(19) In 1990, the Supreme Court issued a deci-
sion 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 ‘‘Cor-
porate wealth can unfairly influence elections when 
it is deployed in the form of independent expendi-
tures’’. 
(21) Austin also established that the govern-
ment has an anti-distortion interest in regulating po-
litical speech. The Court held that there is a compel-
ling 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 threat-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:18 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1338.IH
H1338
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ens 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 pre-
vious 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 polit-
ical 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 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:18 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1338.IH
H1338
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
to Super PACs were $1 million or higher, and came 
from only 159 donors. 
(31) Super PACs often accept funds from non-
profits which are allowed to conceal the source of 
their donations, thereby avoiding transparency and 
greater public scrutiny of their actions and motiva-
tions. 
(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 dis-
torting 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 Ameri-
cans. 
(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 Citi-
zens United decision. Eighty percent of voters also 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
16:58 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1338.IH
H1338
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
believe there should be limits on the money spent in 
campaigns. 
(36) An October 2012 poll by Bannon Commu-
nications Research found that 52 percent of Ameri-
cans 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 demo-
cratic system of elections. 
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CORPORATE AND LABOR DIS-
BURSEMENTS FOR ELECTIONEERING COM-
MUNICATIONS. 
(a) PROHIBITION.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Section 316(b)(2) of the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:18 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1338.IH
H1338
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
441b(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or for any ap-
plicable electioneering communication’’ before ‘‘, but 
shall not include’’. 
(2) APPLICABLE ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICA-
TION.—Section 316 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441b) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(c) RULES RELATING TO ELECTIONEERING COM-
MUNICATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) APPLICABLE
ELECTIONEERING
COMMU-
NICATION.—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 de-
scribed in subsection (a) of this section or by any 
other person using funds donated by an entity de-
scribed in subsection (a) of this section. 
‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding paragraph 
(1), the term ‘applicable electioneering communica-
tion’ 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 ex-
clusively by funds provided directly by individuals 
who are United States citizens or nationals or law-
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
04:18 Mar 28, 2013
Jkt 029200
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H1338.IH
H1338
tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS