Presidential election campaign fund checkoff

Last updated

The presidential election campaign fund checkoff appears on US income tax return forms as the question "Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?".

Contents

The indicated funds—originally $1 and implemented in 1966 [1] and changed to $3 in 1994 [2] —began as a start to public funding of elections to provide for the financing of presidential primary and general-election campaigns, as well as national party conventions. Both the Republican and Democratic nominees in the general election receive a fixed amount of checkoff dollars. Nominees from other political parties may qualify for a smaller, proportionate amount of checkoff funds if they receive more than 5% of the vote. The national parties used to receive funds to cover the costs of their national conventions. Matching funds are also given for primary candidates for small contributions. The campaign fund reduces a candidate's dependence on large contributions from individuals and special-interest groups. This program is administered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

Requirements for a candidate to be declared eligible for funding under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund include agreeing to an overall spending limit, abiding by spending limits in each state, using public funds only for legitimate campaign-related expenses, keeping financial records, and permitting an extensive campaign audit.

The option for taxpayers does not change the amount of their individual tax or refund. Instead, the funds are designated to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund instead of the regular pool of the US Treasury. Accordingly, the amount of the money in the fund is determined by how many taxpayers check the box. [3]

Primary election

The federal government will match up to $250 of an individual's total contributions to an eligible candidate.

Only candidates seeking nomination by a political party to the office of president are eligible to receive primary matching funds. In addition, a candidate must establish eligibility by submitting to the FEC proof that at least $5,000 was raised in each of at least 20 states. Only a maximum of $250 per individual applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state.

The spending limit increases every cycle due to inflation. The FEC estimates that the limits for the primary election will be $40.9 million, of which a candidate must abide by state limits of 65.4 cents per person of voting age population in a state, or $817,800, whichever is greater. [4] Certain fundraising expenses (up to 20 percent of the expenditure limit) and legal and accounting expenses incurred solely to ensure the campaign's compliance with the law do not count against the expenditure limits.

Once they have established eligibility for matching payments, presidential candidates may receive public funds to match contributions from individual contributors, up to $250 per individual. Contributions from political committees are not eligible for matching funds. Cash contributions are also ineligible, as their origins cannot be tracked.

Eligible candidates may receive public funds equaling up to half of the national spending limit for the primary campaign, although because of the donors that give up to the $2,300 limit, they generally raise much more money than they receive in matching funds.

In 2008, many of the top candidates chose not to accept the primary matching funds. Tom Tancredo, [5] John Edwards, [6] Chris Dodd, [7] Joe Biden, [8] Dennis Kucinich, [9] and Duncan Hunter [10] qualified for and elected to take public funds in the primary. John McCain qualified [11] for public funds in the primary, but later decided to reject them. [12] Barack Obama declined public funds for both the primary and the November election.

General election

The presidential nominee of each major party (one whose candidate received more than 25% of the vote in the previous election) may become eligible for a public grant of $81.78 million (if the election were held in 2007). To be eligible to receive the public funds, the candidate must limit spending to the amount of the grant and cannot accept private contributions for the campaign. After the conventions, candidates raise funds for general election legal and accounting compliance funds (GELACs), which are to exclusively pay for legal and accounting expenses for the campaign. They can also pay for recounts, since that is considered a "winding down" expense allowed under regulations. [13] These expenditures are not subject to the above limit. However, in 2007, the FEC ruled that up to 5% of broadcast advertising can be paid for using GELACs, since that is time nominally spent on the required disclaimers under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, namely I approve this message. [14]

In addition, candidates may spend up to $50,000 from their own personal funds. Such spending does not count against the expenditure limit.

Minor party candidates and new party candidates may become eligible for partial public funding of their general election campaigns. (A minor party candidate is the nominee of a party whose candidate received between 5 and 25 percent of the total popular vote in the preceding presidential election. A new party candidate is the nominee of a party that is neither a major party nor a minor party. This includes most "independent" candidates, because they run on a token party line.) The amount of public funding to which a minor party candidate is entitled is based on the ratio of the party's popular vote in the preceding presidential election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in that election. A new party candidate receives partial public funding after the election if the candidate receives 5 percent or more of the vote. The entitlement is based on the ratio of the new party candidate's popular vote in the current election to the average popular vote of the two major party candidates in the election.

Although minor and new party candidates may supplement public funds with private contributions and may exempt some fundraising costs from their expenditure limit, they are otherwise subject to the same spending limit and other requirements that apply to major party candidates.

Participation

In 1977, about 29% of taxpayers checked off the box to contribute $1 of their taxes towards the fund. The level dropped to 19% by 1992 and dropped further to only 3.6% in 2020. [15] This could be because of the increase from $1 to $3 in 1994 and a general lack of understanding of the fund. Two other reasons cited for the decline are an erroneous belief that donations increase tax liability and a general apathy toward the political duopoly. [16]

Re-assignment of funds

The portion of the checkoff that formerly went to pay for party conventions was diverted to pay for pediatric research in 2014, with the passage of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act. [17]

The Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act (H.R. 2019; 113th Congress), which was passed into law on April 3, 2014, diverts the money in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund which was earmarked for party conventions, to pay for research into pediatric cancer through the National Institutes of Health. [18] [19] The total funding for research would come to $126 million over 10 years. [19] [18] As of 2014, the national conventions got about 23% of their funding from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance reform in the United States</span> United States efforts to regulate fundraising for democratic election campaigns

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold". Key provisions of the law prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election; However, provisions of BCRA limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned by the Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC was created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act</span> 2002 American law regulating political campaigns

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or BCRA, is a United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

In the United States, a political party committee is an organization, officially affiliated with a political party and registered with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), which raises and spends money for political campaigning. Political party committees are distinct from political action committees, which are formally independent of political parties and subject to different rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Independent expenditure</span> Type of political campaign communication in the US

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified political candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with - or at the request or suggestion of - a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party. If a candidate's agent, authorized committee, party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved," the expenditure is not independent.

