McCain–Feingold Act

McCain–Feingold Act
Name	Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
Other names	McCain–Feingold Act
Enacted by	107th United States Congress
Introduced by	John McCain; Russ Feingold
Introduced date	1999
Enacted date	2002
Public law	Public Law 107–155
Citations	2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.
Status	Partially upheld; partially struck down by Supreme Court of the United States

Contents

McCain–Feingold Act is a United States statute passed as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that reformed federal campaign finance law through regulations on Political action committees, Electioneering Communications, and soft money contributions. Sponsored by John McCain and Russ Feingold, the law sought to limit the influence of large donors such as Corporation for Public Broadcasting-funded entities and to close loopholes exploited in the 1996 United States presidential election and the 2000 United States presidential election. Its passage and subsequent litigation involved actors including Federal Election Commission, American Civil Liberties Union, Campaign Legal Center, and multiple litigants culminating in landmark decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Background and Legislative History

Support for the measure grew after controversies tied to Watergate scandal fallout, the Reform Party, and disclosures from the Keating Five controversy that implicated figures like Charles Keating. Bipartisan efforts led by John McCain and Russ Feingold drew on prior statutes such as the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and responses to rulings from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Legislative debate referenced precedents including Buckley v. Valeo and involved committees such as the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the United States House Committee on House Administration. Advocates cited cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and organizations such as Common Cause, Public Citizen, and League of Women Voters in hearings that considered testimony from representatives of National Rifle Association, MoveOn.org Political Action, and American Conservative Union.

The bill advanced through negotiations influenced by campaigns including the 2000 United States Senate election in Arizona and attention from media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post. Major proponents included John Kerry, George W. Bush, and state officials who had faced soft money controversies during the 1998 United States elections. After floor votes in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, the act became law when signed by George W. Bush.

Key provisions limited national party committees’ ability to raise and spend soft money and prohibited corporations, labor unions such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and nonprofit groups like Sierra Club from financing "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The statute amended disclosure rules under the Federal Election Commission and revised contribution limits related to Political action committees, individual donors, and state party operations, aligning with standards from Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 updates. It also defined coordination standards addressing communications by entities including MoveOn.org Political Action, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, and Center for Responsive Politics. Enforcement mechanisms engaged authorities such as the United States Department of Justice in coordination with the Federal Election Commission.

Litigation began with plaintiffs including Citizens United, National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on First Amendment grounds and invoking Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court of the United States addressed key questions in cases such as McConnell v. Federal Election Commission and later in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latter of which overturned portions of the act’s corporate spending restrictions. Decisions referenced constitutional doctrines shaped by earlier rulings like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and involved justices from William Rehnquist to John Roberts and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Court balanced regulatory interests against speech protections recognized in decisions like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and set precedents affecting groups like National Rifle Association and Business Roundtable.

Lower courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and district courts reviewed challenges involving disclosure, disclaimer, and coordination rules; cases involved parties such as FreedomWorks and Democratic National Committee.

The act reshaped fundraising strategies for entities including the Republican National Committee, Democratic National Committee, MoveOn.org Political Action, and corporate political spending by firms such as Microsoft Corporation and ExxonMobil. The restrictions encouraged growth of independent expenditure groups exemplified by Super PACs and organizations like Priorities USA Action, Americans for Prosperity Action, and Restore Our Future. Campaign finance dynamics shifted in cycles including the 2004 United States elections, 2008 United States elections, 2012 United States elections, and 2016 United States elections, with influence from hedge fund donors like Sheldon Adelson and activists tied to Arabella Advisors networks. The law’s effects intersected with public opinion measured by institutions such as Pew Research Center and prompted reforms at state levels in jurisdictions like California, New York, and Montana.

Following enactment, Congress considered amendments and reauthorizations; proposals were introduced in sessions of the 107th United States Congress, 108th United States Congress, and 109th United States Congress. Legislative initiatives led by figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell debated carve-outs, while advocacy from Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause sought to defend provisions. Repeal and modification attempts intersected with judicial developments after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and proposals including constitutional amendments advocated by groups like Move to Amend and legislators including Senator Tom Udall. Subsequent statutory responses and regulatory adjustments involved the Federal Election Commission and litigation venues such as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.