The news: Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 that the First Amendment invalidates aggregate limits on the amount an individual can contribute to federal candidates, political committees and national parties. The ruling means a single contributor is no longer capped on how many candidates and party committees he or she can give to in a two-year election cycle. (Remaining in place are federal campaign limits that restrict how much a donor can give to any one candidate or party committee.) McCutcheon was the latest in a series of rulings in which the Roberts court has struck down, as unconstitutional curbs on free speech rights, provisions of federal law aimed at limiting the influence of big donors.
Origins of the case: Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, has given thousands of dollars to political candidates and committees. He said he would have given more, if not for the law that restricts individual giving to a certain amount each election cycle. McCutcheon contended the law violated the First Amendment. The Republican National Committee joined him in the case. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and others favoring tighter campaign restrictions argued the limits were necessary to fight corruption.
Where did the limits came from? Congress enacted the limits 40 years ago in the wake of Watergate-era abuses to discourage big contributors from trying to buy votes with their donations, and to restore public confidence in the campaign finance system.
How much are we talking about? For the 2013-14 election cycle, individuals could give a total of $123,200 to candidates, PACs and national political parties. This included a $48,000 limit to candidates. (Individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress are still limited to $2,600 per election.)
What worries defenders of spending limits? The danger, they say, is that the ruling could dramatically increase the power and size of joint fundraising committees, which harness the fundraising power of different political committees.
Supporting statement: Chief Justice John Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits. The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'" Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Dissenting View: "I am concerned that today's ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the Court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics." — Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, in a statement released the day of the ruling.
Sources: Associated Press, Washington Post
