Campaign Finance & Federal Election Commission

Federal campaign finance law determines who can give how much to candidates, parties, and political committees — and what must be disclosed. The core statute is the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA, 1971/1974), administered by the FEC, a six-member bipartisan commission. The system has two tiers: a heavily regulated tier of direct contributions (individuals can give $3,500 per candidate per election in 2025–2026) and a largely unregulated tier of independent spending that exploded after Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) — allowing unlimited corporate, union, and individual money to flow into Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations, as long as that spending doesn't "coordinate" with campaigns. The result is a system where the disclosed contributions to candidates are capped and transparent, while the dominant spending vehicle — Super PAC and dark money — operates with far fewer limits and inconsistent disclosure. Understanding this structure matters for citizens, donors, and businesses trying to understand who funds political campaigns and what's disclosed vs. hidden.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 52 U.S.C. § 30101 — Definitions (defines political committee, contribution, expenditure, independent expenditure, and other key terms — these definitions determine the scope of regulation)
• 52 U.S.C. § 30104 — Reporting requirements (political committees must file periodic reports disclosing receipts, disbursements, debts, and the identity of contributors giving more than $200; reports filed electronically with FEC and publicly available)
• 52 U.S.C. § 30106 — Federal Election Commission (establishes 6-member bipartisan commission; appointed by President, confirmed by Senate; 6-year staggered terms; 4 votes required for enforcement actions and advisory opinions)
• 52 U.S.C. § 30109 — Enforcement (FEC investigates complaints, conducts audits, negotiates conciliation agreements, and may refer knowing/willful violations to DOJ for criminal prosecution; civil penalties up to the greater of $10,000 or 200% of the illegal contribution/expenditure)
• 52 U.S.C. § 30116 — Contribution limitations (sets dollar limits on contributions from individuals, PACs, and parties to federal candidates and political committees; adjusted for inflation biennially)

How It Works

Campaign finance law regulates the flow of money in federal elections — who can give, how much, and what must be disclosed. It is one of the most constitutionally contested areas of American law, shaped by a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions that have repeatedly reshaped the legal landscape.

FECA limits direct contributions to federal candidates: individuals may give $3,500 per candidate per election (primary and general are counted separately, effectively $7,000 per candidate per cycle) and $44,300 to a national party committee per year. (The aggregate biennial cap on total contributions across all federal candidates and committees was struck down by McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014; only per-recipient caps remain.) PACs may give $5,000 per candidate per election. Corporations, labor unions, and foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates. The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC transformed the landscape by holding that the First Amendment prohibits limits on independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and other organizations — spending that advocates for or against a candidate but is not coordinated with any campaign. Following Citizens United and the D.C. Circuit's SpeechNow decision, Super PACs emerged: organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts from any source, as long as they don't coordinate with campaigns. Super PACs have become a dominant force, spending billions per cycle.

The no-coordination requirement is the legal firewall — but critics argue it's difficult to enforce. Another enforcement gap involves "dark money": tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political activity as long as it's not their primary purpose, and unlike PACs and Super PACs, they do not disclose their donors. A 501(c)(4) can contribute to a Super PAC — which must disclose the 501(c)(4) as a donor — but the individuals funding the 501(c)(4) remain anonymous. This structure has channeled billions into elections without disclosure of the ultimate source. The FEC itself has a structural enforcement problem: with 6 commissioners (3 per party) and a 4-vote threshold for enforcement actions, the Commission frequently deadlocks 3-3, resulting in no action. Many violations go unenforced, and the FEC's advisory opinion process has become the primary mechanism by which the law develops. A voluntary public financing system for presidential campaigns has existed since FECA but is effectively dormant — no major candidate has accepted public financing for the general election since 2008.

