```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1338 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1338

  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reassert the 
 authority of Congress to restrict spending by corporations and labor 
 organizations on campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2013

 Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New 
York, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Himes, Ms. Edwards, 
Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Polis, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reassert the 
 authority of Congress to restrict spending by corporations and labor 
 organizations on campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Confidence in Our 
Democracy Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Free and open elections are a founding principle of our 
        republican form of government.
            (2) It is incumbent upon Congress to ensure that elections 
        in the United States are free of corruption and the appearance 
        of corruption.
            (3) The free flow of money in politics, as exemplified by 
        the current state of affairs, is corrupting and will distort 
        and disfigure our democracy.
            (4) Excessively high levels of spending on elections is 
        fundamentally damaging to the public perception of our 
        government, and threatens the fairness and integrity of our 
        democracy.
            (5) Congress has a constitutional duty to guarantee a 
        republican form of government for the States.
            (6) Spending record sums of money on our elections 
        threatens the continued existence of our republican form of 
        government.
            (7) Allowing unlimited spending on elections means the 
        wealthy can crowd out other important voices in our political 
        debates, thereby giving American citizens fewer sources of 
        information.
            (8) Federalist 52 states that Congress ``ought to be 
        dependent on the people alone''.
            (9) Unlimited spending in our elections violates this 
        principle and corrupts our government by making elected 
        officials more dependent on donors than the people.
            (10) This ``dependency corruption'' gives the wealthy a 
        greater say in our democracy than the average citizen, which is 
        contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
            (11) Congress has the inherent power to ensure that 
        elections for the government are conducted in a fair, 
        honorable, and proper way to preserve our democracy and ensure 
        the people have confidence in our elections and system of 
        government.
            (12) Congress has the authority to regulate campaign 
        expenditures to promote integrity, prevent corruption, and 
        ensure the public has trust in our election system, going back 
        to the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibits corporations from 
        making direct contributions to political campaigns.
            (13) In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which 
        first prohibited corporations and labor unions from making 
        independent expenditures in support or opposition to candidates 
        for Federal office.
            (14) The Watergate scandal, and the outrageous expenditure 
        of campaign funds in that scandal, did great damage to public 
        confidence in government and demanded a legislative response to 
        restore this confidence.
            (15) Congress rewrote the Federal Elections Campaign Act 
        (FECA) in 1974 as a response to Watergate and public calls for 
        increased regulation of our campaign system. This law 
        established the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and 
        instituted limits on campaign contributions which remain law to 
        this day.
            (16) In 1976, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the 
        case of Buckley v. Valeo which first established the principle 
        that money equals speech, in addition to overturning FECA 
        limitations on independent expenditures.
            (17) The Buckley decision also stated that ``The 
        constitutional power of Congress to regulate Federal elections 
        is well established and is not questioned by any of the parties 
        in this case''.
            (18) Equating money with speech can result in the wealthy 
        having an undue influence on our elections at the expense of 
        the great majority of the American people.
            (19) In 1990, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the 
        case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which upheld a 
        Michigan law banning corporations from making independent 
        expenditures in elections.
            (20) In Austin, the Court found that ``Corporate wealth can 
        unfairly influence elections when it is deployed in the form of 
        independent expenditures''.
            (21) Austin also established that the government has an 
        anti-distortion interest in regulating political speech. The 
        Court held that there is a compelling government interest in 
        preventing ``the corrosive and distorting effects of immense 
        aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of 
        the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to 
        the public's support for the corporation's political ideas''.
            (22) In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign 
        Reform Act, which among other things banned political parties 
        from raising so-called ``soft money''.
            (23) Spending in presidential elections has risen to 
        excessive levels over the last decade, which threatens not only 
        our government, but the integrity of our elections.
            (24) In the 2000 presidential election, both of the major 
        party candidates spent $343.1 million combined. This number 
        climbed to $717.9 million in the 2004 presidential election.
            (25) In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama's 
        campaign spent $740.6 million, more than both major party 
        candidates combined in the previous election.
            (26) Following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of 
        Citizens United v. FEC, there was a massive increase in outside 
        political spending, which threatens to undermine the legitimacy 
        of our political system.
            (27) The FEC estimates that $7 billion was spent on the 
        2012 elections.
            (28) According to the Wall Street Journal, so-called 
        ``Super PACs'' spent $567,498,628 on the 2012 elections.
            (29) Super PACs spent $98 million during the week of 
        October 29, 2012, alone.
            (30) Donations to Super PACs are dominated by the wealthy. 
        In 2012, 58.9 percent of donations to Super PACs were $1 
        million or higher, and came from only 159 donors.
            (31) Super PACs often accept funds from nonprofits which 
        are allowed to conceal the source of their donations, thereby 
        avoiding transparency and greater public scrutiny of their 
        actions and motivations.
            (32) Thirty-one percent of outside spending in the 2012 
        elections was not able to be traced to its original sources, 
        which decreases accountability and transparency, threatens 
        public confidence in our elected officials and our elections, 
        and has a distorting effect on our elections.
            (33) Corporations, now freed to spend as much as they like 
        to influence elections, accounted for 12 percent of 
        contributions to Super PACS in 2012, thereby helping to give 
        corporate interests a greater voice in our political system 
        than the average Americans.
            (34) A January 2012 poll by Rasmussen says that 58 percent 
        of Americans believe the United States needs new campaign 
        finance laws.
