Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This bill terminates the federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund system by ending the tax return designation authority and abolishing the Presidential election campaign fund and related account. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer remaining fund balances to the general fund to reduce the deficit.
Public financing versus private-donor reliance
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear and narrowly targeted substantive change by amending specified Internal Revenue Code provisions to terminate taxpayer financing of Presidential campaigns and directing transfer of remaining fund balances to the general fund.
This bill terminates the federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund system by ending the tax return designation authority and abolishing the Presidential election campaign fund and related account.
It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer remaining fund balances to the general fund to reduce the deficit.
The terminations apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, and to Presidential elections or nominating conventions after enactment.
Administratively simple and fiscally modest, which helps; ideological divisions over campaign finance and legislative consensus requirements limit prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear and narrowly targeted substantive change by amending specified Internal Revenue Code provisions to terminate taxpayer financing of Presidential campaigns and directing transfer of remaining fund balances to the general fund. The statutory edits and effective dates are explicit and directly implement the stated objective.
Public financing versus private-donor reliance
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Public financing versus private-donor reliance
Likely to oppose the bill because public financing is seen as a tool to limit big‑money influence and support competitive races.
They will emphasize democratic and equality impacts rather than the modest budgetary savings.
A pragmatic centrist will view tradeoffs: modest fiscal savings versus possible negative effects on campaign finance dynamics.
They will seek more analysis on budgetary impact and transitional effects before full endorsement.
Generally supportive because the bill reduces government involvement in financing elections and cuts federal spending.
Viewed as returning control to private citizens and donors rather than taxpayers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administratively simple and fiscally modest, which helps; ideological divisions over campaign finance and legislative consensus requirements limit prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public financing versus private-donor reliance
Administratively simple and fiscally modest, which helps; ideological divisions over campaign finance and legislative consensus requirement…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides a clear and narrowly targeted substantive change by amending specified Internal Revenue Code provisions to terminate taxpayer financing of Presidential campa…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.