How It Affects You

State Variations

Implementing Regulations

• 11 CFR Part 100 — Scope and Definitions (91 sections across 5 subparts — the foundational definitions that determine the universe of activity regulated by FECA; implementing 52 U.S.C. § 30101; the definitional choices here — particularly what counts as a "contribution" or "expenditure" and what's excluded — determine the outer boundaries of the entire campaign finance system):

  • Subpart A — General Definitions (§§ 100.1–100.29): § 100.10 — "person" means any individual, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or labor organization (federal government agencies are excluded); § 100.12 — "identification" means full name, mailing address, occupation, and employer; § 100.13 — "national committee" is the entity responsible for the party's day-to-day operations; § 100.14 — "state committee" means the party organization organized under state law; § 100.15 — "political party" means any association that nominates candidates for federal office whose name appears on the ballot; these baseline definitions establish who the regulated entities are and who must comply with FECA
  • Subpart B — Expenditures (§§ 100.110–100.120): § 100.111 — "expenditure" broadly includes any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value for the purpose of influencing a federal election; contracts and promises to make expenditures are themselves expenditures as of the date of the commitment (§ 100.112); independent expenditures (spending to expressly advocate for or against a clearly identified candidate, without coordination) are expenditures and must be reported (§ 100.113); the broad definition ensures that creative payment structures don't escape reporting requirements
  • Subpart C — Expenditure Exclusions (§§ 100.130–100.155): the most litigated area — activities that are not expenditures under FECA and therefore not regulated or reportable; § 100.131 — testing the waters: amounts spent solely to determine whether an individual should become a candidate (polling, travel, meetings) are not expenditures — but once the individual decides to run, testing-the-waters spending must be reported; § 100.132 — media exemption: costs of news stories, commentary, or editorials by broadcasting stations or newspapers are not expenditures, regardless of whether they favor a candidate — the foundational press exemption from campaign finance regulation; § 100.133 — voter registration and GOTV: costs of nonpartisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities are not expenditures; § 100.134 — internal communications by corporations and labor organizations: a corporation or union communicating with its own employees, members, shareholders, and their families about any subject is not making an expenditure — the internal communications exemption is how corporations and unions engage politically without FECA restrictions on those communications; § 100.135–100.139 — volunteer activities: use of a volunteer's home, vehicle, and incidental food/beverage provision are not expenditures; §§ 100.142–100.144 — bank loans: commercial bank loans at arm's-length rates are not contributions (the candidate must repay market-rate loans, so they aren't giving value); §§ 100.145–100.146 — legal and accounting services: legal and accounting services provided to political committees by vendors who are providing such services in the normal course of business are not expenditures; this carve-out allows campaigns to retain counsel for compliance without those services being treated as in-kind contributions from the law firm

  The contribution and expenditure definitions in Part 100 are the load-bearing elements of the FECA regulatory framework. Every subsequent FECA requirement — contribution limits, disclosure thresholds, coordination rules, PAC registration triggers — depends on whether a particular transaction meets these definitions. The expenditure exclusions (Subpart C) have generated particularly intensive litigation because they define the space where political activity can occur without FECA's limits or disclosure requirements; the FEC's regulations here must be consistent with the First Amendment's protection of political expression, and courts have invalidated overly broad regulatory definitions. The "testing the waters" exclusion (§ 100.131) is especially significant for potential candidates exploring a run — the period between "exploring" and "deciding" is heavily regulated by this definition, since triggering "candidate" status creates registration and reporting obligations.

• 11 CFR Part 102 — Registration of political committees (principal campaign committee designation, treasurer duties)

• 11 CFR Part 104 — Reports by Political Committees and Other Persons: the core FEC disclosure regulation specifying what every registered federal political committee must report, when to file, and in what format. Key provisions:

