On July 1, 2000, President Clinton signed H.R. 4762, P.L. 106-230. The law amended the Internal Revenue Code [IRC] to require political organizations described in IRC § 527 to disclose their political activities, if they were not already required to do so by the Federal Election Campaign Act [FECA]. This report summarizes the three major changes made by the law and some of the major responses to the legislation. First, all 527 organizations which expect to have over $25,000 in gross receipts during a taxable year and which are not required to report to the Federal Election Commission [FEC] are required to register with the IRS within 24 hours of their formation, whether they are involved in state, local, or federal elections. Second, 527 issue advocacy organizations, which previously reported neither to the IRS nor the FEC, are required to file regular disclosure statements with the IRS. Third, all 527 organizations with gross receipts in excess of $25,000 per year are required to file annual reports with the IRS. The registration statements, disclosure forms, and annual reports will be made public. H.R. 527 and S. 527 in the 107th Congress would exempt most state and local 527 organizations from the …

This report examines economic issues relating to across-the-board tax cuts, focusing primarily on distributional issues. The report is divided into four sections. The first section provides a general overview of the tax system. The next discusses recent proposals relating to across-the-board tax cuts. The third section discusses methods of evaluating alternative types of across-the-board tax cuts. The final section briefly discusses issues of efficiency, simplicity, and stabilization policy.

This report debates agricultural subsidies given out by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Moreover, the report provides statistical information on this specifically from the European Union (EU) and the United States.

The prospect of future growth in demand for agricultural products makes China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) an important issue for the U.S. agricultural sector. Most agricultural interest groups strongly support China’s entry into the WTO, because they think it will increase U.S. agricultural exports and enhance farm income. In the 107th Congress, attention is focused on China’s final WTO accession negotiations where differences over agriculture have become an issue.

The 107th Congress is expected to consider new "fast track" (or, Presidential trade promotion) authority, which could enable the Administration to submit trade agreements negotiated with foreign countries to Congress for consideration under expedited procedures. Many agricultural and food industry interests are among the export-oriented enterprises that support fast track authority, arguing that foreign trading partners will not seriously negotiate with an Administration that lacks it. However, some agricultural groups argue that fast track ultimately will lead to new agreements that deliver more benefits to foreign than to U.S. producers, at least in some commodity sectors.

Many believe that the Department of Defense (DoD) — including the Air Force — must transform itself to ensure future U.S. military dominance. The Air Force has a transformation plan that includes advanced technologies, concept development, and organizational innovation. Issues for Congress include the efficacy of this plan, its feasibility, and the attendant costs.

This report discusses air quality initiatives (such as the Ozone Transport Rule) that primarily focus on reducing and enforcing emissions from coal-fired electric generating utilities in the Midwest and South.

This report briefly explains how the annual budget resolution sets forth total spending and revenue levels, which are then allocated to the appropriate House and Senate committees, which in turn help Congress determine how best to enforce spending once a budget resolution is adopted.

This report is about Basic Federal Dudgeting Terminology.

In its most elemental form, the federal budget is a comprehensive accounting of the government’s spending, revenues, and borrowing. This fact sheet provides a brief overview of the basic terminology and concepts used in the federal budget process.

This report provides an introduction and background information on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Dayton Peace Accords. The report discusses the U.S. deployment to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the U.S. policy in regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This report discusses the final budget numbers for FY2000 that put the surplus for FY2000 at $236 billion , receipts at $2,025 billion and outlays at $1,789 billion. They differ very little from the numbers that the Treasury previously released on October 24, 2000.

This report discusses the Development and Consideration related to Budget Reconciliation Legislation.

Budget reconciliation is an optional two-step process Congress may use to assure compliance with the direct spending, revenue, and debt-limit levels set forth in budget resolutions.

This report describes how the government enforces budget resolutions using the Congressional Budget Act (C.B.A.) of 1974.

