[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6549-S6553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3680. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
permit leave to care for a same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-
in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent who has a serious health
condition; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and
Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This is a bill--previously introduced in
the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis--that would extend
the important protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-
sex couples in America. Under current law, it is impossible for many
employees to be with their partners during times of medical need.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy once said, ``It is wrong for our
civil laws to deny any American the basic right to be part of a family,
to have loved ones with whom to build a future and share life's joys
and tears, and to be free from the stain of bigotry and
discrimination.''
America has a rich history of embracing those once discriminated
against and making them part of our nation's family. All Americans--
regardless of their background--are deserving of dignity and respect.
In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among
other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health
crisis, or that of a close family member.
Thanks to the FMLA, those people in the workforce who suffer a
serious illness or significant injury are able to take time to heal,
recover, follow their doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong,
healthy, and ready to be productive again. Most importantly, they know
that they will still have jobs to return to, because those are
protected by the law.
Likewise, workers who learn the terrible news that a child, a parent,
or a spouse is sick or injured, and in need of help from a loved one,
can provide that care and support knowing that their jobs are not in
jeopardy for doing so.
In passing the FMLA, Congress followed the lead of many large and
small businesses which had already recognized and addressed this need.
These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time
to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those
employees would return to work as soon as they could. In standing by
their employees in a time of need, these companies accomplished three
laudable goals: they eased the burden of those employees in crisis,
they reassured the rest of their employees that they too would be
covered should they find themselves in need of that protection, and
they ensured the return of these skilled and trusted employees, sparing
business the expense and effort of recruiting and training new people.
It was a win-win strategy.
The FMLA took that model and its benefits and brought the majority of
the American workforce under the same protections.
Today, once again, we have the opportunity to learn from a number of
forward-thinking, pioneering businesses--big and small and across the
United States--who have taken it upon themselves to improve on the
protections provided by law. While respecting the spirit and purpose of
the FMLA, these companies have simply recognized the changing nature of
the modern American family.
According to the Human Rights Campaign--a leading civil rights
organization that strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave
Inclusion Act--461 major American corporations, nine states, and the
District of Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on
behalf of a same-sex partner.
In 1993, the FMLA was narrowly tailored to apply only to those caring
for a very close family member. The idea was to capture that inner
circle of people, where the family member assuming the caretaker role
would be one of very few, if not the only person, who could do so. That
idea is still valid, and that idea has not changed.
What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle.
The nuclear American family has grown--sometimes by design, and
sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close
family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex
domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.
As the law stands right now, too many of these people are left
outside of the protections of the FMLA.
Earlier this summer, the U.S. Department of Labor issued guidance
clarifying that an individual serving as a parent, but who may not have
a legal or biological relationship to a child, is eligible to take FMLA
leave to care for that child or attend to a birth or adoption. As Labor
Secretary Hilda Solis noted, ``No one who intends to raise a child
should be denied the opportunity to be present when that child is born
simply because the state or an employer fails to recognize his or her
relationship with the biological parent. . . . The Labor Department's
action today sends a clear message to workers and employers alike: All
families, including LGBT families, are protected by the FMLA.''
I applaud the Labor Department and the Obama Administration for
sending this important message, but unfortunately, the FMLA statute
still does not allow an employee to take leave to care for a same-sex
partner. We must act to truly make these important protections
available to all families.
At times like these, when we as a nation are experiencing a difficult
employment market, those with good jobs know the value of those jobs
and are working as hard as they can to keep them. Those people should
never have to weigh the value of their employment security against
family duties to care for a loved one.
[[Page S6550]]
But even in the best of economic times, this bill makes sense. Injury
or illness can come at any time, and families are rocked by the needs
and decisions that come along with that reality.
There are many who would understandably question what this kind of
change in the law would cost the business community. I would remind
those people that the FMLA is already a very good law; it is in place
and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises, and
it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to
handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.
We have also seen that 90 percent of the leave time that has been
taken under the FMLA has been so that employees can care for themselves
or for a child in their care, and those situations are already covered
under the law as it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion
Act would do is provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that
there are a few more people in that inner circle of family who we might
call upon, or who might call upon us. It will not make a big difference
to the companies involved, but it will make all the difference in the
world to those protected by it.
We often hear calls from some of our colleagues who feel that the
Government tries to do too much, and that we try to force government to
do for us what we should be doing for ourselves or for each other. That
is exactly why this should be a law that we can all agree upon.