  • § 104.3 — Contents of reports: every report must disclose total receipts and disbursements for the reporting period plus year-to-date (or election-cycle cumulative for authorized campaign committees); contributions received: each contributor who gives more than $200 cumulative must be itemized with full name, mailing address, occupation, employer, date, and amount; aggregates below $200 may be reported as unitemized receipts; expenditures: each payee receiving more than $200 aggregate in the reporting period must be itemized with full name, address, date, amount, and purpose; loans, refunds, and outstanding debts must also be disclosed
  • § 104.4 — Independent expenditures (24-hour/48-hour reports): political committees that make independent expenditures (spending to support or oppose a clearly identified candidate without coordination) must report them on Schedule E; within 24 hours of making aggregate independent expenditures of $10,000 or more in a calendar year (or $1,000 or more within 20 days of an election), the committee must file a 24-hour report disclosing the payee, amount, date, purpose, and the candidate the expenditure supports or opposes; these 24-hour reports are one of the highest-visibility real-time campaign finance disclosures
  • § 104.5 — Filing dates: principal campaign committees of House and Senate candidates file on a quarterly schedule (April 15, July 15, October 15, January 31), plus pre-election reports 12 days before each election and post-general reports 30 days after each general election; presidential campaign committees and national party committees file monthly during election years; FEC provides a specific calendar for each election cycle available at fec.gov
  • § 104.8–104.9 — Itemization thresholds: contributions from any single source that aggregate over $200 in a calendar year must be itemized with full name, address, occupation, and employer; disbursements to any single payee aggregating over $200 in the calendar year must be itemized; contributors and payees below these thresholds are reported only as aggregate totals — the practical effect is that small donors (most of them) are not individually disclosed, while donors of $200+ are publicly searchable in the FEC database within days of the reporting deadline
  • § 104.11 — Continuous debt reporting: outstanding debts and obligations owed by or to a political committee must be reported on every subsequent report until the debt is extinguished; this prevents campaigns from hiding unpaid vendors or forgiven loans
  • § 104.18 — Mandatory electronic filing: political committees that receive contributions or make expenditures aggregating $50,000 or more in a calendar year must file electronically through the FEC's online filing system; electronic filings are posted to the FEC database typically within 24-48 hours of receipt, making campaign finance data near-real-time; smaller committees may file on paper
  • § 104.20 — Electioneering communications disclosure: any person (not just committees) who makes disbursements for electioneering communications — broadcast, cable, or satellite ads that mention a federal candidate within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, targeted to the candidate's district/state — must file a disclosure with the FEC within 24 hours of first broadcast if the aggregate amount exceeds $10,000; must disclose donors of $1,000+ who contributed specifically for the communication; this is the disclosure mechanism for the "issue ad" category that emerged after Citizens United
  • § 104.22 — Lobbyist bundling disclosure: authorized committees of federal candidates, leadership PACs, and national party committees must disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle contributions above $18,800 per reporting period; "bundling" means collecting contributions from others and transmitting them to the committee; lobbyist bundling disclosure was created after disclosure that Jack Abramoff and similar lobbyists were making large bundled contributions as influence tools

  Part 104 is the operational heart of federal campaign finance transparency — it is the reason that fec.gov allows any American to look up who donated to any federal campaign and how campaigns spend their money. The $200 itemization threshold has been a persistent policy debate: below-$200 contributions are effectively anonymous (only aggregate totals are disclosed), while above-$200 donors are publicly disclosed with employer and occupation. Because most small donors give below $200, most individual campaign contributions are never publicly linked to specific names — only the largest donors generate the employer/occupation disclosures that enable analysis of campaign finance patterns.

• 11 CFR Part 109 — Coordinated and Independent Expenditures: the FEC's implementing regulations defining the boundary between legal independent expenditures (unlimited, First Amendment-protected) and illegal coordination with candidates (which converts spending into an in-kind contribution subject to limits). The coordination rules are one of the most litigated areas of campaign finance law:

