PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 16, 2000
Campaign Finance Reform and Disclosure Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit contributions to candidates for political office by any individual who is not a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether or not he or she is not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. (Currently, such prohibition applies only to non-citizen who is not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.)Limits to 40 percent of total contributions acceptance of out-of-State contributions by Senate candidates.Limits reimbursement from campaigns for contributions by Senate candidates and their immediate families. Restricts the use of campaign funds by Senate candidates for personal purposes.Limits congressional use of the franking privilege during a year in which there will be an election for the Member's seat unless the Member makes a public announcement that he or she will not be a candidate for election to any Federal office in that year.Decreases from $5,000 to $1,000 the multicandidate political committee (PAC) contribution limit, and requires that such limit be indexed annually (but never lowered).Prohibits a political party committee from accepting contributions conditioned on their use on behalf of a particular candidate.Exempts communications between a political party and members of the political party from specified spending limitations.Excludes from the definition of contribution State or local political party committee payments for certain State and local activities.Amends the National Labor Relations Act to revise the rights of employees relating to the payment and use of labor organization dues to require an employee's written consent to the use or assignment of any portion of such dues for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.Provides for expedited Supreme Court review of constitutional issues of this Act or any amendment made by this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 20, 2025. 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 S.2565 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 S.2565 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 S.2565 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 S.2565 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.