-
The Federal Election Campaign Act
Established comprehensive rules for political parties, campaign committees of politicians and political action committees. The Federal Election Campaign Act set rules for raising money, and limited the amount that donors could give to campaigns. It required campaigns, parties and PACs to disclose their donors and their spending. One major weakness of the act was the lack of a centralized agency to handle disclosure and enforcement. -
Watergate break in
The scandal of Nixon’s reelection committee, involved finance chair and commerce secretary, Maurice Stans, who raised $60 million for reelection. This included a cash contribution—delivered in a bulging briefcase—from financier Robert Vesco, who wanted to end an investigation in to his mutual funds by the SEC. Vesco’s cash was tied to the Watergate burglars. Stans delivered $70,000 worth of it to Nixon’s personal lawyer to pass on to them. The reaction to Watergate motivated campaign reform. -
Watergate regulation, Birth of FEC
Congress passes the post Watergate amendments the Federal Election Campaign Act, limiting the size of individual contributions to candidates; limiting donations for independent expenditures to elect candidates and prohibiting or restating longstanding prohibitions on prohibitions on political contributions and expenditures by corporations and labor unions... required those engaged in election activity to register with the Federal Election Commission and disclose funding sources and expendisures. -
Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley V. Valeo found that the government could restrict the amount an individual donated to a canadidate but restrictions on individual, independent spending or limits in total campaign expenditures. Trevor Potter argued in a December 2011 speech that this case planted the seeds for super PACs by ruling that while government can limit size of contributions to candidate, they can't limit the size of independent spending. -
First presdiential election with public financing
The first presidential election in which public financing is available to candidates and the establishment of the Presidential Election Campaign FundThe Presidential Election Campaign Fund. -
The height of public finance
Public participation in the presidential public financing system reaches an all time high of nearly 29 percent. As of 2010, the number was just above 7 percent. -
Willie Horton ad
The National Security PAC, raised funds in $5,000 increments from individuals, ran television ads that blamed the policies of Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis for convicted felon Willie Horton’s rape of a Maryland woman and assault of her husband while he was on a furlough from prison. Without mentioning Horton, the Republican National Committee also ran ads critical of Dukakis’ “revolving door” prison system. The Dukakis campaign accused them of illegal coordination. -
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce uphold bans on corporate spending to influence elections. Because corporations’ perpetual life, limited liability and other legal advantages, give them a special leg up in the political marketplace, rules that prohibit spending from their treasuries to elect candidates do not violate the First Amendment, the justices held. -
Election: Questionable fundraising
The 96 campaign of President Bill Clinton sees an explosion of questionable fundraising -- from allegations of foreign money being steered to nonprofits for get-out-the-vote efforts to Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers for big donors to Al Gore’s speech justifying his fundraising at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles. The Democratic and Republican parties raise $262 million in soft money, unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and labor unions. The soft money was used to run “issue ads.” -
Bush declines public financing
George W. Bush is the first to decline public financing for the primary election, becoming the first president elected since 1976 to do so. -
More mischief from 527 committees
527 committees are named for the section of the tax code that PACs are organized under. Republicans for Clean Air, a 527, runs a primary ad critical of the environmental record of John McCain. Because the ad didn't expressly advocate for McCain's defeat, the committee could accept unlimited contributions from any source, in this case, brothers Charles and Sam Wyly. Just as the political parties did in 1996, the 527s in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns used unlimited labor and corporate donations. -
McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Act
Congress passes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold, banning soft money contributions to political parties--and prohibiting unions and corporations from using treasury funds to advertise for or against federal candidates within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary campaign. The law also bars candidates for federal office and officers of political parties from raising soft money for other organizations, like 527s. Finally, it requires candidates to “ -
McConnell v. FEC
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission upheald the ban on soft money saying, the effect on speach was minimal and the ban prevented "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption."(the named plaintiff was Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the current Republican Senate leader), the Supreme Court upheld its 1990 ban on direct corporate donations to candidates. -
No public finance of primary
Bush and his Democratic presidential rival, John Kerry, both opt out of the public financing system for the primaries. While a 527 group called Swift Boat Vets, funded by big donors to Bush, runs the most famous ad campaign by an outside group—one that attacked Kerry’s service in Viet Nam—Democratic leaning 527s outraise those backing Republicans by a margin of 14 to 1. -
FEC fines three 527 committees
The FEC issues hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties to Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn.org and the League of Conservation Voters—for using impermissible contributions on independent expenditures to defeat federal candidates. The groups agree to file their disclosures with the FEC and abide by contribution limits—$5,000 for an individual per year and no money from corporate or union donors. -
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life: (The Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favor of allowing Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group incorporated as a nonprofit, to run what the FEC denounced as “sham” issue ads prior to an election. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. -
Wins without public funds
Barack Obama becomes the first presidential candidate to accept no public funds, becoming the first president elected with only private donations since Watergate. -
Citizens United v. FEC
In CItizens United, the Roberts Supreme Court overturns the Austin decision of 1990 and invalidates a key portion of the McCain-Feingold act, holding that corporations and unions, like individuals, have a First Amendment right to spend funds directly from their treasuries to make independent expenditures, allowing spending intended to elect or defeat a candidate for federal office. -
Speechnow.org v. FEC
In Speechnow.org v. FEC, the DC Circuit Court of appeals ruled the $5,000 ceiling on individual contributions for political expenditures unconstitutional, arguing that if independent expenditures aren't corrupting, there's no justification for limiting the amount that can be raised for those expenditures. -
FEC creates super PAC registraion
FEC announced it will accept registrations for a new kind of committee: Independent Expenditure Only multi-candidate non connected political committee, which National Journal reporter Eliza Carney renamed “super PACs.” -
Carey v. FEC
In Carey v. FEC, the U.S. District Court rules that "non-connected" PACS—those don’t have ties to corporations or labor unions—can set up separate accounts to accept unlimited contributions to make independent expenditures, creating a class of hybrid super PACs that can both contribute to federal candidates from one account and make independent expenditures from another. -
Presidential Election
