FECA Amendments of 1974

The Amendments provided significant campaign finance reform creating the strongest set of laws to counter political corruption in U.S. history. The Amendments passed the Senate on April 11, 1974, with a roll call vote of 53 in favor and 32 against, 62% in favor. The Amendments passed by the House on August 8, 1974, with a roll call vote of 365 in favor and 24 against, 94% in favor. This decisive vote reflected strong bipartisan support for comprehensive campaign finance reform and led to significant improvements in federal election laws, including the establishment of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to oversee and enforce campaign finance regulations.  

President Gerald Ford stated on October 15, 1974 upon signing The Amendments into law, “By removing whatever influence big money and special interests may have on our Federal electoral process, this bill should stand as a landmark of campaign reform legislation. The times demand this legislation. The unpleasant truth is that big money influence has come to play an unseeming role in our electoral process. This bill will help to right the wrong.” 

Public opinion was highly supportive, as the legislation was widely seen as a necessary reform to restore trust in the political system following the Watergate scandal. The vast majority of Americans viewed the amendments as a positive step toward curbing corruption and increasing transparency in campaign financing. The establishment of the Federal Election Commission was seen as a safeguard against abuses of power, particularly after the revelations of illegal campaign activities tied to the Nixon administration. The bipartisan nature of the amendments’ passage in Congress gave the reforms additional credibility, demonstrating that lawmakers were taking steps to address systemic problems. 

The minority group of senators questioned whether the amendments would truly reduce corruption or simply shift campaign finance activities to less transparent channels. Some doubted the ability of the FEC, as a newly created agency, to enforce the complex rules effectively. Corporate and big money advocates argued that limits on campaign expenditures might restrict candidates’ ability to communicate their messages effectively, raising constitutional concerns about freedom of speech, thus equating money with speech.  

The reforms increased transparency in campaign financing to ensure that the public had access to detailed information about who was funding political campaigns and how those funds were being spent. Required candidates, political committees, and parties to file detailed disclosure reports of contributions and expenditures. Mandated the disclosure of the names, addresses, and occupations of contributors giving over a certain amount (e.g., $200). 

The Amendments set limits on the amount of money that could be given to political campaigns, with the purpose of reducing the influence of wealthy individuals and organizations.  

	Monetary Funding Limits per Election			Inflation Adjusted to 2024
	Presidential	Senate	House	Presidential	Senate	House
Individuals*	$3000	$3,000	$3,000	$16,530	$16,530	$16,530
Political Committees	$5,000	$5,000	$5,000	$27,550	$27,550	$27,550
National Committees	$3,000,000	$20,000	$10,000	$16,530,000	$110,200	$55,100
State Committees	$20,000	$20,000	$10,000	$110,200	$110,200	$55,100
Candidate and Their Family	$50,000	$35,000	$25,000	$275,500	$192,850	$137,750
*Individual Annual Limit	$25,000			$137,750

The Amendments set a limit on the amount of money that could be spent on campaign activities and placed ceilings on expenditures for media advertising and other campaign-related activities, with the purpose of curbing the escalating costs of campaigns and create a more level playing field among candidates.  

	Campaign Spending Limits			Inflation Adjusted to 2024
	Presidential	Senate	House	Presidential	Senate	House
General Election	$20,000,000	$150,000	$70,000	$110,200,000	$826,500	$385,700
Primary	$10,000,000	$100,000	$70,000	$55,100,000	$551,000	$385,700

The Amendments introduced a system of public funding for presidential elections, including primary campaigns, general elections, and nominating conventions. The purpose of the public funding system was to reduce candidates’ dependence on large private funding by providing an alternative funding source for presidential campaigns. Funding was financed through a voluntary $1 check-off on federal income tax returns. Major-party nominees could receive a substantial grant to finance their entire general election campaigns, if they agreed not to raise or spend any private contributions but to spend only the amount of the grant. 

The legislation strengthened enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with campaign finance laws and penalize violations effectively. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) was created to oversee and enforce campaign finance laws, authority to investigate violations, audit campaign finances, and impose civil penalties. The law strengthened public disclosure of campaign spending by requiring all political committees—not just campaigns or party organizations—to register and file regular reports with the FEC itemizing contributions to and expenditures by each committee​.​ 

The Amendments also prevented the types of campaign finance abuses exposed during the Watergate scandal, such as the use of illegal contributions and secret slush funds. Prohibiting contributions from corporations, labor unions, and foreign nationals directly to federal campaigns and strengthening rules against the use of “slush funds” for covert political activities. 

These milestone reforms restored public confidence in the electoral system, reassuring voters that campaigns would be conducted fairly and that the influence of money in politics would be more transparent and accountable. The combined effect of contribution limits, expenditure limits, disclosure requirements, and public financing was intended to reduce the potential for corruption or undue influence in elections. 

Some reform advocates believed the amendments did not go far enough in addressing systemic issues in campaign finance. Loopholes remained, allowing Political Action Committees (PACs) and other entities to continue influencing elections. There was concern that wealthy individuals and organizations would find new ways to exert disproportionate influence, such as through independent expenditures or soft money. 

Many conservatives viewed the amendments as excessive government regulation of political activities. They argued that limits on campaign expenditures and contributions infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech. Political spending was viewed as a form of expression, and restricting it was seen as limiting candidates’ and contributors’ ability to communicate their political views.