Voting Campaign Finance Reform: Recent Reform Proposals Use these links to navigate the main sections of the Voting: Campaign Finance Reform section. Links for navigating the entire voting section, as well as the rest of the Law, Diversity and the Vote site are at the bottom of the page. Introduction, History & Change | PACs | Recent Reform Proposals Arguments For & Against Campaign Finance Reform YOU Vote! | Resources/Links for This Section Recent Reform Proposals Congress has considered numerous proposals in recent years to reform campaign financing regulations. Shays-Meehan Bill Drafted by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), the bill would have limited campaign spending by any House candidate to $600,000. The bill passed the House in the fall of 1999, but was defeated in the Senate. If enacted, the bill would have been advantageous to incumbents because only 3 percent of House challengers who spent less than $600,000 in the 1994 and 1996 elections were elected. McCain-Feingold Bill A proposal by John McCain (R-Arizona) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was debated three times last fall, only to be defeated by filibuster in the Senate each time. The McCain-Feingold bill banned soft money and brought “issue ads”, often referred to as “thinly-disguised campaign commercials,” under the disclosure requirements and contribution limits of the campaign finance laws. Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000 Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) introduced the Act in October 1999, which calls for increased disclosure requirements on campaign contributions and political ads. The proposal also placed a $60,000 limit on soft money contributions to political party committees and adjusted limits on individual contributions for inflation. Other generic types of proposals being discussed include: Banning Political Action Committees; Limiting PAC contributions to $1,000 instead of $5,000 and prohibiting PAC contributions that raise a candidate’s PAC receipts above 20 percent of campaign expenditure ceilings; Setting “voluntary” spending limits that a candidate would abide by in exchange for free or reduced rate TV time, reduced mailing rates, raised contribution or expenditure ceilings, in an effort to “level the playing field;” Limiting soft money or unregulated funds given to political parties. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that campaign spending is constitutionally protected speech has lead to a call for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending. Supporters claim that easing pressure on federal candidates to raise campaign funds will curtail opportunities for special interest groups to cultivate access to elected officials. Opponents contend that many of today’s finance reform problems were created as a direct result of earlier reform proposals. What we need to correct campaign ills is less regulation, not more, they say. Click here to find out about the ABA’s position on Campaign Finance Reform. >>Youth Citizenship >>Voter Registration >>Representation >>Campaign Reform Conversation | *Voting* | Activities | Resources Online Conversations | Law, Diversity, and the Vote