Certainly we can all agree that family is the first and best safety net
in times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic
ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave
Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help
their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing
their jobs in the process.
The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act takes a very good law and
makes it even better. It contains reasonable changes that merely
reflect the modern American family. It is the right thing to do, and I
hope we can join together on a bipartisan basis to pass it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3680
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave
Inclusion Act''.
SEC. 2. LEAVE TO CARE FOR A SAME-SEX SPOUSE, DOMESTIC
PARTNER, PARENT-IN-LAW, ADULT CHILD, SIBLING,
OR GRANDPARENT.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic
partner.--Section 101(12) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(12)) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic
partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
(B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and
inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
(2) Inclusion of same-sex spouses.--Section 101(13) of the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611(13)) is
amended by inserting ``, and includes a same-sex spouse as
determined under applicable State law'' before the period.
(3) Inclusion of grandparents, parents-in-law, siblings,
and domestic partners.--Section 101 of such Act (29 U.S.C.
2611) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Domestic partner.--The term `domestic partner', used
with respect to an employee, means--
``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the
employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union
law of the State or political subdivision of a State where
the employee resides; or
``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a
State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex
under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person
of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed,
personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary)
relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner
to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by
such employee as that employee's domestic partner.
``(21) Grandchild.--The term `grandchild', used with
respect to an employee, means any person who is a son or
daughter of a son or daughter of the employee.
``(22) Grandparent.--The term `grandparent', used with
respect to an employee, means a parent of a parent of the
employee.
``(23) Parent-in-law.--The term `parent-in-law', used with
respect to an employee, means a parent of the spouse or
domestic partner of the employee.
``(24) Sibling.--The term `sibling', used with respect to
an employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the
employee's parent.
``(25) Son-in-law or daughter-in-law.--The term `son-in-law
or daughter-in-law', used with respect to an employee, means
any person who is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or
daughter of the employee.''.
(b) Leave Requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling, of the employee if such spouse,
domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son,
daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
law, grandchild, sibling,''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent,''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandparent, sibling,''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling,''.
(c) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or parent
and an estimate of the amount of time that such employee is
needed to care for the son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the amount of time
that such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter,
spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent,
or sibling''; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``parent, or spouse'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''.
(d) Employment and Benefits Protection.--Section 104(c)(3)
of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
2614(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``spouse, or
parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``spouse, or
parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic
partner.--Section 6381(6) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic
partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
(B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and
inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
(2) Inclusion of grandparents, parents-in-law, siblings,
and domestic partners.--Section 6381 of such title is further
amended--
(A) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the term `domestic partner', used with respect to an
employee, means--
``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the
employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union
law of the State or political subdivision of a State where
the employee resides; or
``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a
State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex
under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person
of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed,
personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary)
relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner
to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by
such employee as that employee's domestic partner;
``(14) the term `grandchild', used with respect to an
employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of a son
or daughter of the employee;
``(15) the term `grandparent', used with respect to an
employee, means a parent of a parent of the employee;
``(16) the term `parent-in-law', used with respect to an
employee, means a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of
the employee;
[[Page S6551]]
``(17) the term `sibling', used with respect to an
employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the
employee's parent;
``(18) the term `son-in-law or daughter-in-law', used with
respect to an employee, means any person who is a spouse or
domestic partner of a son or daughter of the employee; and
``(19) the term `spouse', used with respect to an employee,
includes a same-sex spouse as determined under applicable
State law.''.
(b) Leave Requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling, of the employee, if such spouse,
domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son,
daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
law, grandchild, sibling,''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, sibling''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling,''.
(c) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or
parent, and an estimate of the amount of time that such
employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse, or
parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the
amount of time that such employee is needed to care for such
son, daughter, spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandparent, or sibling''.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 3681. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform
the system of public financing for Presidential elections, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to
repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The
Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will
continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take
effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential
election.
It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely
offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of
the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these
provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is
more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1
billion over 4 years.
The presidential public financing system was put into place in the
wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in
Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme
Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party
nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the
general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had
participated in the system for the primary election as well.
In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates,
Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the
system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry
elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election.
President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican
primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant.
In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including
President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors
Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While
Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election,
President Obama became the first major party candidate not to
participate in the general election public funding system.
