PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 7, 1997
Clean Sweep Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to require that the majority of a House of Representatives candidate's contributors (with respect to an election cycle) reside in the congressional district involved. Excepts contributions from a national, State, district, or local political party committee (including any subordinate committee thereof). (Sec. 3) Bans Federal election activities by political action committees. (Sec. 4) Limits contributions or loans of the personal funds of a House candidate (including funds of members of the candidate's immediate family) during a calendar year which in the aggregate exceed $50,000. (Sec. 5) Requires that amounts paid by the national, State, or local political party committee (including a subordinate committee thereof) for mixed political activities: (1) shall be subject to limitation and reporting requirements as if such payment were an expenditure; and (2) may be paid only from an account that is subject to the requirements of FECA. (Sec. 6) Sets forth provisions concerning eligibility and certification for reduced broadcast rates for House candidates who limit the total amount of expenditures made during an election cycle. Imposes a penalty upon a candidate who makes expenditures in excess of the limit. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to entitle certified candidates to receive free broadcast time from broadcasting stations within the candidate's State or an adjacent State, except where only one candidate qualifies to be on the ballot. Exempts certain licensees. (Sec. 7) Amends FECA to prohibit contributions by an individual who is not a citizen of the United States. (Sec. 8) Bans any contribution of U.S. or foreign currency to any candidate or political committee with respect to any Federal election campaign. (Sec. 9) Revises Federal law relating to mass mailings sent by House members. (Sec. 10) Directs the Committee on House Oversight to submit a report to the President and the Congress analyzing the effects of changes made by this Act on the first general elections for the House which are held after December 31, 1998.
People & committees
Rep. Goodling, William F. [R-PA-19] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Referred to House Government Reform
Referred to House Commerce
Referred to the Committee on House Oversight, and in addition to the Committees on Commerce, and Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Oversight
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.179 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.179 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.179 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.179 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.