On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . The ruling has the potential to reshape the campaign finance environment politically and legislatively because previously restricted political advertising is now apparently permissible. This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy issues that may be relevant for Congress as the House and Senate consider how or whether to respond to the ruling. At least two broad approaches may be available. First, Congress could raise limits on contributions or coordinated party expenditures to increase the amount of money available to candidates facing advertising aired by corporations or opponents. Second, Congress could restrict spending under certain conditions or require those making expenditures to provide additional information to voters or regulators. Options within both approaches may generate debate and would entail advantages and disadvantages. Some may argue that the only way to provide Congress with the power to directly affect the content of the ruling would be to amend the Constitution—an option that is likely to be controversial and laborious. As Table 1 at the end of this report shows, and as the text of the report discusses, proposed legislative responses to Citizens United contain elements of both approaches. Most bills have focused on requiring additional disclosure (reporting of information). Some have also proposed restricting spending by particular types of companies or groups. This report is intended to respond to Congress's ongoing interest in campaign finance policy options following Citizens United . Given the pace of developments since the ruling, the report is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it provides an overview of those issues and options that appear to be potentially relevant; it will be updated regularly as developments warrant. Additional legislation will be reflected in future updates. This report does not provide—nor is it intended to provide—a legal analysis of Citizens United or of legal issues that might affect the policy options discussed here. CRS Report R41045, The Constitutionality of Regulating Corporate Expenditures: A Brief Analysis of the Supreme Court Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC , by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report R41096, Legislative Options After Citizens United v. FEC: Constitutional and Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] et al., discuss legal and constitutional issues. Another CRS report, CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed], discusses the DISCLOSE Act (discussed below) in more detail. Events described in this report are current as of September 2010, when the report was last substantively updated. No major additional campaign finance activity occurred during the 111 th Congress. For discussion of the ongoing evolution of Citizens United policy issues, see CRS Report R41542, The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed]. From a campaign finance policy perspective, Citizens United appears to be most relevant for political advertising funded by corporate or union treasuries. Two issues are particularly noteworthy. First, corporations and unions now appear to be permitted to fund advertising explicitly calling for the election or defeat of federal (or state) candidates. Second, previous restrictions on corporate- or union-funded broadcast ads known as electioneering communications have been eased. Despite these changes, corporate and union advertising purchases must be made independently—meaning that the advertising may not be coordinated with the campaigns that are supported or opposed in the advertising. The ban on corporate or union contributions to political committees (candidate committees, party committees, and political action committees (PACs)), remains in effect. Before Citizens United , the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) , as amended, generally prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds for making expenditures influencing federal elections—including political advertising known as express advocacy , which explicitly calls for election or defeat of federal candidates. Corporations and unions could, however, establish separate segregated funds (PACs) to fund express advocacy or make contributions to candidate campaigns, political party committees, or other PACs. Following Citizens United , corporations may now fund unlimited express advocacy messages—provided that the advertisements are independent expenditures , meaning that they are uncoordinated with the campaign that is supported or opposed. Also before Citizens United , the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited corporate and union treasuries from funding broadcast advertisements known as electioneering communications that mention clearly identified federal candidates (but not necessarily calling for their election or defeat) within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election. As a result, corporations that wanted to air at least some messages referring to federal candidates during periods preceding elections either had to establish a PAC to receive voluntary contributions to fund the ads or forgo the advertising altogether. Now, however, corporations and unions appear to be free to fund electioneering communications from their treasuries at any time. Given these developments, questions have emerged about how political advertising might be affected and whether the airwaves will be flooded with corporate express advocacy. The answers to those questions are currently unknown, but they have implications for how campaigns at the federal (and state) levels will be waged. Depending on the outcome—or potential outcome—Congress might choose to enact legislation restricting political advertising or other aspects of federal election policy. Because this is the first time in modern history that such expenditures have been permitted at the federal level, it remains to be seen how much additional money, if any, might flow into the political system. A more complete understanding of how Citizens United will affect the political environment, including campaign spending, will likely be unavailable until after the 2010 election cycle. The legislative response to Citizens United began developing immediately after the January 21 ruling. In fact, some legislation relevant for the ruling was introduced even before the Court announced its decision. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held the first Citizens United hearing on February 2, 2010. Both the Committee on House Administration and House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held Citizens United hearings on February 3, 2010. Each of the hearings assessed the ruling and considered various policy options, as did a March 10, 2010, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Thus far, three hearings have considered specific legislation. First, on March 11, the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, held a hearing addressing corporate governance and shareholder protection after Citizens United. In addition to exploring general themes, various legislative proposals, including Representative Capuano's Shareholder Protection Act ( H.R. 4790 ), were discussed. Among other provisions, the legislation would require a majority of shareholders to approve certain expenditures for "political activities" for the following fiscal year and board approval for political activities exceeding $50,000. On July 29, 2010, the Committee on Financial Services ordered an amended version of H.R. 4790 reported. Second, on May 6, 2010, the Committee on House Administration held a hearing on H.R. 5175 , the House version of the DISCLOSE Act (discussed below). The committee held a second hearing (the third on specific legislation) on H.R. 5175 on May 11, 2010. Table 1 at the end of this report provides an overview of legislation that may be or has been relevant for a congressional response to Citizens United . Most of the bills introduced concentrate on one or two major policy issues (e.g., spending restrictions, shareholder protection, public financing, etc.) and were introduced within a month of the Court's ruling. By contrast, three bills that have been the subject of more recent attention are House and Senate versions of the DISCLOSE Act (an acronym for "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections"), sponsored by Representative Van Hollen and Senator Schumer respectively. These bills include a variety of provisions, including many that appeared in other legislation noted throughout this report. Representative Van Hollen introduced the House measure, H.R. 5175 , on April 29, 2010. Senator Schumer introduced the Senate version, S. 3295 , the next day. After the House Administration Committee reported an amended version of H.R. 5175 on May 25, the House of Representatives passed the bill, with additional amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. Senator Schumer introduced a revised version of his bill, S. 3628 , on July 21, 2010. The Senate chose not to invoke cloture on July 27, 2010. The bill remains on the calendar. Two types of provisions in the DISCLOSE Act have been the subject of most legislative attention thus far. First, provisions in the bill would provide greater information to the public and the FEC about certain political spending. In particular, the bill proposes additional disclosure (i.e., reporting) and disclaimer (i.e., sponsor identification) requirements surrounding independent expenditures and electioneering communications funded by corporations, unions, and certain tax-exempt organizations. Second, the bill proposes to restrict the ability of certain government contractors, corporations subject to foreign influence, and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients from making expenditures or contributions in federal elections. These provisions, and the other bills discussed in this report, generally appear to be focused on providing additional information about, or limiting, the increased political advertising that some argue Citizens United will facilitate. A comprehensive overview of this lengthy and complex legislation is beyond the scope of this report. (For additional discussion of the DISCLOSE Act, see CRS Report R41264, The DISCLOSE Act: Overview and Analysis , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].)