  • § 109.20 — Coordination defined: a payment is "coordinated" when made "in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of" a candidate, authorized committee, political party committee, or their agents; coordination transforms unlimited independent spending into a contribution subject to FECA limits and source prohibitions; a Super PAC that accepts unlimited corporate contributions can run ads supporting a candidate only if those ads are not coordinated — a Super PAC that coordinates becomes a conduit for illegal corporate or excess contributions
  • § 109.21 — Coordinated communication test: a communication is coordinated if it satisfies a content test AND a conduct test; the content test is met if the communication is an express advocacy ad, an electioneering communication within 30/60 days of an election, or material republication of a candidate's own materials; the conduct test is met through eleven specific scenarios including: the communication was made at the "request or suggestion" of the campaign, involves "material involvement" of the campaign in its creation, or is based on campaign material (strategy, polling, opposition research) obtained by agreement; the two-part test was designed to draw a bright line — casual contact with a campaign does not constitute coordination
  • § 109.10 — Reporting independent expenditures: any person (not just a PAC) who makes independent expenditures aggregating $250 or more in a calendar year must file a report with the FEC disclosing the amount, date, payee, purpose, and the candidate supported or opposed; within 24 hours of making aggregate independent expenditures of $10,000 or more after January 1 of an election year (or $1,000 or more within 20 days of an election), a 24-hour report is required; this near-real-time disclosure obligation was one of the few transparency mechanisms to survive the Citizens United era
  • § 109.11 — Disclaimer requirements: any communication that constitutes an independent expenditure must include a disclaimer stating who paid for the ad and that it was "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee"; the disclaimer must be "clear and conspicuous"; broadcast ads require both audio and visual disclaimers; mailers and printed materials require a printed notice; the disclaimer is the public signal that distinguishes a Super PAC ad from a campaign ad
  • §§ 109.30–109.36 — Political party coordinated expenditures: national and state party committees may make "coordinated party expenditures" on behalf of their candidates, subject to dollar limits ($65,300 in 2026 for House nominees in multi-district states; $130,600 for at-large House seats; Senate limits vary by state population); these coordinated expenditures are explicitly authorized by FECA and are not treated as in-kind contributions; however, if a party committee chooses to make independent expenditures (rather than coordinated), it must be genuinely independent — the constitutionality of these coordinated party expenditure limits is currently before the Supreme Court in NRSC v. FEC (argued Dec. 9, 2025; decision pending as of May 2026)

  The coordination rules are perpetually contested because they determine the practical meaning of Citizens United: unlimited Super PAC spending is constitutionally protected only because it is nominally independent from campaigns. Critics argue the rules are easily gamed — former campaign officials become Super PAC operatives; campaigns signal strategy through public statements that Super PACs can legally follow without "coordinating"; the "cheek-by-jowl" relationship between campaigns and affiliated Super PACs is openly documented in FEC records. FEC enforcement of coordination rules has been limited by 3-3 partisan deadlocks on the Commission.

• 11 CFR Part 110 — Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Prohibitions: the FEC's implementing regulation for the core dollar limits and source prohibitions of FECA (52 U.S.C. § 30116 et seq.). Part 110 is where the statutory limits become operational rules with specific dollar amounts, exceptions, and anti-circumvention provisions. Key provisions:

  • § 110.1 — Individual contribution limits: any person (other than a multicandidate PAC) may contribute to any single federal candidate or authorized campaign committee no more than $3,500 per election (2025–2026 cycle, adjusted biennially under § 110.17); the primary and general elections are counted separately, so an individual may give $3,500 before the primary and another $3,500 before the general to the same candidate; contributions to national party committees are limited to $44,300 per year; contributions to any other political committee (non-national-party) are limited to $5,000 per year; FECA's aggregate biennial cap on total federal political contributions was struck down by McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), leaving only per-recipient limits
  • § 110.2 — Multicandidate PAC limits: a multicandidate political committee (a PAC that has received contributions from more than 50 persons and contributed to at least 5 federal candidates) may contribute $5,000 per candidate per election — the flat $5,000 PAC limit has not been adjusted for inflation since FECA was enacted; a multicandidate PAC may give $15,000 per year to a national party committee and $5,000 per year to any other political committee; the absence of inflation-indexing for PAC limits (unlike individual limits) has meant the real value of PAC contributions has declined substantially since 1974
  • § 110.3 — Affiliated committee and party committee limits: committees under common control or direction (e.g., a company's multiple PACs, or a national party and its affiliated state parties) are treated as a single contributor for purposes of the limits — a corporation cannot circumvent the PAC limit by establishing multiple affiliated PACs; national and state party committees may transfer funds to each other without limit, but may not coordinate with Super PACs (see Part 109) to funnel unlimited money to candidates indirectly
  • § 110.4 — Contributions in the name of another; cash contribution limit: it is illegal to contribute in the name of another person — making a contribution and attributing it to a different person to disguise the true source is a federal crime (straw donor scheme); cash contributions from a single source may not exceed $100 per election — all larger contributions must be made by check, credit card, or traceable electronic payment to preserve the audit trail; violations of the cash limit are a frequent basis for FEC enforcement actions involving small local campaigns
  • § 110.6 — Earmarked contributions: a contribution made to an intermediary (a "conduit") with the instruction that it be passed through to a specific candidate is treated as a direct contribution from the original donor to the candidate, subject to the donor's contribution limit to that candidate; earmarking allows individuals to bundle contributions through intermediaries (lobbyists, trade associations) while the underlying donor's limit, not the intermediary's, controls — this is the statutory basis for the bundling disclosure rules in Part 104
  • § 110.11 — Disclaimer requirements: any "public communication" that supports or opposes a clearly identified federal candidate must include a disclaimer identifying who paid for it and whether it was authorized by a candidate or campaign; broadcast ads must include both a visual and audio disclaimer ("I'm [Name] and I approve this message" for candidate-authorized ads; "paid for by [organization]" for outside ads); digital ads and online communications are subject to the same disclaimer requirements with adaptations for screen size; failure to include a disclaimer is one of the most commonly cited FEC enforcement violations
  • § 110.13 — Candidate debates: nonprofit organizations (501(c)(3) or (c)(4)) and broadcast entities may stage candidate debates without violating the contribution prohibitions, provided they use objective, pre-established criteria to select debate participants that do not favor any particular candidate; a debate staging organization may not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate; this is the regulatory basis for the Commission on Presidential Debates' historical role staging general election presidential debates (a function challenged by third-party candidates who claimed the criteria excluded them)
  • § 110.17 — Price index increases: the contribution limits in § 110.1 are adjusted biennially using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U); the FEC publishes updated limits in the Federal Register before each election cycle; the adjustment applies only to individual limits — PAC limits (§ 110.2's $5,000 limit) are statutory and not subject to CPI adjustment
  • § 110.19 — Contributions by minors: a person age 17 or younger may make contributions subject to the standard limits in § 110.1, provided the decision to contribute is made by the minor, the funds belong to the minor from sources other than their parents, and the contribution is not made as a conduit for a parent's funds; parents may not funnel contributions through their children to circumvent individual limits
  • § 110.20 — Foreign national prohibition: foreign nationals (persons who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents) may not make contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal, state, or local election; foreign nationals also may not make contributions to a party's convention committee; the prohibition applies to individuals, foreign corporations (including U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations), and other foreign entities; the determination of "foreign national" status is based on the contributor's citizenship and immigration status, not their place of residence; this provision was the legal basis for investigations into alleged Chinese, Russian, Saudi, and other foreign attempts to influence U.S. elections

  Part 110 is simultaneously the most important and most frequently circumvented part of campaign finance law. The limits it sets are binding on direct contributions to candidates, but the emergence of unlimited outside spending (Super PACs under Part 109, and "dark money" through 501(c)(4)s not required to disclose donors to the FEC) has made the § 110.1 individual limits a partial rather than comprehensive constraint on big-money politics. A donor who cannot give more than $3,500 per election to a candidate's campaign can give unlimited amounts to a Super PAC supporting that candidate — as long as the Super PAC does not coordinate with the campaign. The foreign national prohibition (§ 110.20) has emerged as one of the most significant provisions given documented foreign interference concerns; the FEC has limited investigative resources to proactively detect violations, which often surface through DOJ counterintelligence investigations rather than FEC enforcement. Recent rulemakings: The contribution limits are updated biennially by FEC notice; the most recent comprehensive amendment to Part 110 addressed the foreign national prohibition following the 2016 election cycle concerns.

