I 
112TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 6310 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reassert the author-
ity of Congress to restrict spending by corporations and labor organiza-
tions on campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other pur-
poses. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
AUGUST 2, 2012 
Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. 
MCGOVERN, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. VAN HOL-
LEN, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. EDWARDS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. 
SARBANES, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. PETERS, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. SHERMAN, 
and Mr. HOYER) 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 Representa-
tives 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’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 cor-
ruption and the appearance of corruption. 
(3) The free flow of money in politics, as exem-
plified by the current state of affairs, is corrupting 
and will distort and disfigure our democracy. 
(4) Excessively high levels of spending on elec-
tions is fundamentally damaging to the public per-
ception of our government, and threatens the fair-
ness and integrity of our democracy. 
(5) Congress has a constitutional duty to guar-
antee a republican form of government for the 
States. 
(6) Spending record sums of money on our elec-
tions threatens the continued existence of our repub-
lican form of government. 
(7) Allowing unlimited spending on elections 
means the wealthy can crowd out other important 
voices in our political debates, thereby giving Amer-
ican citizens fewer sources of information. 
(8) Congress has the inherent power to ensure 
elections for the government are conducted in a fair, 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
honorable, and proper way to preserve our democ-
racy and ensure the people have confidence in our 
elections and system of government. 
(9) Congress has the authority to regulate cam-
paign expenditures to promote integrity, prevent cor-
ruption, and ensure the public has trust in our elec-
tion system, going back to the Tillman Act of 1907, 
which prohibits corporations from making direct 
contributions to political campaigns. 
(10) 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 of-
fice. 
(11) The Watergate scandal, and the out-
rageous expenditure of campaign funds in that scan-
dal, did great damage to public confidence in govern-
ment and demanded a legislative response to restore 
this confidence. 
(12) Congress enacted 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 and instituted limits 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
on campaign contributions which remain law to this 
day. 
(13) In 1976, the Supreme Court issued a deci-
sion in the case of Buckley v. Valeo which first es-
tablished the principle that money equals speech, in 
addition to overturning FECA limitations on inde-
pendent expenditures. 
(14) The Buckley decision also stated that 
‘‘The constitutional power of Congress to regulate 
federal elections is well established and is not ques-
tioned by any of the parties in this case.’’. 
(15) Equating money with speech can result in 
the wealthy having an undue influence on our elec-
tions at the expense of the great majority of the 
American people. 
(16) 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. 
(17) In Austin, the Court found that ‘‘Cor-
porate wealth can unfairly influence elections when 
it is deployed in the form of independent expendi-
tures.’’. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(18) Austin also established that the govern-
ment has an antidistortion 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.’’. 
(19) In 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which banned polit-
ical parties from raising ‘‘soft money’’, among other 
things. 
(20) Spending in presidential elections has risen 
to excessive levels over the last decade, which threat-
ens not only our government, but the integrity of 
our elections. 
(21) In the 2000 presidential election, both can-
didates spent $343.1 million combined. This number 
climbed to $717.9 million in the 2004 presidential 
election. 
(22) 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. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(23) 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. 
(24) In the 2010 elections, Super PACs spent 
approximately $90.4 million, of which $60 million 
was spent explicitly advocating for or against a can-
didate. 
(25) Spending among Super PACs in 2010 was 
concentrated at the top. Ten Super PACs accounted 
for nearly 75 percent of all Super PAC spending in 
2010. Additionally, American Crossroads spent 
$25.8 million in 2010 alone, accounting for 28.7 
percent of Super PAC spending in 2010. 
(26) According to the Wall Street Journal, 
Super PACs have spent $152,528,662 on the 2012 
election to date. 
(27) Super PACs spent $8.93 million during 
the week of June 18, 2012 alone. 
(28) Super PACs are allowed to conceal the 
source of their donations, thereby avoiding trans-
parency and greater public scrutiny of their actions 
and motivations. 
VerDate Mar 15 2010 
05:54 Aug 14, 2012
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6310.IH
H6310
rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS