Sec. 2. Purposes; findings.
TITLE I—SPENDING LIMITS IN HOUSE ELECTIONS
Sec. 101. Limits on expenditures by candidates.
Sec. 102. Limits on expenditures by political parties.
Sec. 103. Limits on independent expenditures.
TITLE II—EXPANDING SCOPE OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW
Sec. 201. Ban on soft money of political parties.
Sec. 202. Treatment of certain advocacy communications as expenditures sub-
ject to regulation.
Sec. 203. Treatment of amounts contributed or expended for recount activities.
TITLE III—OTHER REFORMS
Sec. 301. Increasing disclosure of contributions and expenditures.
Sec. 302. Prohibition of leadership committees.
Sec. 303. Prohibition of fundraising on behalf of certain nonprofit organiza-
tions.
TITLE IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Effective date.
Sec. 402. Nonseverability of provisions.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES; FINDINGS.
(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this bill are as fol-
lows:
(1) Restore the public confidence in, and the in-
tegrity of, our democratic system.
(2) Strengthen and promote full and free cam-
paign discussion and debate.
(3) Relieve elective office seekers and office
holders from the limitations on purposive political
conduct and discourse that can arise from excessive
attention to fundraising.
(4) Reduce corruption and undue influence, or
the appearance thereof, in the financing of Federal
election campaigns.
(5) Afford nonpreferential terms of access to
elected office holders by interested members of the
public, in keeping with the constitutionally guaran-
teed right to petition the Government for the redress
of grievances.
(b) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings:
(1) The current Federal campaign finance sys-
tem, with its perceived preferential access to law-
makers for interest groups capable of contributing
sizable sums to lawmakers’ campaigns, has aroused
a widespread loss of public confidence in the fairness
and responsiveness of elective government. It has
undermined the belief, necessary to a functioning de-
mocracy, that the government exists to serve the
needs of all the people.
(2) The United States Supreme Court, in Buck-
ley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), disapproved manda-
tory spending limits as an available remedy for such
effects, while approving campaign contribution lim-
its.
(3) Since that time, campaign expenditures
have risen steeply in Federal elections. Between
1976 and 1996, spending by candidates for the
United 
States 
Congress 
rose 
from 
some
$115,000,000 to $765,300,000, an increase several
times the rate of inflation.
(4) As campaign spending has escalated, voter
turnout has steadily declined. In 1996 it fell to its
lowest point since 1924, and stands now at the low-
est level of any democracy in the world.
(5) Coupled with out-of-control campaign
spending has come an incessant necessity of fund-
raising, due to a large extent from candidates adopt-
ing an defensive ‘‘arms race’’ posture of constant
readiness against the risk of massively financed at-
tacks on whatever they may say or do.
(6) This campaign finance system has had a
deleterious effect on those who hold public office, as
endless fundraising pressures intrude upon the per-
formance of constitutionally required duties. Capable
and dedicated officials have left office in dismay over
these distractions and negative public perceptions
that the fundraising process engenders. Further-
more, numerous qualified citizens have declined to
seek office because of the prospect of having to raise
the extraordinary amounts of money needed in to-
day’s elections. As talented incumbent and potential
public servants express such sentiments and act ac-
cordingly, the quality of representation suffers.
(7) Contribution limits are inadequate by them-
selves to check these trends. As long as campaign
spending is effectively unrestrained, supporters can
find ways to protect their favored candidates from
being outspent. Since 1976, in fact, major evasion
routes have been found and exploited to get around
contribution limits.
(8) Among such avenues have been personal
spending by wealthy candidates, independent ex-
penditures that assist or attack an identified can-
didate, and the use of national, State, or local politi-
cal parties as a conduit for money assisting or at-
tacking such candidates.
(9) Wealthy candidates are free under the
present system to spend any amount they want out
of their own resources. While such spending may not
be self-corrupting, it introduces the very defects the
Supreme Court has wanted to avoid. For the effec-
tively limitless character of such resources obliges a
wealthy candidate’s opponents to reach for ever larg-
er amounts of outside support, with the deleterious
effects previously described.
(10) Experience shows further that there is an
identity of interest between candidates and political
parties. The parties exist to support candidates, not
the other way around. Party expenditures in support
of, or in opposition to, an identifiable candidacy are
therefore effectively candidate spending.
(11) Political experience also shows that so-
called ‘‘independent’’ support, whether by individ-
uals, committees, or other entities, can be and often
is coordinated with a candidate’s campaign, by
means of tacit understandings, without losing its
nominally independent character. Likewise, contribu-
tions to a political party, ostensibly for ‘‘party-build-
ing’’ purposes, can be and often are routed, by
undeclared design, to the support of identified can-
didates.