The annual budget resolution sets forth Congress's budget plan for a period of at least five fiscal years. It includes total levels of spending, revenues, and the debt limit for each of the fiscal years covered.

On March 19, 2001, the Senate began consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The bill–S. 27 (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001)–was introduced on January 22, 2001 by Senators McCain, Feingold, Cochran et al. It features a ban on the raising of soft money by national parties, a ban on the spending of soft money by state and local parties on federal election-related activities (as defined), and a disclosure requirement for electioneering messages not regulated by federal election law, along with a ban on their funding from union or for-profit corporation treasuries. Another bill receiving considerable Senate attention is S. 22 (Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2001), introduced on January 22, 2001 by Senators Hagel, Landrieu et al. It features limits on soft money donations to national parties, increases in hard money contribution limits, and a requirement that broadcasters make information available on groups engaging in issue advocacy. This report provides a summary and comparison of these two measures, according to various categories.

This report is categorized into seven categories: (I) Most recent developments, (II) Background and Analysis, (III) Definitions of Hard and Soft Money in Federal Elections, (IV) Political Party Soft Money, (V) Corporate and Labor Union Soft Money, (VI) Soft Money Spent on Issue Advocacy and (VII) Selected 107th Congress Legislation.

Federal election law regulates money in federal elections through a ban on union and corporate treasury money, limits on contributions, and uniform, periodic disclosure of receipts and expenditures. Money raised and spent under these laws to directly influence federal elections is commonly known as hard money. Money that is largely outside the restrictions and prohibitions of the federal regulatory framework–but raised and spent in a manner suggesting possible intent to affect federal elections–is commonly known as soft money.

Issue advocacy communications have become increasingly popular in recent federal election cycles. These advertisements are often interpreted to favor or disfavor certain candidates, while also serving to inform the public about a policy issue. However, unlike communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, the Supreme Court has determined that issue ads are constitutionally protected First Amendment speech that cannot be regulated in any manner. According to most lower court rulings, only speech containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, also known as "express advocacy" or "magic words" can be regulated and therefore be subject to the requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Unlike express advocacy communications, therefore, issue ads may be paid for with funds unregulated by federal law, i.e., soft money.

The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo ruled that spending limits, including the amount a candidate can spend on his or her own campaign from personal funds (also known as personal fund expenditure limits) are unconstitutional. The Court did, however, uphold a system of spending limits, on the condition that they are voluntarily accepted in exchange for some form of public financing. As a result of these Court rulings, the concept of various incentives toward voluntary compliance with a personal funds expenditure limit has been developed. This report discusses some constitutional issues raised by two such incentives: public subsidies and variable contribution limits.

Campaign finance reform legislation often contains provisions that would impose additional reporting and disclosure requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). For example, S. 27 (McCain/Feingold), would require disclosure of disbursements of expenditures over $10,000 for “electioneering communications,” which are defined to include broadcast ads that “refer” to federal office candidates, with identification of donors of $500 or more. S. 22 (Hagel/Landrieu) would increase and expedite current disclosure requirements under FECA. H.R. 380 (Shays/Meehan) would lower the current FECA threshold for contribution reporting from $200 to $50 and impose reporting requirements for soft money disbursements by persons other than political parties. This report will discuss some of the constitutional issues relating to these and other such disclosure requirements.

The release of the 2000 Census data for the apportionment of the House of Representatives among the States and the release of the state redistricting data to the States as required has renewed the decennial debate over several issues. This report contains information regarding the release and use of the State redistricting Census data, the Supreme Court case Utah v. Evans, and related material.

This report addresses in summary fashion the differences among several kinds of tax-exempt organizations described in Internal Revenue Code [IRC] subsections 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), 501(c)(6), and section 527. Each of these types of organization has a unique statutory definition, is subject to certain statutory limitations on its activities, enjoys certain benefits from obtaining tax-exempt status, and must share certain information with the general public. Following the report is a table which summarizes this information.