Since the early 20th century, Congress has legislated in the area of campaign financing in federal elections, enacting major statutes that have sought to prevent real or apparent corrupt electoral practices and to curb undue influence by wealthy individuals and interest groups. It has done so by requiring disclosure, limiting or banning certain sources of funds, and limiting certain expenditures. To many critics of the federal campaign finance system, public funding of elections, generally in conjunction with campaign spending limits, is the ultimate solution to the perceived problems arising from ever-growing costs of campaigns and the accompanying need for campaign funds from private donors. Public financing supporters maintain that replacing private sources of funds with public money would most effectively reduce potentially corrupting influence from private, "interested" money. On the other hand, opponents of public financing question whether real or apparent corruption from private fundraising is as serious a problem as critics claim. They also argue that public financing would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars and would compel taxpayers to fund candidates they find objectionable. In the early 1970s, supporters succeeded in enacting public financing in presidential elections, a system which has been available since 1976. In addition, many states and localities have provided public financing in their elections since the 1970s (and sometimes before). Today, 16 states offer some form of direct aid to candidates' campaigns, through fixed subsidies or matching funds. Perceptions about the presidential and state public financing systems have shaped opinions about adding public financing to congressional elections. Also shaping that debate was the Supreme Court's landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling, which struck down mandatory spending limits, but sanctioned spending limits which were voluntarily accepted, such as those in conjunction with a public finance system. Proposals for publicly funded congressional elections have been offered in almost every Congress since 1956, and the issue was prominently debated in the mid1970s and the late 1980s through early 1990s. Proposals were passed twice by the Senate in the 93rd Congress and by both the House and Senate in the 101st, 102nd, and 103rd Congresses. Only the 102nd Congress proposal was reconciled in conference and sent to the President, who vetoed it. During the 101st through 103rd Congresses, resistance to public funding was sufficiently strong, in part reflecting perceived lack of public support, that the role of public funds per se was reduced in an effort to gain support, while the broader concept of public benefits (more indirect or governmentmandated assistance to candidates) became more prominent in Congress. This report reviews past proposals for and debate over congressional public financing and the experiences with the presidential and state systems; and it offers potential considerations for Congress in devising such a system for its elections, should it choose to do so. The report will be updated periodically, on the basis of congressional and state activity.