(12) The actual, case-by-case detection of co-
ordination between candidate, party, and independ-
ent contributor is, as a practical matter, impossible
in a fast-moving campaign environment, and in
cases where there may in fact be no coordination,
the candidate risks losing control over the tone, clar-
ity, and content of his or her own campaign.
(13) So-called ‘‘issue advocacy’’, by or through
parties or independent contributors, need not as a
practical matter call expressly for the election or de-
feat of a named candidate to cross the line into cam-
paign advocacy. Any clear objective indication of
purpose, such that voters may readily observe where
their electoral support is invited, will suffice.
(14) When State parties or other entities oper-
ating under State law receive funds, often called
‘‘soft money’’, which may directly or indirectly affect
Federal elections, the State parties and entities be-
come de facto agents of the national party. The sub-
jection of these funds to pertinent Federal limita-
tions becomes necessary and proper to the effective
regulation of national campaigns.
(15) The exorbitant level of money in the politi-
cal system has served to distort our democracy by
giving large contributors a favored access to elected
officials, thus undermining the ability of ordinary
citizens to petition their government. Concerns over
the potential for corruption and undue influence and
the appearances thereof have left the citizenry cyni-
cal, the reputation of elected officials tarnished, and
the moral authority of government weakened.
(16) The 2 decades of experience since the Su-
preme Court’s 1976 Buckley ruling show that rea-
sonable limits on campaign expenditures are now
necessary. These limits must comprehensively ad-
dress all avenues of expenditure, lest creative and
devastating circumvention ensue.
(17) The Supreme Court based its Buckley de-
cision on a concern that spending limits could nar-
row political speech ‘‘by restricting the number of is-
sues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and
the size of the audience reached.’’. The experience of
the past 20 years is otherwise: It is unlimited ex-
penditure that can drown out or distort political dis-
course in a flood of distractive repetition. Reasonable
spending limits will increase the opportunity for pre-
viously muted voices to be heard and thereby in-
crease the number, depth, and diversity of ideas pre-
sented to the public.
(18) Issue advocacy which does not promote or
oppose an identified candidate needs to remain un-
regulated, as does the traditional freedom of the
press to report and editorialize about candidates and
campaigns.
(19) In establishing reasonable limits on cam-
paign spending, it is necessary that they reflect the
realities of modern campaigning in a large, diverse
population with sophisticated and expensive modes
of communication. The limits must allow citizens to
benefit from a full and free debate of issues and per-
mit candidates to garner the resources necessary to
engage in that debate. The expenditure limit estab-
lished in this Act for elections to the House of Rep-
resentatives was determined after careful review of
spending patterns in the 3 most recent elections.
For example:
(A) More than three-fourths of major
party House candidates spent less than the
$700,000 limit established here, and roughly
three-fourths of open seat candidates, running
in typically very competitive elections, spent
$700,000 or less.
(B) Furthermore, and perhaps most sig-
nificantly, fully half of challengers who defeated
incumbent House Members, and half of all win-
ners in close races, spent $700,000 or less.
(C) Thus, it is clear from recent experience
that a limit of $700,000 will be high enough to
allow an effective level of competition, with an
opportunity for diverse points of view to be
heard, and it will be low enough to circumscribe
finally the most egregiously high spending levels
and to be a bulwark against future excesses of
even greater magnitude.
TITLE I—SPENDING LIMITS IN
HOUSE ELECTIONS
SEC. 101. LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘EXPENDITURE LIMITS FOR CANDIDATES IN HOUSE
ELECTIONS
‘‘SEC. 323. (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of this title, the amount of funds expended
by a candidate or the candidate’s authorized committee
(from any source) with respect to any House election may
not exceed $700,000 for the election cycle involved.
‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES
FOR CERTAIN CANDIDATES
AND ELECTIONS.—
‘‘(1) RUNOFF ELECTION.—In the case of a can-
didate who is participating in a runoff House elec-
tion, the limit on expenditures under subsection (a)
with respect to the election cycle involved shall be in-
creased by 20 percent.
‘‘(2) GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATE WINNING
CLOSELY CONTESTED PRIMARY.—In the case of a
candidate who is participating in a general House
election who won the previous primary election by a
margin not greater than 15 percentage points, the
limit on expenditures under subsection (a) with re-
spect to the election cycle involved shall be increased
by 50 percent.
‘‘(3) SPECIAL ELECTION.—In the case of a can-
didate who is participating in a special House elec-
tion, the amount of funds expended by the candidate
or the candidate’s authorized committee may not ex-
ceed $700,000 for the election (including any related
primary election).
