Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Cantor, Joseph E." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Tax Checkoff: Background and Current Issues [December 12, 2005]
"Since 1976, presidential elections have been financed to some extent through public funds, availability of which is determined by a voluntary tax checkoff. Through July 2005, $1.432 billion has been 'checked off,' and candidates and parties have received $1.332 billion in this manner. After nearly three decades, presidential election public funding is by no means a universally supported program, as reflected in declining taxpayer checkoffs and periodic calls for the program's abolition. Concerns that structural problems have greatly eroded the system's value have led to recent calls for major amendments to bolster it. Such concerns and continued controversies suggest that the future of presidential public funding is not assured and that Congress may revisit the issue."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-12-12
-
Campaign Financing [April 11, 2002]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded by different reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. Democratic majorities in the 101st-103rd Congresses passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102nd Congress conference bill was vetoed. Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a similar bill but failed on a Senate cloture vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving parties and local citizens a greater role, but this and a Democratic alternative lost."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-04-11
-
Campaign Financing [May 6, 2002]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded by different reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. Democratic majorities in the 101st-103rd Congresses passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102nd Congress conference bill was vetoed. Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a similar bill but failed on a Senate cloture vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving parties and local citizens a greater role, but this and a Democratic alternative lost."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-05-06
-
Campaign Financing [May 20, 2003]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different reform approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2003-05-20
-
Campaign Financing [March 21, 2002]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded by different reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. Democratic majorities in the 101st-103rd Congresses passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102nd Congress conference bill was vetoed. Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a similar bill but failed on a Senate cloture vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving parties and local citizens a greater role, but this and a Democratic alternative lost."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-03-21
-
Campaign Financing [February 14, 2002]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded by different reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. Democratic majorities in the 101st-103rd Congresses passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102nd Congress conference bill was vetoed. Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a similar bill but failed on a Senate cloture vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving parties and local citizens a greater role, but this and a Democratic alternative lost."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-02-14
-
Campaign Financing [January 30, 2002]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded by different reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. Democratic majorities in the 101st-103rd Congresses passed bills with spending limits, benefits, and PAC and loophole curbs. The 101st and 103rd Congress bills were not reconciled; a 102nd Congress conference bill was vetoed. Reformers in the 104th Congress sought a similar bill but failed on a Senate cloture vote; House Republicans offered a bill giving parties and local citizens a greater role, but this and a Democratic alternative lost."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-01-30
-
Campaign Finance Legislation and Activity in the 109th Congress [January 26, 2007]
"During the 109th Congress, 51 bills were introduced to change the nation's campaign finance laws (primarily under Titles 2 and 26 of the 'U.S. Code'). These bills -- 43 in the House and 8 in the Senate -- sought to change the current system, including tightening perceived loopholes. Two of those bills passed the House, but no bill passed both chambers. Therefore, no statutory changes occurred in federal campaign finance law during the 109th Congress. Although the 109th Congress chose not to enact campaign finance legislation, Congress nonetheless considered dozens of bills addressing a wide variety of topics. In summarizing that legislation, this report identifies 14 major topics (categories) addressed in the bills. These categories are diverse, ranging from changing individual contribution limits to regulating independent expenditures. Although some bills called for increased regulation, others proposed less regulation. Hence, legislative activity during the 109th Congress reflected a long-standing debate in campaign finance policy over extending regulation of campaign finance practices versus limiting the reach of such regulation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.; Garrett, R. Sam, 1977-
2007-01-26
-
Campaign Finance Reform: Regulating Political Communications on the Internet [September 20, 2005]
