Bill Overview
Title: Eliminating Leftover Expenses for Campaigns from Taxpayers (ELECT) Act of 2022
Description: This bill terminates (1) the taxpayer election to designate $3 of income tax liability for financing of presidential election campaigns, (2) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, and (3) the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. The Department of the Treasury must transfer funds remaining in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to the treasury for the sole purpose of reducing the deficit.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: People interested in or affected by U.S. presidential campaign financing
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill impacts the financing of presidential campaigns, primarily affecting political parties and candidates who receive funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.
- The general taxpayer population is indirectly affected because the bill eliminates the $3 tax check-off option that taxpayers could choose to direct toward presidential campaign funding.
- Any impact on presidential campaigns could potentially influence voters due to changes in campaign financing, though this is more indirect.
- Campaign finance reform advocates or those particularly interested in election funding are likely concerned or impacted by this legislative change.
Reasoning
- The ELECT Act directly affects individuals interested in presidential campaign financing and those who engaged in voter activities. Given the broad definition, we include a diverse set of individuals, including taxpayers, politically active citizens, policymakers, and advocates.
- Although the Act targets the financing of campaigns, many individuals are indirectly impacted due to the public's involvement in elections and the taxpayer's ability to have previously directed funds.
- The budget constraints suggest a limited scale of immediate impact, considering $5 million in year one and $9.25 million over 10 years is a minor amount relative to overall campaign contributions. Therefore, the interviewees' scores should reflect modest changes unless deeply invested in campaign financing.
- Candidates and political organizations could face challenges due to cuts in available funding. Meanwhile, average citizens might notice little immediate change unless they are deeply concerned with campaign finance reform.
Simulated Interviews
Accountant (Portland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm somewhat concerned about the impact this could have on smaller campaigns.
- Campaign finance transparency has been a big issue for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Political consultant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a step in the right direction.
- Campaigns should be funded privately, without taxpayer dollars.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Non-profit worker (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings; it takes away funding options but might prompt private investments.
- Overall, it might limit the ability of grassroots campaigns to compete.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Retired teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Never really understood the $3 check-off, so I'm indifferent.
- I just hope it helps reduce the deficit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Campaign staffer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disappointing to see this change, as it limits resources.
- We might need new fundraising strategies now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tax advisor (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This seems like a sensible move given the deficit.
- It's unlikely to affect most taxpayers significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this initiative to reduce reliance on taxpayer funding.
- It could open avenues for more private sector involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate student (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any alteration in campaign finance law interests me.
- I'm curious to see its long-term effects on national elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Volunteer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might hurt smaller, less-funded campaigns.
- I worry about how it will affect the diversity of candidates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Undecided (Seattle, WA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy change doesn't really affect me much.
- I'm just starting to understand how campaign finance works.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $500000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill could impact how presidential campaigns are funded, leading to potential changes in campaign strategies and competition.
- The act proposes reallocation of funds back to the Treasury to reduce the deficit immediately, which could improve fiscal health marginally.
- The elimination of the taxpayer designation options impacts taxpayer's ability to directly contribute to public election campaign funding.
- Administrative efforts will be necessary to execute the transition process effectively without incurring significant costs.