‘‘(c) INDEXING OF AMOUNTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount of each limita-
tion established under this section shall be adjusted
as follows:
‘‘(A) For calendar year 2001, each such
amount shall be equal to the amount described,
increased (in a compounded manner) by the
percentage increase in the price index (as de-
fined in paragraph (2)(A)) for 1999 and 2000.
‘‘(B) For calendar year 2003 and each sec-
ond subsequent year, each such amount shall be
equal to the amount for the second previous
year (as adjusted under this subparagraph), in-
creased (in a compounded manner) by the per-
centage increase in the price index for the pre-
vious year and the second previous year.
‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—In the case of any amount
adjusted under this subsection which is not a mul-
tiple of $500, the amount shall be rounded to the
nearest highest multiple of $500.’’.
‘‘(d) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES.—In
determining the amount of funds expended by a candidate
for purposes of this section, there shall be excluded any
amounts expended for—
‘‘(1) legal services rendered in connection with
complying with the requirements of this title or any
State law, responding to complaints or investigations
by the Commission or the House of Representatives,
or any other legal representation related to the elec-
tion involved which is rendered on behalf of or in de-
fense of the candidate or the candidate’s authorized
committee;
‘‘(2) Federal, State, or local income taxes on
earnings of a candidate’s authorized committees;
and
‘‘(3) services related to a recount of the results
of a Federal election or an election contest concern-
ing a Federal election.
‘‘(e) TREATMENT
OF FUNDS EXPENDED
BY AU-
THORIZED COMMITTEE.—For purposes of this section,
‘‘(20) The term ‘House election’ means an election
for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress.’’.
SEC. 102. LIMITS ON EXPENDITURES BY POLITICAL PAR-
TIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 315(d) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(d)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new para-
graph:
‘‘(4) The national committee of a political party, or
a State committee of a political party, including any sub-
ordinate committee of a State committee, may not make
any expenditure in connection with any candidate who is
affiliated with such party for election for the office of Rep-
resentative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress, which is held after December 31, 1998,
which exceeds $30,000, without regard to whether the par-
ty’s expenditures are made in coordination with the can-
didate or are made independently from the candidate.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 315(d) of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.
441a(d)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘(2) and (3)’’
and inserting ‘‘(2), (3), and (4)’’; and
(2) in paragraph (3)—
(A) in subparagraph (A) in the matter pre-
ceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘one Representa-
tive,’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘one Rep-
resentative in the case of an election held prior
to January 1999,’’, and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘for
election to the office of Representative, Dele-
gate, or Resident Commissioner’’ and inserting
‘‘in a House election held prior to January
1999’’.
SEC. 103. LIMITS ON INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES.
Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(i)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
title, no person (other than any person subject to limita-
tions on expenditures under subsection (d)(4)) may make
independent expenditures in connection with a House elec-
tion with respect to an election cycle in an amount greater
than $25,000.
‘‘(2) The amount of the limitation under paragraph
(1) shall be adjusted for each biennial period beginning
after the 2000 general election in the same manner as the
amounts of limitations on expenditures by candidates es-
tablished under section 323(a) are adjusted under section
323(c).’’.
TITLE II—EXPANDING SCOPE OF
CONTRIBUTIONS 
AND 
EX-
PENDITURES 
SUBJECT 
TO
FEDERAL LAW
SEC. 201. BAN ON SOFT MONEY OF POLITICAL PARTIES.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section
101(a), is further amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing new section:
‘‘RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF NON-FEDERAL FUNDS BY
POLITICAL PARTIES
‘‘SEC. 324. (a) ANY USE OF FUNDS BY NATIONAL
PARTIES.—A political committee of a national political
party may not solicit, receive, transfer, direct, or expend
any funds for the purpose of influencing an election for
Federal office unless the funds are subject to the limita-
tions, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this
title.
‘‘(b) EXPENDITURE
OF FUNDS
BY STATE
AND
LOCAL PARTIES DURING FEDERAL ELECTION YEARS.—
A political committee of a State or local political party
may not expend any funds during a year in which an elec-
tion for Federal office is held in the State for the purpose
of influencing an election for Federal office unless the
funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and re-
porting requirements of this title.
‘‘(c) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES.—For
purposes of this section, funds shall not be considered to
be expended for the purpose of influencing an election for
Federal office if the funds are expended for any of the
following activities:
‘‘(1) Any communication which does not por-
tray by name, reference, representation, or likeness,
a candidate for election for Federal office, or which
does not similarly portray the Congress or either of
its Houses.
‘‘(2) Administrative expenses of a State or local
political party.
‘‘(3) A convention of a State or local political
party.’’.
