This report provides an overview of selected campaign finance policy issues that have received recent legislative attention, or have otherwise been prominent, and which could receive attention during the 111 th Congress. Specifically, the report emphasizes nine issues: (1) bundling; (2) campaign travel aboard private aircraft; (3) electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports; (4) the Federal Election Commission (FEC); (5) hybrid political advertising; (6) joint fundraising committees; (7) public financing of presidential campaigns; (8) 527 organizations; and (9) the related topic of restricting campaign activity among certain state election officials. The report includes a brief overview of each issue followed by a discussion of recent legislation (if any) and policy considerations. Legislative or regulatory activity, developments during recent election cycles, or a combination of all those factors suggest that each issue will remain a topic of debate during the 111 th Congress. This report is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of each topic. In some cases (noted throughout the report) other CRS products provide additional detail. The topics addressed in this report are typically considered separately, suggesting targeted legislation if Congress chooses to revisit the issues. The 111 th Congress could also consider broad legislation addressing one or more campaign finance issues. However Congress decides to proceed, the debate will likely be shaped by questions of (1) amounts and sources of money; (2) transparency; and (3) scope of regulation. As the final section of this report discusses, these factors unify the seemingly disparate policy issues discussed in the report and are common themes in the debate over campaign finance policy. During the 110 th Congress, approximately 50 legislative measures affecting federal campaign finance policy were introduced. Two became law. Most significantly, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA; P.L. 110-81 ) restricted campaign travel aboard private aircraft and required political committees to report additional information to the FEC about certain contributions bundled by lobbyists. In addition, late in the second session of the 110 th Congress, the FEC's Administrative Fine Program, which had been scheduled to expire, was extended until 2013 ( P.L. 110-433 ). Other issues received hearings or floor votes but did not become law. These included House passage of legislation affecting campaign payments to candidate families ( H.R. 2630 , Schiff); disbursement of campaign funds by non-treasurers ( H.R. 3032 , Jones (NC)); and funding for certain criminal enforcement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ( H.R. 3093 , the relevant provision was an amendment sponsored by Representative Pence); A Committee on House Administration, Subcommittee on Elections, hearing on automated political telephone calls; Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearings on public financing of congressional campaigns ( S. 1285 , Durbin); coordinated party expenditures ( S. 1091 , Corker); electronic filing of Senate campaign finance reports ( S. 223 , Feingold); FEC nominations; and automated political telephone calls ( S. 2624 , Feinstein). Perhaps the most prominent policy concern for the second session of the 111 th Congress has been developments surrounding a recent Supreme Court ruling. On January 21, 2010, the Court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . A legal analysis of the case is beyond the scope of this report and, indeed, the precise implications of the case remain to be seen. Additional discussion of various policy and legal issues appears in other CRS products. In essence, however, the opinion invalidated aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (BCRA) electioneering communication provision, which had prohibited corporations and unions from using their treasury funds to air broadcast ads referring to clearly identified federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election or caucus. Perhaps more notably, the decision also overturned the Supreme Court's 1990 ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce , which had upheld restrictions on corporate-funded independent expenditures. ( Citizens United appears not to affect the ban on corporate or union contributions to political candidates.) As a consequence of Citizens United , corporations—and presumably unions—now appear to be free to use their treasury funds to air political advertisements explicitly calling for election or defeat of federal (or state) candidates. Previously, such advertising would generally have had to be financed through voluntary contributions raised by political action committees (PACs) affiliated with unions or corporations. Unlimited, albeit independent, expenditures by corporations and unions has spurred legislative action in Congress, although no post- Citizens United measures have become law. Possible policy responses for those favoring additional regulation include enacting public campaign financing legislation, altering contribution limits, pursuing shareholder protection initiatives, easing restrictions on coordinated party