It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries
has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the
electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns
without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has
worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work
in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to
opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.
In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election
candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly
reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private
fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with
the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator
McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for
the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in
either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a
total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The
public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost
of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money.
This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election
public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that
have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the
presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is
increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and
most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both
the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much
more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of
raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes
available substantially more public money for participating candidates.
It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and
provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating
candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the
general election.
In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the
bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising
on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only
up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution
limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is
$2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their
contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in
matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek
out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations
to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and
extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy.
Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part
of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant,
general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching
funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less.
General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500
from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General
election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200
million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions
of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending
permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a
campaign that lasts only a few months.
One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general
election systems together and requires candidates to make a single
decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the
primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return
to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to
participate in the system in the general election if they want to
receive Federal matching funds in the primaries.
This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between
the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential
nominees have emerged earlier in the election
[[Page S6552]]
year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some
nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail
down the nomination and the convention where they are formally
nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few
cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that
loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill
makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money
they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties
will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their
candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million.
Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the
bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be
eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in
matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20
States. That is five times the threshold under current law.
The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the
changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For
one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before
the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6
months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a
single date for release of the public grants for the general election--
the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current
system, under which the general election grants are released after each
nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.
The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from
soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and
requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The
bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and
lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential
candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more.
Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form
here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I
will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement.
The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system,
not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and
spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a
history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he
recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system.
I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in
the system if he runs for reelection.
Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The
total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is
projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle.
Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment
to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our
presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return
to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private
donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the
confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone
of the Watergate reforms.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section
analysis be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Presidential Funding Act of 2010 Section by Section Analysis
SECTION 1: SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE I--PRIMARY ELECTIONS
Section 101: Increase in and modifications to matching
payments--Current law provides for a 1-to-1 match, where up
to $250 of each individual's contributions for the primaries
is matched with $250 in public funds. Under the new matching
system, individual contributions of up to $200 from each
individual will be matched at a 4-to-1 ratio, so a $200
individual contribution can be matched with $800 from public
funds. Contributions are ``matchable contributions,''
however, only if the donor has made $200 or less in aggregate
contributions to the candidate, and the candidate certifies
that he or she will not accept more than $200 from that
donor. In addition, ``matchable contributions'' may not be
bundled by anyone other than an individual.
A participating candidate can receive up to $100 million in
matching funds.
``Contribution'' is defined as ``a gift of money made by a
written instrument which identifies the person making the
contribution by full name and mailing address.''
Section 102: ELigibility requirements for matching
payments--Current law requires candidates to raise $5,000 in
matchable contributions (currently $250 or less) in 20
states. To be eligible for matching funds under this bill, a
candidate must raise $25,000 of matchable contributions (up
to $200 per individual donor) in at least 20 states.
In addition, to be eligible for matching funds, candidates
must agree not to accept more than $1,000 in aggregate
contributions from a single donor. That amount will be
indexed for inflation. Participating candidates must also
agree to not accept contributions either made by or bundled
by lobbyists and PACs.
Finally, to receive matching funds in the primary,
candidates must also pledge to apply for and accept public
money in the general election if nominated.
Section 103: Inflation adjustment for contribution
limitations and matching contributions--Contribution limits
will be indexed for inflation, with 2012 as the base year.
Section 104: Repeal of expenditure limitations--Under
current law, participating candidates cannot spend in excess
of the primary spending limit, which was $54 million in 2008.
The bill eliminates that spending limit.
Section 105: Period of availability of matching payments--
Current law makes matching funds available on January 1 of a
presidential election year. The bill makes such funds
available six months prior to the first state caucus or
primary. That date for the 2008 elections would have been
July 3, 2007.
Section 106: Examination and audits of matchable
contributions--Current law requires that the Commission
conduct an audit of the qualified campaign expenses of
candidates and authorized committees that received payments
under section 9037. This Section would require the Commission
to also audit matchable contributions accepted by candidates
and authorized committees.
Section 107: Modification to limitation on contributions
for presidential primary candidates--Under current law, all
elections held in a calendar year for President are
considered to be a single election for purposes of the
contribution limits. This Section addresses the possibility
that a primary or caucus might be actually be held the year
before the general election by changing ``calendar year'' to
``four year election cycle.''