"The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) amended the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to include a new term, 'federal election activity,' in order to expand the scope of federal campaign finance regulation. The definition of 'federal election activity' includes a 'public communication,' i.e., a broadcast, cable, satellite, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank communication made to the general public, 'or any other form of general public political advertising.' In October 2002, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated regulations exempting from the definition of 'public communication' those communications that are made over the Internet. In response to the FEC's final rules, the two primary House sponsors of BCRA filed suit in U.S. district court against the FEC seeking to invalidate the regulations as opening a new avenue for circumvention of federal campaign finance law. In September 2004, in 'Shays v. FEC', the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia overturned some of the FEC's new regulations. In response to the district court's decision, in April 2005, the FEC published proposed new rules in order to conform to the Shays ruling. The proposed regulations reflect an attempt by the FEC to leave web logs, or 'blogs,' created and wholly maintained by individuals, free of regulations under FECA, while extending limited regulation only to uses of the Internet involving substantial monetary transactions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Whitaker, L. Paige; Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-09-20
-
Campaign Financing [Updated January 5, 2005]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. [...] In the wake of the 2004 elections, when some $500 million was raised and spent by 527 organizations outside of federal election law regulation, many have called for the 109th Congress to examine the role of 527 groups in federal elections. Supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 introduced legislation toward the end of the 108th Congress to apply federal election law regulation to such groups involved in federal election-related activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-01-05
-
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law [Updated January 9, 2004]
"The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was enacted on March 27, 2002 as P.L. 107-155. It passed the House on February 14, 2002, as H.R. 2356 (Shays-Meehan), by a 240-189 vote. Its companion measure, on which it was largely based, had initially been passed by the Senate in 2001 as S. 27 (McCain-Feingold). [...] The Act generally took effect on November 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 general elections. Certain provisions, however, had different effective dates, either to allow a transition period or, as in the case of increased contribution limits, to make the new rules coincide with the calendar year. On December 10, 2003, in McConnell v. FEC [Federal Election Commission] (No. 02-1674), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of BCRA. A 5-to-4 majority of the Court upheld most portions of the law, including the key provisions relating to political party soft money and electioneering communications. The Court, however, invalidated two provisions of the law: the prohibition of contributions by minors age 17 and under and the provision requiring political parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures during the post-nomination, pre-election campaign period."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2004-01-09
-
Campaign Finance: An Overview [Updated April 20, 2007]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding. [...] This report provides an overview of campaign finance law governing federal elections, issues raised in recent years by campaign finance practices, and recent legislative activity and proposals in Congress. It will be updated as developments warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2007-04-20
-
Soft and Hard Money in Contemporary Elections: What Federal Law Does and Does Not Regulate [Updated March 15, 2002]
"Financial activity in federal elections is governed by federal statutes, which have evolved under the influence of various court rulings. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, as amended, imposes limitations and prohibitions on money from certain sources and requires public disclosure of money raised and spent in federal elections. Based on the Supreme Court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, federal law generally does not impose mandatory limits on campaign spending by candidates or groups. While federal law regulates some types and sources of campaign money, other types and sources are exempt from coverage. Also, there are wide differences in what federal law allows in federal elections and what 50 state statutes allow in state elections. Money that is outside the federal regulatory framework, but raised and spent in a manner suggesting possible intent to affect federal elections, is known as soft money. The omissions from federal regulation and disparities between federal and state laws have created confusion about current practices. This report examines the major types of financial activity in elections and what are often labeled as loopholes in federal law. In the 107th Congress, both the House-passed Shays-Meehan (H.R. 2356) and the Senate-passed McCain-Feingold (S. 27) bills would ban the raising of soft money by national parties and federal candidates or officials, and would restrict soft money spending by state parties on what the bills define as federal election activities. Both bills would also regulate certain communications now considered to be 'issue advocacy' and thus outside the purview of federal election law, designating them instead as 'electioneering communications,' subject to disclosure requirements and, for specified entities, a prohibition on their financing with treasury funds."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2002-03-15
-
Campaign Finance [Updated September 28, 2001]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs have long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending is out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate has also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). The differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system have long been compounded bydifferent reform approaches of the major parties. Democrats have tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some form of public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans have generally opposed such limits and public funding. [...] Reform supporters vowed a renewed effort in the 107th Congress. On April 2, the Senate passed S. 27 (McCain-Feingold), as amended, following a two-week debate. House debate, planned for July 12, did not occur because the proposed rule for consideration was rejected that day by the House."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2001-09-28
