Tillman Act of 1907

Last updated
Tillman Act of 1907
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to prohibit corporations from making money contributions in connection with political elections.
NicknamesCorporate Donations Abolition Act of 1907
Enacted bythe 59th United States Congress
EffectiveJanuary 26, 1907
Public law 59-36
Statutes at Large 34  Stat.   864b
Legislative history

The Tillman Act of 1907 (34 Stat. 864) was the first campaign finance law in the United States. The Act prohibited monetary contributions to federal candidates by corporations and nationally chartered (interstate) banks.


The Act was signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt on January 26, 1907, and was named for its sponsor, South Carolina Senator Ben Tillman.


In 1905, a New York state investigation into ties between the major insurance companies and Wall Street banks accidentally discovered evidence that the New York Life Insurance Company had made a $48,700 ($1.59 million in modern dollars [1] ) contribution to Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 presidential campaign. This discovery was followed by daily revelations about other corporate contributions. The presidents of all the big insurance firms, and many of the smaller ones, testified that they had made corporate contributions to the Republican presidential campaigns of 1896, 1900, and 1904. "[I]t is obvious," the New York Times said, "that a deterrent, an actual prohibition, is needed to shut off the corrupting stream that flows from corporation treasuries." [2]

The Times and the New York Daily Tribune both called on Congress to reintroduce a bill to prohibit corporate contributions that former New Hampshire Republican Senator William E. Chandler had drafted in 1901. [3] With the investigation and the media focusing attention on his 1901 bill, Chandler tried to get one of his fellow Republicans to reintroduce it in the upcoming Fifty-Ninth Congress. When none of them agreed to do so, he turned to his old friend Tillman. who introduced the bill in the Senate. President Roosevelt joined the growing support for such a prohibition in his December 1905 message to Congress: ""All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." [4] Tillman got the Senate to pass the bill, without debate, in 1906, and the House passed it, also without debate, in 1907. [5]

United States Senator Benjamin Tillman. Benjamintillman.jpg
United States Senator Benjamin Tillman.


Chandler’s original bill had two provisions; the first would have prohibited any corporation engaged in interstate commerce from contributing to election campaigns at any level, national, state, or local; the second would have prohibited any corporation from contributing to presidential and congressional elections. (At the time that would have covered only elections to the House of Representatives; U.S. senators were not popularly elected until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.) The bill that Congress passed in 1907 was more narrow in scope.

The Senate struck out the first provision, which rested on Congress’s broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Senate instead prohibited corporate contributions based on Congress’s authority to regulate elections to the House of Representatives. The final bill prohibited national banks and federally chartered corporations from contributing to election campaigns at any level, national, state, or local, and prohibited “any corporation whatever” from making contributions in elections for president and the House of Representatives. [6]


Most states soon passed their own laws banning corporate campaign contributions. [7] The state laws were first tested with the rise of the Prohibition movement, when state governments sued breweries that had used corporate funds against ballot measures to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. The first case brought under the Tillman Act, United States v. United States Brewers’ Association, 239 F. 163 (1916) , was also a Prohibition case, but it was about contributions to candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The breweries raised First Amendment objections to the state and federal laws, but the courts rejected them and upheld the laws. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

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.

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alben W. Barkley</span> Vice president of the United States from 1949 to 1953

Alben William Barkley was an American lawyer and politician from Kentucky who served as the 35th vice president of the United States from 1949 to 1953 under President Harry S. Truman. In 1905, he was elected to local offices and in 1912 as a U.S. representative. Serving in both houses of Congress, he was a liberal Democrat, supporting President Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom domestic agenda and foreign policy.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 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.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

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.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1933 Banking Act</span> 1933 U.S. banking reform; established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

The Banking Act of 1933 was a statute enacted by the United States Congress that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and imposed various other banking reforms. The entire law is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama. The term "Glass–Steagall Act," however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. That limited meaning of the term is described in the article on Glass–Steagall Legislation.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Corrupt Practices Act</span> United States federal law

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, also known as the Publicity Act, was a federal law of the United States that was enacted in 1910 and amended in 1911 and 1925. It remained the nation's primary law regulating campaign finance in federal elections until the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. The Act was signed by President William Howard Taft on June 25, 1910.

Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Constitution did not grant the United States Congress the authority to regulate political party primaries or nomination processes. The court struck down 1911 amendments to the Federal Corrupt Practices Act which placed spending limits on candidate and political election committee spending in primaries or other nomination processes for federal office.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election.

Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing ; and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act or DISCLOSE Act is a federal campaign finance reform bill that has been introduced in the United States Congress since 2010. The bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for greater and faster public disclosure of campaign spending and to combat the use of so called "dark money" in U.S. elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith–Connally Act</span>

The Smith–Connally Act or War Labor Disputes Act was an American law passed on June 25, 1943, over President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto. The legislation was hurriedly created after 400,000 coal miners, their wages significantly lowered because of high wartime inflation, struck for a $2-a-day wage increase.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Jennings Bryan 1908 presidential campaign</span>

The 1908 U.S. Presidential election occurred in the backdrop of the Progressive achievements of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's second term as well as against the U.S. recovery following the Panic of 1907. In this election, Roosevelt's chosen successor, Republican William Howard Taft, ran in large part on Roosevelt's Progressive legacy and decisively defeated former Congressman and three-time Democratic U.S. Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. Overall, the 1908 presidential campaign and election were about labor issues, trusts, campaign finance reform, imperialism, and corruption.


  1. 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–" . Retrieved May 28, 2023.
  2. "The Campaign Fund Scandal," New York Times, Sept. 17, 1905, 8. On the 1905 investigation into the insurance companies, see Morton Keller, The Life Insurance Enterprise, 1885-1910: A Study in the Limits of Corporate Power (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), 245-64.
  3. “Campaigns with Corrupt Money,” New York Times, Sept. 22, 8; W. E. Chandler, “Campaign and Insurance Funds,” New York Daily Tribune, Sept. 22, 1905, 3
  4. "December 5, 1905: Fifth Annual Message". Miller Center. University of Virginia. 20 October 2016.
  5. On passage of the Tillman Act, see Robert E. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988), 1-8, and Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 45-57.
  6. 34 Stat. 864, Chap. 420
  7. Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Florida had already passed such laws, after the 1896 election: Missouri Laws, p. 108 (March 20, 1897); General Laws of Nebraska, ch. 19 (April 3, 1897); Acts of Tennessee, ch. 18 (April 29, 1897); Laws of Florida, ch. 4538 (June 2, 1897).
  8. On these early cases, see Robert E. Mutch, “Before and After Bellotti: The Corporate Political Contributions Cases,” Election Law Journal, vol. 5 (2006), 295-301.

Further reading