• 11 CFR Part 114 — Corporate and Labor Organization Activity: the FEC's implementing rules governing what political activities corporations and labor organizations may and may not engage in under federal election law — the regulatory framework within which Citizens United operates:

  • § 114.2 — Core prohibitions (survived Citizens United): corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making contributions (direct donations) to federal candidates, candidate committees, party committees, or any committee making contributions to federal candidates; this prohibition covers cash, in-kind contributions (goods, services, use of facilities), and loans; the prohibition applies to corporations of all types — for-profit, nonprofit, and incorporated Super PACs that accept corporate money may not then turn around and contribute directly to candidates
  • § 114.10 — Citizens United authorization: corporations and labor organizations may make independent expenditures and fund electioneering communications — the Citizens United v. FEC (2010) holding codified into FEC regulations; the authorization is conditioned on independence from candidates (the Part 109 coordination rules); under this provision, a corporation can spend unlimited funds on broadcast ads advocating a candidate's election or defeat as long as the spending is not coordinated with any campaign; the Supreme Court's holding applies to all corporate entities — including large membership organizations, trade associations, and labor unions
  • § 114.3 — Communications to the "restricted class": corporations and labor organizations may communicate on any subject, including express advocacy for or against federal candidates, to their restricted class — for corporations, this means stockholders and executive/administrative personnel and their families; for labor organizations, members and their families; these communications can take any form (email, letter, meeting, video) and are not limited in amount; the restricted class communication is the primary channel through which companies and unions engage their own members/employees on political matters without triggering PAC requirements
  • § 114.4 — Limited public communications: corporations and labor organizations may make certain limited communications beyond their restricted class — voter registration drives, get-out-the-vote activities, and ballot issue activities — subject to specific restrictions; production costs for these communications must be paid from the corporation/union's treasury, not a PAC; they must not express advocacy for or against a specific federal candidate if made beyond the restricted class
  • § 114.5 — Separate segregated funds (PACs): a corporation or labor organization may establish, administer, and solicit contributions for a separate segregated fund (SSF) — a corporate or labor PAC; the corporation may pay the administrative and overhead costs of the PAC (salaries, office space, legal fees) from treasury funds; the PAC itself must raise its contributions voluntarily from the restricted class; the SSF may contribute directly to federal candidates ($5,000 per candidate per election limit) and make unlimited independent expenditures; this is the traditional pre-Citizens United framework for corporate/union political participation, now supplemented by the direct IE authority under § 114.10
  • § 114.6 — Twice-yearly solicitations: corporations and their SSFs may conduct only two solicitations per calendar year of non-restricted-class employees (hourly employees who are not executive/administrative) for SSF contributions; these solicitations must be written and clearly disclose that employees have the right to refuse without reprisal; the twice-yearly limit on non-restricted-class solicitations prevents companies from pressuring rank-and-file employees through repeated solicitation

  Part 114 reflects the dual structure of corporate political activity post-Citizens United: the traditional PAC system (§ 114.5, SSFs contributing within limits to candidates) for direct candidate support, and the new unlimited independent expenditure authority (§ 114.10) for outside spending. Most corporate political activity now runs through both channels — SSFs for direct contributions to candidates/parties (creating access relationships) and independent expenditure operations (through trade associations, Super PACs, or 501(c)(4) organizations receiving corporate funds) for broader campaign activity. Labor unions operate an analogous system: union PACs for member contributions, and unlimited independent expenditure authority from the union treasury for broader political programs.

• 11 CFR Part 115 — Federal Contractors: the FEC regulations implementing the federal contractor contribution prohibition — one of FECA's oldest and most absolute rules. Under 52 U.S.C. § 30119, any person holding a federal contract (or seeking one through a negotiation or formal bid process) is prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal election. Key provisions:

  • § 115.1 — Definition of federal contractor: any person who enters into a contract with the United States or any federal agency for (a) personal services, (b) furnishing materials, supplies, or equipment, or (c) selling or leasing real property; the prohibition applies from the commencement of negotiations through the completion of the contract — meaning a company that submits a bid for a federal contract is already prohibited from contributing during the bidding period, not just after award
  • § 115.2 — Core prohibition: it is unlawful for a federal contractor to make, directly or indirectly, any contribution or expenditure of money or other thing of value, or any promise to contribute, in connection with any federal election, primary, or party nominating convention; "indirectly" sweeps in contributions made through intermediaries or conduits; the prohibition applies to both parties' contributions and independent expenditures from the contractor's treasury
  • § 115.3 — Corporations, labor organizations, and membership organizations: for corporate contractors, the prohibition covers the corporation's own funds but does not prohibit the corporation from establishing and administering a PAC (SSF) — the PAC may still solicit contributions from the restricted class (executives, stockholders, and their families) and contribute within normal PAC limits; the corporate contractor prohibition is narrower than many assume — it bars treasury contributions, not PAC activity
  • § 115.4 — Partnerships: partnership assets may not be used for contributions or expenditures; however, individual partners may contribute from their own personal funds, as long as the contribution is not from partnership assets; a government contracting law firm, for example, cannot use firm funds, but a named partner can personally contribute from non-partnership personal funds
  • § 115.5 — Individuals and sole proprietors: an individual who is themselves a federal contractor (e.g., an independent contractor with a federal consulting agreement) is prohibited from making contributions or expenditures from any funds under their dominion and control — including personal funds — for the duration of the contracting period; this is the strictest category: unlike corporate contractors (where the PAC workaround exists), individual contractors face a comprehensive contribution ban during the contract period
  • § 115.6 — Employee exception: employees, officers, stockholders, and members of a federal contractor entity may contribute from their own personal funds — the prohibition applies to the contractor entity, not to the humans within it; this distinction is often misunderstood by compliance officers who incorrectly tell employees they cannot contribute during a contracting period

  The federal contractor prohibition is older than FECA itself — it originated in the 1940 Hatch Act amendments as Congress's response to the use of government contract relationships to coerce or solicit political contributions. The prohibition has been repeatedly upheld against First Amendment challenge (most recently, the D.C. Circuit upheld it in Wagner v. FEC, 793 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) en banc). The definition of "federal contractor" for purposes of Part 115 is broader than many assume — subcontractors are generally not covered (only prime contractors), and the prohibition attaches to the entity holding the contract, not its affiliates. FEC enforcement of the contractor prohibition is relatively rare given the prohibition's scope and complexity; violations are most commonly discovered through FEC disclosure database analysis rather than active investigation.

• 11 CFR Part 113 — Permitted and Prohibited Uses of Campaign Accounts: the FEC regulations governing what federal officeholders and candidates may do with campaign funds beyond spending on campaign activities — the line between legitimate political use and prohibited personal conversion. This is one of the most visible compliance areas because personal use violations often generate both FEC civil penalties and federal criminal charges. Key provisions:

  • § 113.2 — Permissible non-campaign uses: in addition to campaign expenses, campaign account funds may be used to defray: (1) ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with official duties as a federal or state officeholder — congressional office costs not covered by the official allowance, constituent newsletters, town hall events, and similar official-capacity activities; (2) bona fide charitable donations — but not to charities with which the candidate or officeholder has a financial relationship or from which they receive compensation; (3) political expenses that are not "in connection with a federal election" — legitimate intra-party activity, political event attendance, dues to political organizations; (4) travel expenses incurred in connection with officeholder duties or political activity not subject to contribution limits
  • § 113.1(g) — Personal use prohibited: campaign funds may not be converted to any personal use — to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense that would exist regardless of the individual's candidacy or officeholder status; the regulatory test looks at whether the expense would exist even if the person were not a candidate or officeholder; a mortgage, rent, car payment, or grocery bill fails the test; a campaign office rental passes; gray areas (cell phones with both personal and campaign use, home offices) require allocation; the "irrespective test" was established by the FEC following the Durenberger and Oakar enforcement actions of the early 1990s
  • § 113.5 — Private aircraft restrictions: a candidate or authorized committee that pays for travel on a noncommercial aircraft must pay the charter rate (the full cost of chartering the equivalent aircraft for the trip); presidential, vice-presidential, and Senate candidates must pay the full charter equivalent — not the cheaper "first-class commercial equivalent" that was previously permitted; this rule was strengthened after members of Congress repeatedly flew on private jets owned by donors and paid only nominal "fuel costs"; any amount paid below the charter rate constitutes an in-kind contribution from the aircraft owner to the campaign, subject to contribution limits and source prohibitions; House candidates may pay the lowest first-class commercial fare available for the same trip rather than the full charter rate
  • § 113.3 — Officeholder accounts: funds donated directly to a federal officeholder (not to a campaign committee) — sometimes called "office accounts" or "leadership funds" — must be deposited into a designated account separate from campaign funds and personal funds; these funds may be used for the officeholder's official duties and are not subject to the same limits and prohibitions as campaign accounts, but cannot be used for campaign purposes or personal use

