PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 15, 2013
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to terminate taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns. Abolishes the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account.
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer all amounts remaining in the Fund after enactment of this Act to the general fund of the Treasury to reduce the deficit.
Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to terminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the EAC Standards Board, and the EAC Board of Advisors. Requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to perform EAC functions with respect to certain existing contracts and agreements during the transition period for winding up EAC affairs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Transfers specified election administration functions of the EAC to the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
Replaces the Standards Board and the Board of Advisors with a Guidelines Review Board to review voluntary voting system guidelines proposed by the Technical Guidelines Development Committee.
Sets forth special requirements relating to the transfer of certain EAC authorities to the FEC with respect to development of such guidelines.
Transfers to the FEC the EAC Office of Voting System Testing and Certification.
Directs the Comptroller General to: (1) study the procedures used to adopt and modify the voluntary voting system guidelines applicable to the administration of elections for federal office, and (2) develop recommendations on methods to improve such procedures.
Requires the FEC to: (1) study the procedures for the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software used in federal elections; and (2) develop a recommendation on the entity best suited to oversee and carry out such procedures.
Requires the recommendations in both studies to take into account the needs of persons affected by such guidelines, including state and local election officials, voters with disabilities, absent military and overseas voters, and the manufacturers of voting systems.
People & committees
Rep. Harper, Gregg [R-MS-3] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.260 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.260 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.260 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.260 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.