Election Law
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014)
Study notes for McCutcheon v. FEC: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Aggregate limits on individual contributions to political candidates violate the First Amendment.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of aggregate limits on political contributions imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Court held that these limits violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Professors often emphasize the court’s rationale that political contributions are a form of protected speech and that the aggregate limits serve more as a restriction on free expression than a legitimate government interest. Important considerations of corruption and the appearance of corruption were discussed, highlighting the tension between regulating campaign finance and upholding constitutional protections of individual donors' rights.
The decision in this case was significant in the broader context of campaign finance, as it built upon previous rulings that have progressively favored deregulation, particularly after Citizens United v. FEC. Professors may also encourage students to consider the implications of the ruling on future elections and campaign financing, as well as how this affects the landscape of political advocacy and electoral competition.
Aggregate limits impede speech, restrict the reach.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Citizens United v. FEC | While Citizens United dealt primarily with independent expenditures by corporations, McCutcheon focused on limits to individual contribution amounts. |
| Buckley v. Valeo | Buckley upheld limits on contributions but distinguished between contributions and expenditures, while McCutcheon struck down aggregate limits on contributions as unconstitutional. |
Eliminating aggregate limits promotes free political expression and allows for greater participation in the democratic process.
Removing these limits could lead to increased corruption and the perception of undue influence by wealthy donors in political processes.
Students can expect this case to appear on exams through questions about First Amendment protections in the context of campaign finance, as well as its relationship to limits on contributions versus expenditures.