SEC. 202. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADVOCACY COMMU-
NICATIONS AS EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO
REGULATION.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301(9)(A) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)) is
amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i);
(2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iv);
and
(3) by inserting after clause (i) the following
new clauses:
‘‘(ii) any payment for a communication which
portrays by name, reference, representation, or like-
ness a candidate for election for Federal office, to-
gether with words such as ‘vote for’, ‘vote against’,
‘elect’, ‘defeat’, ‘support’, ‘oppose’, or ‘reject’;
‘‘(iii) any payment for a communication which
is disseminated during the 90-day period ending on
the date of an election and which portrays by name,
reference, representation, or likeness a candidate for
election for Federal office; and’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO INDE-
PENDENT EXPENDITURES.—Section 301(17) of such Act
(2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is amended by striking ‘‘by a person
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly
identified candidate’’.
SEC. 203. TREATMENT OF AMOUNTS CONTRIBUTED OR EX-
PENDED FOR RECOUNT ACTIVITIES.
(a) SUBJECTING AMOUNTS TO LIMITS APPLICABLE
TO CONTRIBUTIONS.—Section 315(a) of the Federal Elec-
tion Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(9) Any funds provided to a political committee for
purposes relating to a recount of the results of a Federal
election or an election contest concerning a Federal elec-
tion shall be subject to the limitations applicable to con-
tributions under this subsection.’’.
(b) 
TREATMENT
AS
EXPENDITURES.—Section
301(9)(A)(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(9)(A)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘of-
fice;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘office, or made by any
person with respect to a recount of the results of a Federal
election or an election contest concerning a Federal elec-
tion;’’.
(c) SEGREGATION OF AMOUNTS.—Section 302(b) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 432(b)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(4) Any funds provided to a political committee for
purposes relating to a recount of the results of a Federal
election or an election contest concerning a Federal elec-
tion shall be segregated from and may not be commingled
with any other funds of the committee, and may not be
used for any other purpose.’’.
TITLE III—OTHER REFORMS
SEC. 301. INCREASING DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS
AND EXPENDITURES.
(a) REMOVING THRESHOLD
FOR DISCLOSURE
OF
CONTRIBUTIONS.—
(1) ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POLITI-
CAL COMMITTEES.—Section 302(c)(3) of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(c)(3))
is amended by striking ‘‘$200’’ and inserting ‘‘$1’’.
(2) CONTENTS OF REPORTS.—
(A) IN
GENERAL.—Section 304(b)(3) of
such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(b)(3)) is amended by
striking ‘‘$200’’ each place it appears in sub-
paragraphs (A), (F), and (G) and inserting
‘‘$1’’.
(B) PERSONS MAKING INDEPENDENT EX-
PENDITURES.—Section 304(c)(2)(C) of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 434(c)(2)(C)) is amended by
striking ‘‘$200’’ and inserting ‘‘$1’’.
(b) NOTICE OF CERTAIN INDEPENDENT EXPENDI-
TURES.—Section 304(c) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 434(c)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new para-
graph:
‘‘(4) Any person making an independent expenditure
consisting of a communication broadcast or disseminated
during the 10-day period ending on the date of an election
shall disclose the communication to the candidate involved
and the candidate’s opponent prior to the time the com-
munication is broadcast or disseminated.’’.
SEC. 302. PROHIBITION OF LEADERSHIP COMMITTEES.
Section 302 of the Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432) is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
‘‘(j) A candidate for Federal office or an individual
holding Federal office may not establish, maintain, fi-
nance, or control a political committee, other than a cam-
paign committee for the election of the candidate or the
individual.’’.
SEC. 303. PROHIBITION OF FUNDRAISING ON BEHALF OF
CERTAIN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by sections
101(a) and 201, is further amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
‘‘PROHIBITING FUNDRAISING ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
‘‘SEC. 325. (a) POLITICAL PARTIES.—No national,
State, district, or local committee of a political party may
solicit any funds for or make any donations to any organi-
zation that is exempt from Federal taxation under section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
‘‘(b) CANDIDATES AND OFFICEHOLDERS.—No can-
didate for Federal office or individual holding Federal of-
fice may raise funds for or on behalf of any organization
exempt from Federal taxation under section 501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 if—
‘‘(1) the organization is established, main-
tained, or controlled by the candidate or individual;
and
‘‘(2) voter registration or get-out-the-vote cam-
paigns comprise a significant portion of the organi-
zation’s activities.’’.
TITLE IV—GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Except as provided in section 402, this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to
elections held after December 31, 1998.
SEC. 402. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.
If any provision of this Act or any amendment made
by this Act is found unconstitutional, no provision of this
Act or any amendment made by this Act may take effect
or remain in effect.
Æ