Technical corrections only. The later version (v2) includes administrative updates such as the Union Calendar and Report numbers, additional sponsors, and presents the bill text in italics, indicating it has been reported with an amendment that is identical to the introduced version. There are no substantive policy changes between v1 and v2.
Campaign Finance Transparency Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 13, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly tightens campaign finance regulations, aiming to increase transparency and combat illegal contributions, but will impose new compliance burdens on political committees and the FEC.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to enhance transparency and prevent illicit contributions in federal elections. It mandates new disclosure requirements for online credit and debit card contributions, prohibits the use of gift cards, removes the $200 threshold for reporting individual contributions, and strengthens prohibitions against making or aiding 'straw man' contributions. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is tasked with promulgating regulations to implement these changes.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential for modernizing campaign finance laws to address vulnerabilities in online fundraising, which can be exploited for illegal foreign contributions or contributions made in the name of another. They contend that requiring more detailed donor information and eliminating reporting thresholds will enhance election integrity, increase public trust in the electoral process, and provide greater accountability for political donations.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes excessive administrative burdens on political committees, particularly smaller campaigns and grassroots organizations, potentially chilling legitimate online fundraising efforts. They could also raise concerns about donor privacy due to the expanded disclosure requirements and suggest that the measures might disproportionately affect small-dollar donors who prefer simpler contribution methods.
The bill is relatively short and its provisions are clearly laid out, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core changes within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, page 2
Requiring Disclosure of Card Verification Value (CVV) and ZIP Code for Online Contributions
This provision amends FECA to require political committees to collect the card verification value (CVV) or card verification code (CVC) and the billing ZIP code for all online credit or debit card contributions. It also mandates that the donor's mailing address must be located in a U.S. state, or if not, specific identification documents (like a U.S. passport or permanent resident card) must be provided. An exception is made for contributions made via 'digital wallets' and for subsequent recurring contributions or stored card information after the initial compliance.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this measure is crucial for preventing fraudulent contributions, especially those made by foreign nationals or through stolen credit cards. Requiring CVV and billing ZIP code adds a layer of security and verification, making it harder for illicit funds to enter federal elections and ensuring compliance with prohibitions on foreign money.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that these additional requirements create unnecessary hurdles for legitimate donors, potentially reducing participation in online fundraising. They may also argue that the collection of CVV, even if not stored, adds complexity and could deter some individuals from donating, particularly small-dollar donors.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for increased security and transparency in online donations against the potential for increased friction and administrative burden on both donors and political committees.
Section 3, page 5
Requiring Donor's Name on Credit or Debit Card
This section mandates that political committees cannot accept any credit or debit card contribution unless the name on the card matches the name of the individual or entity making the donation. This aims to prevent 'straw man' contributions where one person uses another's card.
Section 4, page 5
Prohibiting Acceptance of Gift Card Contributions
This section prohibits political committees from knowingly accepting contributions made through the use of gift certificates or store gift cards. It also places an affirmative duty on treasurers to refund such contributions if they become aware of non-compliance, with a 'best efforts' clause for compliance.
Section 5, page 6
Removal of Threshold for Reporting Contributions
This section eliminates the existing $200 threshold for reporting individual contributions to federal campaigns. Currently, committees only need to itemize contributions over $200. This amendment would require the reporting of all contributions, regardless of amount, from individuals or entities.
Section 6, page 6
Prohibiting Aiding or Abetting 'Straw Man' Contributions and Requiring Reporting of Suspected Ones
This section expands the existing prohibition on making contributions in the name of another person to explicitly prohibit any person from knowingly directing, helping, or assisting another person in making such a contribution. Additionally, it imposes a new affirmative duty on any recipient (e.g., a political committee) who suspects a contribution is made in the name of another to report it to the Federal Election Commission.
An internet credit or debit card contribution received by a political committee made through the use of a digital wallet shall be treated as complying with the requirements of this subsection.
Section 2(j)(5), page 4
Why it matters:This is likely a practical concession to modern payment technologies, ensuring that widely used methods like Apple Pay or Google Pay are not inadvertently hampered by the new CVV/ZIP code requirements, as these systems often tokenize or abstract such details. It's standard legislative practice to include such carve-outs for technological compatibility.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this exemption ensures the bill's provisions are technologically neutral and do not disadvantage secure, modern payment methods. Digital wallets often provide their own layers of security and verification, making the additional CVV/ZIP requirement redundant or technically challenging to implement.
Case against: Critics might argue that this exemption creates a potential loophole, as digital wallet transactions might not always provide the same level of direct donor information or traceability as traditional card inputs, potentially undermining the bill's overall transparency goals.
Estimated impact: This provision will significantly ease compliance for political committees and donors who utilize digital wallet services for online contributions, ensuring these popular payment methods remain viable under the new rules.
If the treasurer of a political committee shows that best efforts have been used to comply with the requirements of this subsection, the committee shall be considered in compliance with this subsection.
Section 2(j)(7)(B), page 4 and Section 4(2)(B), page 6
Why it matters:This is a common legislative mechanism to provide a degree of flexibility and protection for regulated entities, acknowledging that perfect compliance can be difficult in practice. It prevents committees from being penalized for minor, unavoidable errors if they have genuinely attempted to follow the law. It's standard practice to include such clauses to ensure enforceability without undue harshness.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this clause is essential for fair enforcement, preventing committees from being unduly penalized for good-faith efforts that fall short due to unforeseen circumstances or technical glitches. It encourages compliance without creating an impossible standard.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 'best efforts' clause could be interpreted too broadly, potentially allowing committees to escape accountability for insufficient compliance if their 'efforts' are deemed minimal. They might prefer stricter liability to ensure maximum adherence to the new transparency rules.
Estimated impact: This clause provides a crucial legal defense for political committees, mitigating the risk of penalties for minor, unintentional non-compliance with the new online contribution and gift card rules, provided they can demonstrate genuine efforts to comply.