H.R.2476 - Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.2476, the Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act, aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The bill seeks to treat certain expenditures as coordinated with a candidate or political party committee if they are materially consistent with instructions, directions, guidance, or suggestions from the candidate or committee.
The bill introduces a new paragraph to Section 315(a) of the Act, specifying factors the Federal Election Commission (FEC) should consider when determining if an expenditure is materially consistent with such guidance. These factors include whether the guidance indicates specific information should be communicated to voters, includes information about the target audience, suggests methods of communication, or includes phrases, images, or audio subsequently used in disseminating information.
The Act aims to prevent the circumvention of campaign finance laws by clarifying what constitutes illegal coordination between candidates/parties and outside groups making expenditures.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be to tighten the definition of 'coordinated expenditures' under federal campaign finance law. This would likely lead to increased scrutiny of independent expenditures made by outside groups during election campaigns.
It could also result in more expenditures being classified as coordinated, subjecting them to stricter contribution limits and disclosure requirements. This could potentially reduce the influence of outside groups and increase the focus on direct candidate and party spending.
Potential Benefits
- Reduced Influence of Dark Money: By clarifying what constitutes coordination, the bill could limit the ability of outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of candidates without being subject to campaign finance regulations.
- Fairer Elections: Stricter enforcement of coordination rules could lead to a more level playing field, where candidates and parties are not unfairly boosted by outside spending that is effectively controlled by them.
- Increased Transparency: By requiring more expenditures to be classified as coordinated, the bill could increase transparency in campaign finance, as coordinated expenditures are subject to disclosure requirements.
- Strengthened Campaign Finance Laws: The bill would modernize and strengthen the Federal Election Campaign Act, making it more difficult to circumvent existing regulations.
- Greater Accountability: Candidates and parties would be held more accountable for the activities of outside groups that support them.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Overreach: The broad language of the bill could potentially capture legitimate independent expenditures, chilling free speech and limiting the ability of outside groups to engage in political advocacy.
- Increased Litigation: The new factors for determining coordination could lead to increased litigation as groups challenge the FEC's interpretation and application of the law.
- Complexity and Confusion: The bill adds further complexity to an already complex area of law, potentially making it difficult for individuals and groups to understand and comply with campaign finance regulations.
- Potential for Partisan Enforcement: The FEC's enforcement of the new rules could be subject to partisan bias, with one party potentially targeting groups that support the other party.
- Unintended Consequences: The bill could have unintended consequences, such as driving more money into less regulated areas of campaign finance.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. While it aims to prevent corruption and ensure fair elections, which are legitimate government interests, it also potentially implicates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The Supreme Court has held that campaign finance regulations must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
The key question is whether the bill's definition of 'coordinated expenditure' is sufficiently precise to avoid chilling legitimate independent advocacy. Overly broad restrictions on independent spending could be deemed unconstitutional under Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
However, the bill attempts to balance these concerns by focusing on expenditures that are 'materially consistent' with a candidate's or party's instructions, suggesting a direct link that could justify regulation. The constitutionality of the bill would likely be determined by the courts if it were enacted into law.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).