The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold, did four main things to federal campaign finance: it banned unlimited “soft money” donations to national political parties, brought election-season broadcast ads paid for by corporations and unions under federal rules, roughly doubled the individual contribution limit and tied it to inflation, and forced candidates to personally stand behind their television and radio ads. Several pieces have since been cut back by the Supreme Court, but the soft money ban, the disclosure requirements, and the ad disclaimer rules are still the law.
Ended Unlimited Soft Money to National Parties
This was BCRA’s centerpiece. Before 2002, national party committees could take checks of any size from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals as long as the money was labeled for “party-building” rather than a specific federal candidate. Six- and seven-figure donations were routine.
BCRA shut that off. National party committees can no longer solicit, receive, spend, or direct any funds that fall outside federal contribution limits and disclosure rules.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30125 – Soft Money of Political Parties That applies to the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, and every national congressional campaign committee, along with their officers and agents. Every dollar a national party now spends on a federal election has to come from a regulated, disclosed source.
Pulled State and Local Parties Into the Same Rules
The ban would have been easy to sidestep if national parties could route soft money through state affiliates. BCRA closed that door by requiring state and local party committees to use federally regulated funds for anything the statute calls “federal election activity.”1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30125 – Soft Money of Political Parties
That category is broad. It reaches voter registration drives during the 120 days before a federal election, get-out-the-vote and voter identification efforts tied to any election with a federal candidate on the ballot, public communications that promote or attack a federal candidate, and staff time when a party employee spends more than 25 percent of a month’s paid hours on federal election work.2Legal Information Institute. 52 Code 30101 – Definitions – Federal Election Activity
There is one narrow exception. State and local parties can raise so-called Levin funds, capped at $10,000 per donor per year, to pay for certain grassroots activities that touch both federal and non-federal races, such as generic voter registration outside the 120-day window.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30125 – Soft Money of Political Parties Federal candidates and national party officials cannot solicit Levin money, and it still has to be raised in a way that complies with state law.
Created Rules for Election-Season Broadcast Ads
Before BCRA, corporations and unions ran ads that named federal candidates and clearly took sides, but avoided phrases like “vote for” or “vote against.” Because they ducked those magic words, they escaped federal regulation. BCRA invented a new legal category, the “electioneering communication,” to bring those ads under the campaign finance system.
An electioneering communication is a broadcast, cable, or satellite message that refers to a clearly identified federal candidate, airs within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and reaches the candidate’s electorate.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30104 – Reporting Requirements As BCRA was originally written, corporations and labor unions could not pay for these ads out of their treasuries; the money had to move through a political action committee.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30118 – Contributions or Expenditures by National Banks, Corporations, or Labor Organizations
The Supreme Court struck that funding restriction down in 2010 in Citizens United v. FEC. What survived is the disclosure side. Anyone who spends more than $10,000 on electioneering communications in a calendar year has to file a report with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours, identifying the spender, the amount, the election targeted, and the names of contributors who gave $1,000 or more.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30104 – Reporting Requirements
One boundary worth flagging: the electioneering communication definition covers traditional broadcast, cable, and satellite only. Paid digital advertising is not an electioneering communication, though it may trigger separate FEC disclaimer and disclosure obligations adopted in 2023.5Federal Election Commission. Electioneering Communications Periods 2026
Raised the Individual Contribution Limit and Indexed It to Inflation
With soft money off the table, candidates needed a way to raise the money the parties no longer could. BCRA doubled the per-election limit on individual contributions to a federal candidate, from the $1,000 set in 1974 to $2,000, and built in an automatic Consumer Price Index adjustment pegged to a 2001 base year. The FEC recalculates the numbers every odd-numbered year, and the new figures apply for the following two-year cycle.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30116 – Limitations on Contributions and Expenditures
For the 2025–2026 cycle, the individual-to-candidate limit is $3,500 per election.7Federal Election Commission. Contribution Limits for 2025-2026 An individual can also give up to $5,000 per year to a multicandidate PAC.8Federal Election Commission. Contribution Limits
BCRA also originally set an aggregate cap on how much one donor could give to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs combined in a two-year cycle. The Supreme Court struck that aggregate cap down in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC, so today the per-recipient limits still apply but the ceiling on total giving is gone.9Federal Election Commission. McCutcheon et al v FEC
Forced Candidates to Stand Behind Their Ads
BCRA’s “Stand By Your Ad” provision is the one most viewers actually notice. A federal candidate running a television ad must appear on screen, either in a full-face shot or through a voice-over with a photo, and state that they approved the message. A written version of the approval statement has to appear at the end for at least four seconds, in text large enough to read against a contrasting background.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30120 – Publication and Distribution of Statements and Solicitations Radio ads require an audio approval statement from the candidate.
When a political committee or outside group sponsors the ad instead, the sponsor has to identify itself and provide contact information. The point is accountability: someone’s name goes on the message.
Digital Ads Since 2023
BCRA’s disclaimer rules were drafted for broadcast. In 2023 the FEC finalized rules extending disclaimer requirements to paid internet communications, including ads on websites, apps, and social media platforms. These “internet public communications” must include a written disclaimer identifying who paid for the ad and whether a candidate authorized it, and the disclaimer has to be visible without clicking or scrolling.11Federal Election Commission. Commission Adopts Final Rule on Internet Communications Disclaimers and the Definition of Public Communication The FEC did not, however, extend the on-camera “stand by your ad” element to digital ads, so an online spot does not need the candidate’s voice or image the way a TV or radio ad does.
What the Supreme Court Took Back
Two decisions did most of the reshaping of BCRA.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) struck down BCRA’s ban on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent political spending and electioneering communications. The Court held that political speech is protected regardless of whether the speaker is an individual or a corporation.12Federal Election Commission. Citizens United v FEC Corporations, unions, and nonprofits can now spend unlimited amounts on independent ads supporting or opposing candidates, so long as they do not coordinate with a campaign. The Court left BCRA’s disclosure and disclaimer requirements in place, and the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates also survived.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 Code 30118 – Contributions or Expenditures by National Banks, Corporations, or Labor Organizations
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) eliminated BCRA’s aggregate cap on total giving by a single donor across a two-year cycle. At the time of the ruling those caps were $46,200 for candidate contributions and $70,800 for other contributions. The per-candidate and per-committee base limits stayed intact.9Federal Election Commission. McCutcheon et al v FEC
What of BCRA Still Applies
After two decades of litigation, the surviving framework is easy to summarize. The national party soft money ban is fully intact and is arguably the law’s most durable piece. The restrictions on state and local party spending for federal election activity, including the Levin fund carve-out, still operate. Individual contribution limits with inflation indexing continue, currently at $3,500 per election. Disclosure requirements for electioneering communications survived Citizens United explicitly, and the “Stand By Your Ad” disclaimer regime has actually grown, now reaching paid digital ads under the FEC’s 2023 rule.
What is gone is the wall between corporate and union treasuries and election spending, and the ceiling on how many candidates one donor can support. BCRA’s transparency and party-regulation provisions now sit alongside a system of super PACs and unlimited independent expenditures its original sponsors did not design for.