This bill amends campaign finance law to treat certain expenditures as coordinated (and therefore regulated) if they align with guidance from a candidate or party, regardless of whether that guidance is public or directly communicated.
Jill Tokuda
Representative
HI-2
The "Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act" amends campaign finance laws to treat certain expenditures as coordinated, and therefore regulated, if they align with guidance from a candidate, their committee, or a political party, regardless of whether the guidance is public or directly communicated. Factors determining alignment include whether the guidance suggests communicating information about a candidate or party, specifies a target audience or communication method, or includes content used in the expenditure. The amendments apply to expenditures made after the Act's enactment.
Campaign Finance Shakeup: Bill Expands Definition of Illegal Coordination
This proposed legislation, the "Stop Illegal Campaign Coordination Act," significantly changes the rules around how campaign spending is classified under federal law. It amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to broaden what counts as a "coordinated expenditure" – essentially, spending by an outside group that's considered linked to, and thus limited like a direct contribution to, a candidate or political party.
Redrawing the Lines: What Counts as Campaign Coordination?
Under this bill (SEC. 2), spending could be treated as coordinated if it's simply "materially consistent" with instructions, guidance, or suggestions from a candidate, their campaign, or a party committee – even if that guidance was made public and not directly communicated to the spender. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) would use several factors to decide if spending aligns with guidance, including whether the guidance mentioned target audiences, communication methods (like social media or direct mail), or specific phrases, images, or videos that later appeared in the expenditure. Think about it: if a candidate posts a detailed blog about reaching suburban voters with a specific message, and an independent group later runs ads reflecting that strategy, could that now be deemed coordinated spending subject to limits, even without direct contact?
Potential Pitfalls: Vague Rules and Chilled Speech
The concern here is that this broader definition, relying on a multi-factor test and including a catch-all "other factors the Commission considers appropriate" clause, could create significant uncertainty. For smaller campaigns, grassroots organizations, independent groups, and even individuals wanting to voice support (or opposition), navigating these rules could become tricky and potentially costly if legal advice is needed. There's a risk that this vagueness could lead to a chilling effect on political speech, where groups or individuals hesitate to echo a candidate's themes or messages for fear of crossing an unclear line into illegal coordination. While the goal might be to curb spending that circumvents contribution limits, the broad language raises questions about its potential impact on independent political expression and grants considerable interpretive power to the FEC.