📅 2026 Update: Changes to the DISCLOSE Act

Since the original article was published, there have been no significant legislative changes to the DISCLOSE Act. This means the core provisions of the Act, which require organizations to disclose certain political spending, remain unchanged. The earlier article continues further down the page, providing background and context on the Act.

📊 Current Legislative Status

As of October 2026, the DISCLOSE Act has not seen any major amendments since its introduction in 2010. This stability may provide organizations with a clear framework for understanding their obligations under the law. The lack of changes means that compliance practices established in the past continue to apply.

💼 Reporting Requirements

Organizations making independent expenditures or electioneering communications over $10,000 in a calendar year must file FEC Form 3X. This form is essential for ensuring transparency and compliance with the DISCLOSE Act. Reports must be filed within 48 hours for significant expenditures, emphasizing the need for timely reporting.

⏳ Processing Efficiency

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) processes reports on a rolling basis within a few days of receipt. This quick turnaround allows organizations to stay informed about their compliance status. Timely processing helps ensure that stakeholders have access to crucial information about political spending.

📞 Free Compliance Resources

The FEC offers free resources and guidance for organizations needing help with the DISCLOSE Act. These resources can assist in understanding reporting requirements and maintaining compliance. Organizations can take advantage of these tools to ensure they meet their legal obligations without incurring additional costs.

📌 Key Points Summary

  • The DISCLOSE Act remains unchanged since 2010.
  • Organizations must report expenditures over $10,000 using FEC Form 3X.
  • Reports are processed within a few days by the FEC.
  • Free resources are available from the FEC for compliance.
  • Timely reporting is crucial for transparency in political spending.

💡 Tips for Compliance with the DISCLOSE Act

Reviewing your situation with an attorney can help clarify your obligations under the DISCLOSE Act.

📄 Understand Reporting Deadlines

Be aware that independent expenditures over $10,000 must be reported within 48 hours. Missing this deadline can lead to penalties and non-compliance issues. Staying organized with your reporting schedule can help avoid these pitfalls.

📝 Use the Correct Forms

Ensure you file FEC Form 3X for any independent expenditures or electioneering communications. Using the correct forms is vital to meeting your compliance obligations. Familiarize yourself with the form's requirements to streamline your reporting process.

📊 Keep Accurate Records

Maintaining detailed records of all political expenditures is essential. This practice aids in compliance with the DISCLOSE Act and prepares you for any inquiries from the FEC. Regular audits can help identify any discrepancies in your records.

📞 Utilize FEC Resources

Take advantage of the free guidance and resources provided by the FEC. Their website has a wealth of information regarding the compliance process. Engaging with these resources can enhance your understanding of the Act.

🛡️ Consider Whistleblower Protections

The FEC offers whistleblower protections for individuals reporting violations related to campaign finance laws. Understanding these protections can encourage ethical practices within your organization. It is important to foster a culture of compliance and accountability.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❔ What is the purpose of the DISCLOSE Act?

The DISCLOSE Act aims to increase transparency in political spending by requiring organizations to disclose their funding sources for certain political communications.

📅 Are there any fees associated with filing reports?

No, the FEC does not charge fees for filing reports related to the DISCLOSE Act. This allows organizations to comply without incurring additional financial burdens.

📈 What happens if we miss a reporting deadline?

If an organization fails to report independent expenditures over $10,000 within 48 hours, it may face penalties. Timely reporting is crucial to avoid these consequences.

🛠️ How can we ensure compliance with the DISCLOSE Act?

Regularly reviewing the FEC's updates and publications can help organizations stay informed about compliance requirements. Utilizing free resources from the FEC is also beneficial.

📖 Can individuals be subject to the DISCLOSE Act?

Yes, while the DISCLOSE Act primarily targets organizations, individuals making independent expenditures may also have reporting requirements under federal law.

🔍 Where can we find more information about compliance?

The FEC's official website offers comprehensive resources and frequently asked questions about the DISCLOSE Act. Organizations should consult these materials to enhance their understanding.

⚖️ Recent Court Cases Related to the DISCLOSE Act

Recent court rulings have challenged various aspects of the DISCLOSE Act, highlighting its ongoing legal battles. This includes significant cases like Crossroads GPS v. CREW, which affirmed the invalidation of certain disclosure rules.

Readers can browse more rulings on the news page to stay updated on ongoing legal developments.

End of October 2026 Update







 



DISCLOSE ACT TEXT



What is the Disclose Act?

Disclose Act


The Disclose Act is a piece of legislation that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Democrat Chis Van Hollen (Maryland) on April 29th of 2010 and in the U.S. Senate on July 21, 2010 by Democrat Charles Schumer of New York. 



The Disclose Act aimed at amending the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 in the hopes of prohibiting foreign influence in the U.S’s federal elections. The Disclose Act also wanted to impede government contractors from engaging in expenditures with respect to these elections. Lastly, the Disclose Act wanted to establish further disclosure requirements regarding spending in these elections and for other purposes.



When the Disclose Act was introduced it banned American corporations that were controlled by foreign governments from influencing federal elections through the use of campaign contributions. The Disclose Act also prevented Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) beneficiaries from making political contributions. In general, the Disclose Act gave organization members, shareholders and the public, access to information concerning corporate and interest group campaign expenses and donations. Through these provisions, the Disclose Act bolstered transparency’ the legislation forced corporations (any business entity with over 500,000 members) to stand by their political advertisements and contributions.  



