User:AMendoza120/McCutcheon v. FEC

Lead
McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC is a landmark Supreme Court case in the United States that deals with campaign finance regulations. The case revolved around Shaun McCutcheon, an individual donor, challenging the Federal Election Commission (FEC) contribution limits for aggregate campaign contributions. The decision in this case had significant implications for campaign finance laws and the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections.

Article body
In McCutcheon v. FEC, the central issue was whether certain contribution limits imposed by the FEC on individual donors violated the First Amendment's protection of political speech. Specifically, the case focused on the biennial aggregate contribution limits, which restricted the total amount an individual could donate to all federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) over a two-year election cycle.

Prior to McCutcheon, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 set limits on contributions to individual candidates and committees, but it also imposed an overall aggregate limit on how much an individual could contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and political committees combined. The "aggregate contribution limits" were affirmed as constitutional in the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. The Valeo ruling acknowledged that independent contributions constituted protected speech. However, it also asserted that the government had a compelling interest in curbing "corruption" and the "appearance of corruption," justifying the constitutionality of these aggregate contribution limits. The Justices interpreted direct contributions to candidates as a potential avenue for enabling bribery. Consequently, implementing restrictions on direct donations to candidates would reduce a donor's ability to wield influence over a legislator through substantial financial contributions.

In 2013, Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy Alabama businessman of the Republican Party, argued that these aggregate contribution limits violated his First Amendment rights by restricting his ability to financially support multiple candidates and political committees. During the 2011-2012 election cycle, appellant Shaun McCutcheon adhered to the established limits and contributed $33,088 to 16 different federal candidates. He intended to donate $1,776 to 12 more candidates but was prevented from doing so due to the imposed cap on contributions to candidates. McCutcheon also donated $27,328 to various non-candidate political committees within the set limits. However, he had the desire to contribute $25,000 to each of the three Republican national party committees but was restricted by the aggregate limit on contributions to political committees. McCutcheon intends to continue making similar contributions in the future, aiming to donate at least $60,000 to various candidates and $75,000 to non-candidate political committees during the 2013-2014 election cycle. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in 2014, ruled in favor of McCutcheon. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, concluded that the aggregate limits violated the First Amendment because they did not serve a compelling government interest and were not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

On April 2, 2014, the Court held that while preventing corruption was a legitimate government interest, aggregate limits were not necessary to achieve that goal. The Court distinguished between contributions to individual candidates and contributions to multiple candidates or committees, finding that the latter did not present the same risk of corruption. Therefore, the decision in McCutcheon effectively eliminated the biennial aggregate contribution limits, allowing individuals to contribute to as many federal candidates, parties, and PACs as they desired—as long as they did not exceed the individual contribution limits to each.