Fact check: What disclosure requirements exist for campaign spending on crowd building?

1. Summary of the results

Campaign spending disclosure requirements have a long and complex history in the United States. They were first introduced in 1907 and became legally mandatory following the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo ^[1] upheld these requirements as serving crucial governmental interests ^[2]. While the FEC regulates campaign contributions and expenditures broadly ^[3], there are no explicit regulations specifically addressing "crowd building" as a distinct category.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original question:

• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) strengthened disclosure provisions beyond the original requirements ^[2]
• State-level disclosure requirements vary significantly, with some states having minimal reporting requirements or quickly purging records after elections ^[2]
• There are exemptions available through courts for groups that might face harassment due to disclosure ^[2]
• The practice of "astroturfing" - creating artificial grassroots support - is related to crowd building but operates under different regulatory frameworks ^[4]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that specific disclosure requirements exist for "crowd building" as a distinct category of campaign spending. This is potentially misleading because:

• Campaign finance regulations tend to focus on broader categories of spending rather than specific tactical approaches like crowd building ^[3]
• The question overlooks the complex interplay between legitimate grassroots organizing and deceptive practices like astroturfing ^[4]

Who benefits from different interpretations:

• Political campaigns benefit from vague definitions of crowd building activities, as it gives them more flexibility in reporting
• Transparency advocates benefit from stricter disclosure requirements, as demonstrated by the Supreme Court's recognition of disclosure as serving important government interests in deterring corruption and informing voters ^[2]
• State-level political actors benefit from varying disclosure requirements, as they can operate under less stringent rules in certain jurisdictions ^[2]