Why was the Disclose Act Passed?



Before the Disclose Act was introduced to the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, argued in favor of Citizens United and stated that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech by limiting campaign contributions made for independent communications by associations, unions or corporations. 



Following the Supreme Court’s decision, President Barack Obama expressed displeasure, by stating that U.S. elections should not be dictated by America’s most prevailing interests. The President stated, in his 2010 State of the Union Address, that American elections should only be decided by the people. In turn, the President urged Republicans and Democrats to unite behind a legislation to remedy this problem. 



To thwart the Supreme Court’s ruling, Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen introduced versions of the Disclose Act to their respective houses. 



In the House of Representatives, Van Hollen stated that Congress must enforce disclosure and improve transparency on special interest groups who attempt to undermine or influence the election process.   



The Disclose Act in the House of Representatives:



The House Sponsors of the Disclose Act believe that Americans deserve the right to information concerning special interests. This transfer of information will further protect democracy by ensuring the legitimacy of federal elections. Further, supporters of the Disclose Act argued that opponents in the House cannot stand against the merits of bi-partisanship. 



Those in the House who opposed the act (most notably Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner) argued that the legislation is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Opposition to the act believed that the bill was a scheme to silence the majority’s opponents. Those in the House who disagreed with the bill, claimed that it actually promoted special interest exemptions and backroom deals.



The Disclose Act in the Senate:



Charles Schumer (Democrat Senator from New York), the lead sponsor of the Senate’s version of the Disclose Act, claims that Americans need control over their own elections, especially in a time when people speculate and fear the influence of special interest groups. Schumer and his supports argued that unless Congress acts quickly, the United States Supreme Court, through their ruling, could ultimately predetermine the outcome of Federal elections. 



Opponents to the bill in the Senate (led by Republican leader Mitch McConnell) stated that the majority drafted the bill in a clandestine manner, without Congressional markups or hearings. McConnell argued that the politics surrounding the bill was the ultimate vehicle to introduce and subsequently pass the law. 



Who Supported/Opposed the Bill?



Supporters of the Disclose Act:



The United States Public Interest Research Group: This group supports the introduction of the Disclose Act, but actively withholds its support when a special interest exemption is provided. The United States 



Public Interest Research Group started the “Stop the Corporate Takeover of Democracy” campaign, which is an effort to educate American voters on the negative effects and contributions that businesses and labor unions impose on the Democratic process, through a lack of transparency and disclosure. 



AFL-CIO: The AFL-CIO supported Congress for introducing the Disclose Act and creating transparency requirements for the delivery of political contributions. AFL-CIO stated that the United States needs to implement stronger regulations to promote equal participation on the part of individual voters and corporations to protect the democratic process and political speeches. The AFL-CIO promotes full disclosure regarding advertisement contributions. 



The Disclose Act was also fully-supported by the Democratic Party.



Opposition to the Disclose Act:



United States Chamber of Commerce: In a press statement, the United States Chamber of Commerce outwardly criticized the House majority for passing the Disclose Act, because the legislation violates the principles of equality, as prescribed by the Constitution. Further, the United States Chamber of Commerce argued that the passing of the legislation was a result of backroom deals with unions and special interest groups. In general, the Chamber of Commerce believes that Congress should shift their attention to fixing the economy versus protecting their own interests and jobs. 



National Federation of Independent Businesses: This organization—which sent a letter to the House of Representatives opposing the passing of the Disclose Act—believes that passage of the Disclose Act would threaten American small businesses and create an uneven playing field by providing exemptions for special interest group.



Brief Summary of the Disclose Act:



Section 101—regulates certain political spending: The first section of the Disclose Act prevents Government contractors from making campaign-related expenditures. This regulation effectively extends existing bans on contributions offered by government contractors. A threshold of $50,000 is included to exempt small government contractors. This section of the Disclose Act also prevents Corporate Beneficiaries of TARP from making contributions or spending money on federal elections. Corporations that received bailout funds are not permitted to use taxpayer money to influence an election. This section of the Disclose Act prohibits bailout beneficiaries from making federal campaign-related contributions. Once the bailout money is repaid, however, the impediments are removed. 



Section 102—prevents foreign influence in federal elections: This section of the Disclose Act bans foreign corporations (incorporated overseas and foreign nationals from making political contributions to help influence a U.S. election. This act; however, created a significant loophole—domestic corporations that are controlled by foreign nationals can provide funding to candidates or political parties. To eliminate this loophole, the Disclose Act extends the exiting ban to include domestic corporations under the following series of circumstances:



• The Foreign National owns at least 20% of voting shares in the said corporation



• The majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals



• If multiple foreign nationals possess the authority to direct or control the decision-making process of the corporation or a U.S. subsidiary to the corporation



Section 103 of the Disclose Act: prevents corporations and organizations from coordinating their activities with parties and candidates 



Section 104: implements provisions on political party communications



• The Disclose Act states that any payment by a political party board or committee for the direct costs of an advertisement or any other communication made on behalf of the said candidate affiliated with the party is treated as a contribution the said candidate if the communication is directed or controlled by the individual. 



• The Disclose Act ensures that the American public will have full disclosure of campaign related expenditures made by organizations and unions.