McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n

Background

An individual donor, Shaun McCutcheon, together with the national Republican Party committee, challenged federal law that capped the total amount a person may give to all candidates and political committees during an election cycle. Those “aggregate” limits were distinct from the familiar per-candidate or per-committee “base” limits, which remain in force. A three-judge District Court dismissed the challenge, and the case came directly to this Court.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the aggregate limits serve the government’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption without unnecessarily restricting political speech. The Court reaffirmed that only quid pro quo corruption—direct exchanges of money for official acts—or its appearance justifies limiting contributions. It found that the aggregate limits do not meaningfully prevent circumvention of the per-candidate limits given existing laws, FEC rules on earmarking and affiliation, and disclosure. Because the aggregate caps significantly burden an individual’s ability to support many candidates and are not closely tailored to the anticorruption interest, the Court held they violate the First Amendment.

Real world impact

The judgment reverses the District Court and invalidates the aggregate contribution limits, while leaving the per-candidate and per-committee base limits intact. Practically, wealthy and ordinary donors alike may now give the maximum allowed to more candidates and committees, increasing donors’ ability to support a wider range of campaigns. The case is sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Dissents or concurrances

A separate opinion by Justice Thomas urged overruling older cases limiting contribution protections. Justice Breyer (joined by three colleagues) dissented, arguing the ruling narrows the anticorruption rationale, risks large unchecked donations, and creates loopholes the record did not resolve.