expenditures, or amending the Constitution, among others. By contrast, those who believe that Citizens United correctly strengthens corporate speech rights may prefer the status quo, in which case no legislative action may be necessary. Thus far, most congressional attention responding to the ruling has focused on the DISCLOSE Act ( H.R. 5175 ; S. 3295 ; S. 3628 ). The House of Representatives passed H.R. 5175 , with amendments, on June 24, 2010, by a 219-206 vote. By a 57-41 vote, the Senate declined to invoke cloture on companion bill S. 3628 on July 27, 2010. A second cloture vote failed (59-39) on September 23, 2010. The bill remains on the calendar. On a related note, on July 29, 2010, the Committee on Financial Services ordered reported H.R. 4790 . The bill would require additional disclosure of political expenditures to corporate shareholders and is designed as a partial response to Citizens United . Some of the issues considered during the 110 th Congress might be—or have been—addressed again during the 111 th Congress. Others became prominent during recent election cycles, especially 2008, and appear to be ongoing. The following discussion provides additional detail about selected issues that may continue to be on the legislative or oversight agenda. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) assigns campaign treasurers with primary responsibility for filing FEC reports and ensuring that political committees comply with the act. Treasurers—not candidates—are legally responsible for disbursing campaign funds. In fact, FECA does not specify a role for candidates in campaign financial decisions. As a practical matter, however, candidates may exert substantial informal influence over campaign spending. In recent Congresses, some Members have expressed concern about how campaign funds would be spent in the event a candidate died. On March 25, 2009, the House Committee on Administration reported H.R. 749 (Jones, NC) by voice vote and without amendment. The bill would permit candidates to designate to the FEC an individual to direct campaign spending following the candidate's death. That designation would supersede the treasurer's normal spending responsibilities, but would not affect the treasurer's reporting or other responsibilities. A backup could also be identified if the designee died, became incapacitated, or were unable or unwilling to carry out his or her responsibilities. The bill also permits candidates to specify their wishes about how funds would be disbursed. On April 22, 2009, H.R. 749 passed the House by voice vote and under suspension of the rules. The measure was subject to only brief debate and received bipartisan support. H.R. 749 is virtually identical to H.R. 3032 , also sponsored by Representative Jones, and which the House passed on July 15, 2008, under suspension of the rules and by voice vote. The Senate took no action on the bill during the 110 th Congress, nor has it done so thus far during the 111 th Congress. H.R. 749 , and its predecessor ( H.R. 3032 ) have received bipartisan support amid candidates' desires to influence their campaign spending and make their wishes clear. To that end, H.R. 749 could alleviate the potential for asset disputes following candidate deaths. That outcome, however, depends on designees adhering to candidate wishes, and assumes that designees would be more faithful to candidate wishes than would be treasurers. H.R. 749 could create different levels of candidate authority over spending in life than in death. Specifically, although H.R. 749 would provide a mechanism for circumventing the treasurer after a candidate dies, the bill would not provide additional remedies for such action while the candidate is living. This may be a minor distinction due to candidates' de facto influence over their campaigns, despite FECA's general silence on the issue. Nonetheless, if Congress chose to enact H.R. 749 and felt it were important to create parity in candidates' abilities to direct campaign spending, it could amend FECA to create a clearer candidate role over campaign funds regardless of whether the candidate is living or dead. Congress might also provide explicit permission in FECA for candidates to hire and fire campaign treasurers. Bundling is a fundraising practice in which an intermediary either receives contributions and passes them on to a campaign or is credited with soliciting contributions that go directly to a campaign. Lobbyists often serve as bundlers. Bundling has been prominent in recent years both because of the additional disclosure required in HLOGA and because of the role bundling played in the 2008 presidential elections. Bundling opponents contend the practice allows individuals to circumvent FECA by delivering larger contributions than they could on their own, even though those contributions are funded by multiple sources. Critics also point to anecdotal evidence suggesting that some contributions routed through bundlers might have been coerced or come from impermissible sources. Nonetheless, bundling is not prohibited by FECA or FEC regulations; it is also a common fundraising practice. The FEC unanimously approved rules implementing HLOGA's bundling provisions on December 18, 2008.