            (35) A January 2012 poll by Democracy Corps found that 55 
        percent of Americans oppose the Citizens United decision. 
        Eighty percent of voters also believe there should be limits on 
        the money spent in campaigns.
            (36) An October 2012 poll by Bannon Communications Research 
        found that 52 percent of Americans are in favor of banning 
        corporate political spending, 89 percent of Americans believe 
        there is too much money in politics, and 66 percent believe 
        that money is the root of all evil in politics.
            (37) After considering these findings, Congress is 
        concerned by the unfairness of unlimited spending in elections 
        and is taking this action to protect our democracy and our 
        electoral system.
            (38) Reinstituting the ban on corporate political 
        expenditures and placing a limit on the amount of donations to 
        Super PACs will help restore faith and trust in our democracy 
        and will respond to calls by the American people for vigorous 
        campaign finance reform and effective laws to protect our free 
        democratic system of elections.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DISBURSEMENTS FOR 
              ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS.

    (a) Prohibition.--
            (1) In general.--Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election 
        Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by 
        inserting ``or for any applicable electioneering 
        communication'' before ``, but shall not include''.
            (2) Applicable electioneering communication.--Section 316 
        of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441b) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
    ``(c) Rules Relating to Electioneering Communications.--
            ``(1) Applicable electioneering communication.--For 
        purposes of this section, the term `applicable electioneering 
        communication' means an electioneering communication (within 
        the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) which is made by any entity 
        described in subsection (a) of this section or by any other 
        person using funds donated by an entity described in subsection 
        (a) of this section.
            ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the term 
        `applicable electioneering communication' does not include a 
        communication by a section 501(c)(4) organization or a 
        political organization (as defined in section 527(e)(1) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986) made under section 304(f)(2)(E) 
        or (F) of this Act if the communication is paid for exclusively 
        by funds provided directly by individuals who are United States 
        citizens or nationals or lawfully admitted for permanent 
        residence (as defined in section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20))). For purposes of 
        the preceding sentence, the term `provided directly by 
        individuals' does not include funds the source of which is an 
        entity described in subsection (a) of this section.
            ``(3) Special operating rules.--
                    ``(A) Definition under paragraph (1).--An 
                electioneering communication shall be treated as made 
                by an entity described in subsection (a) if an entity 
                described in subsection (a) directly or indirectly 
                disburses any amount for any of the costs of the 
                communication.
                    ``(B) Exception under paragraph (2).--A section 
                501(c)(4) organization that derives amounts from 
                business activities or receives funds from any entity 
                described in subsection (a) shall be considered to have 
                paid for any communication out of such amounts unless 
                such organization paid for the communication out of a 
                segregated account to which only individuals can 
                contribute, as described in section 304(f)(2)(E).
            ``(4) Definitions and rules.--For purposes of this 
        subsection--
                    ``(A) the term `section 501(c)(4) organization' 
                means--
                            ``(i) an organization described in section 
                        501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
                        and exempt from taxation under section 501(a) 
                        of such Code; or
                            ``(ii) an organization which has submitted 
                        an application to the Internal Revenue Service 
                        for determination of its status as an 
                        organization described in clause (i); and
                    ``(B) a person shall be treated as having made a 
                disbursement if the person has executed a contract to 
                make the disbursement.
            ``(5) Coordination with internal revenue code.--Nothing in 
        this subsection shall be construed to authorize an organization 
        exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 to carry out any activity which is 
        prohibited under such Code.
            ``(6) Special rules for targeted communications.--
                    ``(A) Exception does not apply.--Paragraph (2) 
                shall not apply in the case of a targeted communication 
                that is made by an organization described in such 
                paragraph.
                    ``(B) Targeted communication.--For purposes of 
                subparagraph (A), the term `targeted communication' 
                means an electioneering communication (as defined in 
                section 304(f)(3)) that is distributed from a 
                television or radio broadcast station or provider of 
                cable or satellite television service and, in the case 
                of a communication which refers to a candidate for an 
                office other than President or Vice President, is 
                targeted to the relevant electorate.
                    ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
                a communication is `targeted to the relevant 
                electorate' if it meets the requirements described in 
                section 304(f)(C).''.
            (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall take effect immediately after the enactment of subsection 
        (b).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Sections 203 and 204 of the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-155) are repealed, and each 
provision of law amended by such sections is restored as if such 
sections had not been enacted into law.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES BY CORPORATIONS AND 
              LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 316(b)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 441b(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``includes a contribution or 
expenditure,'' and inserting ``includes a contribution or expenditure 
(including an independent expenditure),''.

SEC. 5. APPLICATION OF CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND SOURCE PROHIBITIONS TO 
              CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO SUPER PACS.

    (a) Application of Limits.--Section 315(a) of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
    ``(9) For purposes of the limitations imposed by paragraphs (1)(C), 
(2)(C), and (3)(B) on the amount of contributions which may be made by 
any person to a political committee, a contribution made to a political 
committee which accepts donations or contributions that do not comply 
with the contribution or source prohibitions under this Act (or made to 
any account of a political committee which is established for the 
purpose of accepting such donations or contributions) shall be treated 
in the same manner as a contribution made to any other political 
committee to which such paragraphs apply.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to contributions made on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

    If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, or the 
application of a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, 
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and 
amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions and 
amendment to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the 
holding.
                                 <all>
```