TITLE II--GENERAL ELECTIONS
Section 201: Modification of eligibility requirements for
public financing--Currently, candidates can participate in
either the primary or the general election public financing
system, or both. Under the bill, a candidate must participate
in the primary matching system in order to be eligible to
receive public funds in the general election.
Furthermore, the candidate must agree to (1) furnish the
Commission with evidence of qualified campaign expenses, if
requested; (2) agree to keep any records, books and other
information the Commission may request; and (3) agree to an
audit by the Commission and pay any amounts required to be
paid as a result of that audit.
To receive public funding in the general election,
candidates must certify that they will not (1) accept
contributions or bundled contributions from lobbyists or
contributions from a political committee other than a
political party; (2) solicit funds for a joint fundraising
committee that includes a political party after June 1 of the
election year ; and (3) solicit funds for any political party
committee after they have received their general election
grant.
Section 202: Repeal of expenditure limitations and use of
qualified campaign contributions--Currently, candidates who
receive public funds are prohibited from raising any private
funds for general election campaign expenses. Under the bill,
such candidates may continue to raise ``qualified
contributions'' for the general election. Qualified
contributions are defined as contributions of no more than
$500 in the aggregate that are received after June 1 of the
election year. To accept a qualified contribution, candidates
must certify that the donor has not contributed more than
$500 in the aggregate to the candidate for the general
election, and the candidate will not accept additional
contributions from that donor once $500 has been received
from that donor.
Section 203: Matching payments and other modifications to
payment amounts--The major party candidates for President
will be entitled to equal payments of $50 million, plus
matching funds of up to $150 million for a maximum total of
$200 million in public funding. Individual contributions
raised after June 1 of the election year of up to $200 will
be matched at a 4-to-1 ratio. Contributions are ``matchable
contributions,'' however, only if the candidate certifies
that the donor has made contributions of $200 or less in
aggregate for the general election, the candidate will not
accept more than $200 from that donor, and the contribution
has not been bundled or forwarded by anyone other than an
individual fundraiser.
Minor party candidates can receive grants and matching
funds for the general election after the fact, based on the
percentage of
[[Page S6553]]
votes received by those candidates in the election. If a
minor party fielded a candidate in the previous election,
general election funds can be received by that party's
candidate based on the performance of the candidate in the
previous election. These rules mirror current law on the
availability of general election funding for minor party
candidates.
Section 204: Inflation adjustment for payment amounts and
qualified contributions--The general election grant amount,
($50 million in 2012), general election matching fund maximum
amount ($150 million in 2012), and qualified contribution
limit for the general election ($500 in 2012) will be indexed
for inflation.
Section 205: Increase in limit on coordinated party
expenditures--Current law provides a single coordinated
spending limit for national party committees. In 2008, that
limit was about $15 million. The bill increases the limit to
$50 million. This will allow the party to support the
presumptive nominee during the so-called ``gap'' between the
end of the primaries and the conventions. The entire cost of
a coordinated party communication is subject to the limit if
any portion of that communication has to do with the
presidential election. Party spending limits will be indexed
for inflation.
Section 205: Establishment of uniform date for release of
payments--Under current law, candidates participating in the
system for the general election receive their grants of
public money immediately after receiving the nomination of
their party, meaning that the two major parties receive their
grants on different dates. Under the bill, all candidates
eligible to receive public money in the general election
would receive their grants and whatever matching funds they
are entitled to at that time on the Friday before Labor Day,
or 24 hours after both major party candidates have been
nominated, whichever is later.
Section 206: Amounts in presidential election campaign
fund--Under current law, in January of an election year if
the Treasury Department determines that there are
insufficient funds in the PECF to make the required payments
to participating primary candidates, the party conventions,
and the general election candidates, it must reduce the
payments available to participating primary candidates and it
cannot make up the shortfall from any other source until
those funds come in. Under the bill, in making that
determination the Department can include an estimate of the
amount that will be received by the PECF during that election
year, but the estimate cannot exceed the past three years'
average contribution to the fund. This will allow primary
candidates to receive their full payments as long as a
reasonable estimate of the funds that will come into the PECF
that year will cover the general election candidate payments.
The bill also allows the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow
the funds necessary to carry out the purposes of the fund
during the first campaign cycle in which the bill is in
effect.
