminated public financing for presidential nominating conventions. H.R. 115-244 ) amends FECA to change the place of filing for Senate campaign finance reports from the Secretary of the Senate to the FEC. As noted elsewhere in this report, in December 2014, Congress enacted legislation, which President Obama signed ( P.L. Congress also held related oversight hearings. 133 reported favorably. The bill would terminate the presidential public financing program. The 114 th Congress enacted no major changes to campaign finance law. Some Members of Congress and Federal Election Commissioners have raised questions about whether prohibited foreign funds could have influenced recent elections, whether additional legislative or regulatory safeguards are necessary to protect future elections, or both. 115-141 ). Regulation and Enforcement by the FEC or Through Other Areas of Policy and Law

In recent Congresses, FEC enforcement and transparency issues attracted attention in Congress and beyond. In addition, in the House, the Committee on House Administration continued to request documents from the agency about its enforcement practices. Through recent appropriations bills, including those enacted during the 115 th Congress, Congress also prohibited requiring additional contractor disclosure. Post- Citizens United legislative activity among those who favor additional disclosure has generally emphasized the DISCLOSE Act, but, as noted elsewhere in this report, some have also proposed reporting particular kinds of spending to agencies such as the IRS or the SEC. That provision, however, was not included in the FY2016 consolidated appropriations law ( P.L. Conclusion

Some elements of federal campaign finance policy have substantially changed in recent years; others have remained unchanged. BCRA's soft-money ban and some other provisions remain in effect; but Citizens United , SpeechNow , and other litigation since BCRA have reversed major elements of modern campaign finance law. Although some of the specifics are new, these themes discussed throughout this report have been present in campaign finance policy for decades.
Major changes have occurred in campaign finance policy since 2002, when Congress substantially amended campaign finance law via the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United and a related lower-court decision, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, arguably represent the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades. Citizens United lifted a previous ban on corporate (and union) independent expenditures advocating election or defeat of candidates. SpeechNow permitted unlimited contributions supporting such expenditures and facilitated the advent of super PACs. Although campaign finance policy remains the subject of intense debate and public interest, there have been few recent major legislative or regulatory changes. In activity related to campaign finance policy, provisions in recent appropriations laws have prohibited some additional reporting requirements surrounding contributions and expenditures. Enacted 115th Congress legislation containing these provisions includes FY2018 consolidated appropriations law P.L. 115-141. Also through the appropriations process, the 115th Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 115-244) amending the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to require electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports.
The above actions notwithstanding, the 115th Congress has not enacted major changes to campaign finance law, and there have been no major regulatory changes during the same period. The Committee on House Administration ordered reported a bill (H.R. 133) that would terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. In addition, in some congressional legislative hearings, some Members of Congress have raised questions about whether prohibited foreign funds could have influenced the 2016 and 2018 elections, and required the FEC to issue a report on its enforcement of the FECA ban on such funds.
Post-Citizens United, debate over disclosure and deregulation have been recurring themes in Congress and beyond. Legislation to require additional information about the flow of money among various donors, the DISCLOSE Act, passed the House during the 111th Congress and was reintroduced during subsequent Congresses. Congress also has considered alternatives, which include some elements of DISCLOSE, or proposals that would require additional disclosure from certain 501(c) groups. The debate over whether or how additional disclosure is needed has also extended to the Federal Election Commission—and congressional oversight of the agency—and the courts.
During the same period, statutory and judicial changes eased some contribution limits and affected the presidential public financing program. Most consequentially, the Supreme Court invalidated aggregate contribution limits in April 2014 (McCutcheon v. FEC). Also in 2014, Congress and President Obama terminated public funding for presidential nominating conventions (P.L. 113-94). Congress responded to these events by including language in the FY2015 omnibus appropriations law (P.L. 113-235) that increased limits for some contributions to political party committees, including for conventions.
This report considers these and other developments in campaign finance policy and comments on areas of potential conflict and consensus. This report emphasizes issues that have been most prominent in recent Congresses. It also discusses major elements of campaign finance policy. This report will be updated occasionally to reflect major developments.