-
Campaign Financing [December 15, 2003]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different reform approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding. The 1996 elections marked a turning point in the debate's focus, as it shifted from whether to further restrict already-regulated spending and funding sources to addressing activities largely or entirely outside federal election law regulation and disclosure requirements. Although concerns had long been rising over soft money in federal elections, the widespread and growing use of soft money for so-called issue advocacy since 1996 raised questions over the integrity of existing regulations and the feasibility of any limits on campaign money."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2003-12-15
-
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Existing Law [May 3, 2002]
"This report summarizes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107- 155) and compares it with existing law (in most cases, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. § 431 'et seq'.). In general, the new Act takes effect on November 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 general elections, although certain provisions have different effective dates, as noted herein. Much of the campaign finance debate has revolved around the issues of so-called hard and soft money. In general, the term 'hard money' has been used to refer to funds raised and spent according to the limits, prohibitions, and disclosure requirements of federal election law. By contrast, 'soft money' has been used to describe funds raised and spent outside the federal election regulatory framework, but which may have at least an indirect impact on federal elections. Once the new statute described herein takes effect, some aspects of soft money that hitherto had not been regulated by federal election law will be regulated."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.; Whitaker, L. Paige
2002-05-03
-
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary and Comparison with Previous Law [January 31, 2003]
"This report summarizes the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107- 155) and compares it with the previous law (in most cases, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), 2 U.S.C. § 431 'et seq'.). In general, the new Act took effect on November 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 general elections, although certain provisions had different effective dates, as noted herein. Much of the recent campaign finance debate has revolved around the issues of so-called hard and soft money. In general, the term 'hard money' has been used to refer to funds raised and spent according to the limits, prohibitions, and disclosure requirements of federal election law. By contrast, 'soft money' has been used to describe funds raised and spent outside the federal election regulatory framework, but which may have at least an indirect impact on federal elections. Since the new statute described herein became effective, however, regulation was extended to some aspects of soft money that hitherto had not been regulated by federal election law."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.; Whitaker, L. Paige
2003-01-31
-
Campaign Financing [August 3, 2004]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different reform approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2004-08-03
-
Campaign Financing [July 16, 2004]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different reform approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2004-07-16
-
Campaign Financing [October 28, 2004]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different reform approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and some public funding or benefits a part of their past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2004-10-28
-
Campaign Finance [May 4, 2006]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PAC). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2006-05-04
-
Campaign Finance [February 8, 2006]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PAC). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2006-02-08
-
Campaign Finance: An Overview [July 31, 2006]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding. […] This report (formerly CRS [Congressional Research Service] Issue Brief IB87020) provides an overview of campaign finance law governing federal elections, issues raised in recent years by campaign finance practices, and recent legislative activity and proposals in Congress, with a focus on the current (109th) Congress. It will be updated as developments warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2006-07-31
-
Campaign Finance [June 27, 2005]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-06-27
-
Campaign Finance [May 25, 2005]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-05-25
-
Campaign Finance [March 23, 2006]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PAC). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2006-03-23
-
Campaign Finance [April 20, 2005]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-04-20
-
Campaign Financing [March 8, 2005]
"Concerns over financing federal elections have become a seemingly perennial aspect of our political system, long centered on the enduring issues of high campaign costs and reliance on interest groups for needed campaign funds. Rising election costs had long fostered a sense in some quarters that spending was out of control, with too much time spent raising funds and elections 'bought and sold.' Debate had also focused on the role of interest groups in campaign funding, especially through political action committees (PACs). Differences in perceptions of the campaign finance system were compounded by the major parties' different approaches. Democrats tended to favor more regulation, with spending limits and public funding or benefits a part of past proposals. Republicans generally opposed such limits and public funding."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cantor, Joseph E.
2005-03-08
1