Lyndon LaRouche's United States presidential campaigns were a controversial staple of American politics between 1976 and 2004. LaRouche ran for president on eight consecutive occasions, a record for any candidate, and tied Harold Stassen's record as a perennial candidate. LaRouche ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States seven times, beginning in 1980.

A publicly funded election is an election funded with money collected through income tax donations or taxes as opposed to private or corporate funded campaigns. It is a policy initially instituted after Nixon for candidates to opt into publicly funded presidential campaigns via optional donations from tax returns. It is an attempt to move toward a one voice, one vote democracy, and remove undue corporate and private entity dominance.

Matching funds are funds that are set to be paid in proportion to funds available from other sources. Matching fund payments usually arise in situations of charity or public good. The terms cost sharing, in-kind, and matching can be used interchangeably but refer to different types of donations.

The United States Revenue Act of 1971 reinstated the investment tax credit, repealed the 7% automobile excise tax, and increased the minimum standard deduction from $1,000 to $1,300.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

The financing of electoral campaigns in the United States happens at the federal, state, and local levels by contributions from individuals, corporations, political action committees, and sometimes the government. Campaign spending has risen steadily at least since 1990. For example, a candidate who won an election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 spent on average $407,600, while the winner in 2022 spent on average $2.79 million; in the Senate, average spending for winning candidates went from $3.87 million to $26.53 million.

In the 2008 United States presidential election, fundraising increased significantly compared to the levels achieved in previous presidential elections.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to efforts to change American elections and the electoral system used in the United States.

Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 554 U.S. 724 (2008), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that section 319 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on candidates' rights as provided by First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> Undisclosed American political contributions

In politics, particularly the politics of the United States, dark money refers to spending to influence elections, public policy, and political discourse, where the source of the money is not disclosed to the public.

Governor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania unsuccessfully sought the Democratic Party nomination for president of the United States in the 1976 election. Shapp won reelection as governor of Pennsylvania in the 1974 election, the first Pennsylvania governor to be elected to a second four-year term following an amendment permitting this in 1967, and had hoped to translate his relative popularity in Pennsylvania into the groundwork of a successful presidential campaign.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Campaign Finance Board</span>

The New York CityCampaign Finance Board (CFB) is an independent New York City agency that serves to provide campaign finance information to the public, enable more citizens to run for office by granting public matching funds, increase voter participation and awareness, strengthen the role of small contributors, and reduce the potential for actual or perceived corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jill Stein 2016 presidential campaign</span> Political campaign for United States presidency

Jill Stein, a physician from Massachusetts, announced her entry into the 2016 United States presidential election on June 22, 2015. Stein had been the Green Party's presidential nominee in 2012, in which she received 469,627 votes. In the 2016 election, she once again secured the Green Party nomination and lost in the general election. She received 1.07% of the popular vote and no electoral college delegates.

<i>FEC v. National Conservative PAC</i> 1985 United States Supreme Court case

FEC v. National Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480 (1985), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down expenditure prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which regulates the fundraising and spending in political campaigns. The FECA is the primary law that places regulations on campaign financing by limiting the amount that may be contributed. The Act established that no independent political action committee may contribute more than $1,000 to any given presidential candidate in support of a campaign.

References

  1. ↑ "Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act of 1966" (PDF). www.finance.senate.gov. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  2. ↑ Ellis, Blake (2014-04-11). "Fewer people are checking off the $3 campaign contribution box on their tax returns". CNNMoney. Retrieved 2024-02-27.
  3. ↑ "Public funding of presidential elections". FEC.gov. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
  4. ↑ "Presidential Spending Limits 2007". Federal Election Commission.
  5. ↑ "Tancredo Second Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-09-12. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  6. ↑ "Edwards Third Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-11-01. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  7. ↑ "Dodd Fourth Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-11-27. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  8. ↑ "Biden Fifth Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-12-04. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  9. ↑ "Kucinich Sixth Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-12-20.
  10. ↑ "Hunter Seventh Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-12-20.
  11. ↑ "McCain First Presidential Candidate Declared Eligible for Primary Matching Funds in 2008 Race". Federal Election Commission. 2007-08-28. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  12. ↑ Jim Kuhnhenn (2008-02-11). "McCain turns down public matching funds for primary". The Arizona Republic. Associated Press.
  13. ↑ "Advisory Opinion Number 2004-35" (PDF). Federal Election Commission. 2004-09-30.
  14. ↑ "Legal Center and Democracy 21 File Comments on Draft AO 2007-09". Legal Center Weekly Report. 2007-07-27. Archived from the original on 2009-04-29.
  15. ↑ Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Check-off Chart Federal Election Commission. Retrieved 2 March 2021.
  16. ↑ Ellis, Blake (2014-04-11). "The real story behind the $3 tax checkoff box". CNN.
  17. ↑ "Congress Actually Passed Funding For Cancer Research Today, Here's How". The Huffington Post . 2014-03-11.
  18. 1 2 Gibson, Caitlin (2014-11-14). "Federal pediatric medical research act named for Gabriella Miller". The Washington Post . Retrieved 2016-04-12.
  19. 1 2 "H.R. 2019: ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECT OF H.R. 2019, THE KIDS FIRST RESEARCH ACT OF 2013, AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 16, 2013" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office. 2013-05-17. Retrieved 2016-04-12.
  20. ↑ Hooper, Molly K. (2014-01-30). "Convention wipeout coming soon?". The Hill . Retrieved 2016-04-12.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.