On April 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC. By a 5–4 vote, the Court struck down limits on the total amount that any one donor can give to candidates, party committees, and PACs in an election cycle. The Court also defended giving access and influence to donors as supporting a key democratic right, and ruled that donors have the same right to influence officials as do the constituents those officials are elected to represent.
The Controlling Opinion
Chief Justice Roberts: “[G]overnment regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. 'Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.' They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.”
The Dissent:
Justice Breyer: “[This is] a decision that substitutes judges’ understandings of how the political process works for the understanding of Congress; that fails to recognize the difference between influence resting upon public opinion and influence bought by money alone; that overturns key precedent; that creates huge loopholes in the law; and that undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.”
“Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”
The Brennan Center’s Brief for Appellee
The Brennan Center for Justice filed an amicus curiae brief urging the Court to affirm the judgment of the lower court and uphold the aggregate contribution limits. The brief discussed the fundamental government interest in preventing domination of the political process by the few to the detriment of the many. From the nation’s inception, the Founders sought to ensure the integrity of the new system of representative government. Aggregate contribution limits were a continuation of the Founders’ dedication to defeating corruption. Striking down the aggregate limits would allow wealthy Americans to give over $3.5 million directly to politicians and parties each election cycle, inviting a torrent of funds that would undermine faith in government integrity. The undue access and influence to elected officials springing from these contributions would raise the specter of corruption at a time when faith in government is already distressingly low.
Brennan Center Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
Background on the Case
Federal aggregate contribution limits capped the total amount that any one contributor could donate to candidates, political parties, and political committees during an election cycle. Whereas an individual could give no more than $5,200 to any one federal candidate per election cycle, the limits had ensured that individuals were not able to give $5,200 to each and every federal candidate. Instead, the contributors were subject to a limit of $123,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, parties, and political committees per cycle.
In 2012, an Alabama businessman named Shaun McCutcheon reached the aggregate candidate and party contribution limits, but still wanted to give money to a number of other candidates and the Republican National Committee (RNC). McCutcheon and the RNC challenged the aggregate limits as unconstitutional, claiming that they violate the First Amendment because they burden protected political speech and are not justified by a compelling government interest.
On September 28, 2012, the District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the aggregate contribution limits. The court specifically cited the aggregate limits’ ability to prevent circumvention of the underlying base contribution limits as a reason for upholding the law. They reasoned that without the limits, transfers of funds between committees would allow a single candidate to end up with the entire amount of a very large contribution that was initially spread among many candidates and committees. On October 9, 2012, the Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and on February 19, 2013, the Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard October 8, 2013.
Related Court Documents
US Supreme Court Opinions
US Supreme Court Merit Briefs
- Republican National Committee Brief for Appellant
- Shaun McCutcheon Brief for Appellant
- Federal Election Commission Brief for the Appellee
US Supreme Court Reply Briefs
US Supreme Court Amicus Briefs
In Support of Appellants
- American Civil Rights Union Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Cato Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Cause of Action Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Center for Competitive Politics Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Committee for Justice Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Downsize DC Foundation et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Institute for Justice Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Senator Mitch McConnell Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Tea Party Leadership Fund et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and the Media Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
- Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants
In Support of Appellee
- Americans for Campaign Reform Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- Brennan Center for Justice Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- The Campaign Legal Center et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- Democratic Members of Congress of the United States House of Representatives Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- Demos et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- National Education Association et al. Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- Professor Lawrence Lessig Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
- Representatives Chris Van Hollen and David Price Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee
Other US Supreme Court Documents