Section 207: Use of general election payments for general
election legal and accounting compliance--Current FEC
regulations permit general election candidates to raise money
for a separate fund to pay their legal and accounting
expenses (so-called ``GELAC funds''). The bill specifies that
all such expenses will now considered general election
expenses and must be paid for out of their general election
funds.
TITLE III--POLITICAL CONVENTIONS
Section 301: Repeal of public financing of party
conventions--This section eliminates the public financing of
party conventions.
Section 302: Contributions for political conventions--This
section allows the national political parties to establish a
separate account to receive contributions that can only be
used to fund their party conventions. Individuals may
contribute up to $25,000 in a four year election cycle to
that account. The aggregate annual contribution limit
applicable to an individual who contributes to a political
convention account will be increased by the amount of such
contributions, meaning that the contributions essentially
will not count toward the aggregate limit.
Section 303: Prohibition on use of soft money--Federal
candidates and officeholders and national parties and their
officers are prohibited from raising or spending soft money
in connection with a nominating convention of any political
party, including funds for a host committee, civic committee,
or municipality.
TITLE IV--OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 401: Revisions to designation of income tax
payments by individual taxpayers--The tax check-off is
increased from $3 (individual) and $6 (couple) to $10 and
$20. The amount will be adjusted for inflation, and rounded
to the nearest dollar, beginning in 2010.
The IRS shall require by regulation that electronic tax
preparation software does not automatically accept or decline
the tax checkoff. The FEC is required to inform and educate
the public about the purpose of the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund (``PECF'') and how to make a contribution.
Funding for this program of up to $10 million in a four year
presidential election cycle, will come from the PECF. These
provisions will take effect immediately upon enactment of
this bill.
Section 402: Regulations with respect to best efforts for
identifying persons making contributions--Within six months
of enactment, the FEC must promulgate new regulations on what
constitutes ``best efforts'' for determining the identity of
persons making contributions, including persons making
contributions over the Internet or by credit card. The
regulations must require the entity receiving the
contribution to verify that the name on the credit card
matches the name of the donor.
Section 403: Prohibition on joint fundraising committees--
Federal candidates are prohibited from forming a joint
fundraising committee with any political committee other than
an authorized candidate committee.
Section 404: Disclosure of bundled contributions to
presidential campaigns--This section builds on the bundling
disclosure provision of the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act of 2007 (``HLOGA'') to require presidential
campaigns to disclose the name, address, and employer of all
individuals or groups that bundle contributions totaling more
than $50,000 in the four year election cycle. Individuals who
are registered lobbyists would have to be separately
identified. HLOGA's definition of bundling would apply to
bundling disclosure by the presidential candidates, and no
change is made to the requirements of HLOGA with respect to
congressional campaigns.
Section 405: Judicial review of actions related to campaign
finance laws--Current law provides four separate judicial
review provisions: (1) Section 403 of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (``BCRA''), which applies to actions challenging
the constitutionality of any provision of that Act; (2) 2
U.S.C. Sec. 437h, which applies to actions challenging the
constitutionality of any other provision of the Federal
Election Campaign Act (``FECA''); (3) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 9011,
which applies to certifications or other actions taken by the
FEC in connection with the general election public financing
program; and (4) 26 U.S.C. Sec. 9041, which applies to
certifications and other actions by the FEC in connection
with the primary public funding system.
The bill replaces all four of those provisions with a
single judicial review provision. All actions shall be filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with
an appeal permitted to the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. All courts
are required to expedite any such actions to the greatest
extent possible, and Members of Congress are granted the
right to intervene as of right in any case challenging the
constitutionality of any provision of FECA or the public
financing provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Members of
Congress may themselves bring such a case.
TITLE V--OFFSETS
Section 501: Offsets--This section would reform a federal
irrigation subsidy program by closing a loophole in the 1982
Reclamation Reform Act to require a means test to qualify for
federal irrigation subsidies. This would ensure that small
family farmers, not huge agribusinesses, benefit from federal
water pricing policies intended to help small entities
struggling to survive. This new approach limits the amount of
subsidized irrigation water delivered to any operation in
excess of the 960 acre limit that claimed $500,000 or more in
gross income. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors
report estimated that these provisions would save at least
$4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to
cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4
years.
TITLE VI--SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Section 601: Severability--If any provision of the bill is
held unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill will not be
affected.
Section 602: Effective date--The amendments contained in
this bill will apply to presidential elections occurring
after January 1, 2010.
____________________