  The personal-use prohibition is enforced both civilly (FEC Enforcement) and criminally (DOJ Election Crimes Branch). Famous violations include members who paid personal legal fees from campaign funds, used campaign accounts as personal ATMs for cash withdrawals, or had campaign staff perform personal services. The FEC's personal-use enforcement has often been criticized as slow and limited; criminal prosecutions by DOJ have covered the most egregious cases (Senator John Edwards' Bunny Mellon payments; Representative Duncan Hunter's $250,000 in personal spending from campaign funds leading to a federal conviction).

• 11 CFR Part 116 — Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees: governs how political committees must report, manage, and extinguish outstanding debts — vendor bills, loans, and other obligations owed by campaign committees during and after the campaign. Part 116 addresses a persistent campaign finance problem: campaigns routinely end with outstanding bills to vendors (printing companies, media buyers, pollsters, event venues), and vendors face pressure to forgive or settle these debts at below-market rates that FEC must determine are not impermissible in-kind contributions to the campaign. Key provisions:

  • § 116.2 — Terminating committees: a committee that is winding down (a "terminating committee") may settle outstanding debts at less than face value provided: the committee has been in existence for at least 3 years since the relevant election, the settlement is at arm's length, and the committee makes reasonable efforts to pay; this allows long-running post-election committee wind-down without requiring every vendor to accept full payment (which is often uncollectible from a depleted campaign)
  • § 116.3 — Commercial vendor credit extensions: an unincorporated commercial vendor may extend credit to a campaign in the normal course of business for up to 20 days without the credit being deemed a contribution; if the campaign fails to pay within that window and the vendor continues to provide services, the unpaid amount begins to look like an in-kind contribution; vendors must evaluate whether extending further credit is commercially reasonable — credit extended on better terms than offered to ordinary commercial customers is an impermissible contribution
  • § 116.4 — Debt forgiveness by commercial vendors: when a vendor forgives a campaign debt, the forgiven amount is an in-kind contribution subject to all FECA source prohibitions and amount limits; corporations cannot forgive vendor debts owed by candidates (it would be an illegal corporate contribution); the settlement price must reflect what the vendor would accept from any other non-paying commercial customer in similar circumstances; "sweetheart" settlements — forgiveness specifically because of the political relationship — violate the prohibition
  • § 116.5 — Staff advances: individuals who advance personal funds to cover campaign expenses (front-of-wallet staff credit card charges, small personal loans) are treated as creditors; the campaign must repay within a reasonable time; amounts that are never repaid become contributions, subject to limits; if the individual's unreimbursed advances exceed the individual contribution limit, the excess is an illegal excess contribution
  • § 116.10 — Disputed debts: when a campaign and a vendor dispute whether a debt is owed (or how much), the committee must still report the debt on FEC filings; the dispute does not eliminate the reporting obligation; once resolved, the committee reports the resolution (payment, forgiveness, or waiver)

  Debt wind-down is one of the most compliance-intensive phases of campaign operation. Campaigns that end with major debts — as Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign did, carrying over $20 million in debt after the primary — face years of post-election FEC reporting and creditor negotiation, with FEC scrutiny of every debt forgiveness or settlement to ensure it is not an impermissible contribution to the ongoing political operation.

Pending Legislation

No major standalone campaign finance reform bills pending in the 119th Congress.

Recent Developments

• Super PAC spending has continued to grow, with billions spent in each presidential cycle since 2012
• FEC enforcement remains hampered by partisan deadlocks, with many significant complaints dismissed on 3-3 votes
• Dark money disclosure legislation has been proposed repeatedly but has not passed Congress
• Cryptocurrency donations raise new regulatory questions about contribution limits, disclosure, and foreign money
• AI-generated political advertising is an emerging challenge, with debates about disclosure requirements for synthetic content