Valeo, a previous case dealing with limits on campaign contributions, should be overruled because it denigrates the core values of the first amendment. The decision continued a trend of the roberts court of deregulating the area. Jul 18 20, brief of appellee federal election commission filed. What does the landmark supreme court ruling mean for campaign. I have the announcement this morning in case 12536, mccutcheon v.
Brief for appellant shaun mccutcheon at i, mccutcheon v. Federal election commission, defendant on certification of constitutional questions. Federal election commission, defendant civil case no. The court should be asking whether its fair for the wealthy to use their economic might to purchase political power and whether one person contributing millions of dollars to candidates and parties is consistent with the principle of one person, one vote. Sacrificing campaign finance regulation in the name of free speech. The court heard arguments tuesday in the case of mccutcheon v. On april 2, 2014, the supreme court issued a ruling in mccutcheon v. Fec is a supreme court case in which a narrow 54 majority struck down the. Apr 03, 2014 the supreme courts decision in mccutcheon v. The courts decision in this case, along with its decision in citizens united v.
Mccutcheon does not mean that billionaires are free to give as much money as they want to any. Fec ignored decades of legal precedent and unleashed vast corporate and union treasuries on the 2010 midterm and the 2012 presidential elections. Spend even more money to influence political decisions. At that time, fecas aggregate limits for twoyear election cycles. Fec, in which plaintiffs shaun mccutcheon and the republican national committee are seeking to overturn aggregate limits for. Supreme court on april 2, 2014, struck down 54 provisions of the federal election campaign act feca. Traditional liberals should be cheering the supreme courts decision last week in mccutcheon v. The supreme courts mccutchon decision was worse than. Mccutcheon and the other plaintiffs sued the federal election commission, arguing.
With the courts decision in mccutcheon, wealthy donors may now contribute. Then, in arizona free enterprise clubs freedom club pac v. Supreme court ruled in 2010 that political spending is a form of free speech thats protected under the first amendment. Federal election commission was a case argued during the october 20 term of the u. Federal election commission, legal case in which the u.
Fec, challenged the constitutionality of the aggregate campaign contribution limits on the grounds that it impeded fundamental first amendment rights. Federal campaign finance laws previously limited contributions to a single candidate or committee, but also imposed limits on the amount that could be contributed to all candidates and committees. Apr 15, 2014 on april 2, 2014, the supreme court issued a ruling in mccutcheon v. The supreme court will hear arguments on tuesday in mccutcheon v. Federal election commission, individuals were prohibited from giving more than. Kang shaun mccutcheon contributed almost half a million dollars in campaign finance money over the last three years but wanted to contribute still more. On april 2, 2014, the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits, holding that the aggregate limits did not. The lawsuit challenged fec restrictions on the aggregate amount of donations to candidates in federal elections and to national political parties. It involved a challenge to federal campaign contribution regulations that placed biennial limits on contributions in a twoyear cycle allowed. Fec struck down aggregate limits on campaign contributions. Elected officials are influenced to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain to themselves or infusions of money into their campaigns.
The mccutcheon decision explained more money to pour. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the reporter of decisions for the convenience of the reader. The decision held that section 441 of the federal election campaign act feca, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a twoyear pe. See infra part v examining the future effects of the mccutcheon decision. The mccutcheon decision explained more money to pour into. In his controlling opinion for a splintered 54 majority, chief justice john g. Money, money, money how the supreme courts decision in. The court held that the free speech clause of the first amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. Fec is just the latest in a long line of cases in which the. Allowing the superrich to spend so much overpowers the voices of everyday americans, a problem the supreme court made worse with its mccutcheon v. Supreme court to guide the agencys rulemaking in response to the mccutcheon v.
Jul 11, 2017 the court heard arguments tuesday in the case of mccutcheon v. Supreme court invalidated provisions of the federal election campaign act feca and the bipartisan campaign reform act bcra that imposed aggregate, or total, limits on contributions to political candidates and other contributions to party committees. Mccutcheon v fec is a federal lawsuit that was argued before the u. The case involved whether congress had the right to limit the total amount of donations an individual can make, at the federal level, in an election cycle. Apr 16, 2014 federal election commission fec chairman lee goodman talks about how the supreme courts mccutcheon v. Fecs robust effect on federal and state contractor contribution regulations tyler c.
Federal election commission, a case thats been dubbed the next citizens united. Fec that struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a. For money, free speech, and fair elections 11 2008, at 11. Mccutcheon decision reaffirms first amendment the boston. Citizens united found that associations, corporations, and labor unions may not be prevented from making independent expenditures in connection with elections. The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo. Plaintiff shaun mccutcheon, an alabama businessman and former member of the republican national committee, challenged that a biennial limit on overall individual contributions infringed upon a donors first amendment rights. In the 20112012 election cycle alone, he contributed to sixteen.
Fec, a challenge to the aggregate contribution limits. Why mccutcheon decision is scarier than citizens united with landmark decision handed down today, heres what to know about mccutcheon v. Sep 26, 20 in 2010, the courts controversial decision in citizens united v. She touches on the background of campaign finance issues. Fec is a supreme court case in which a narrow 54 majority struck. The supreme court has issued its ruling in mccutcheon v. Federal election commission fec is the landmark 2014 u. Federal election commission arose in june 2012 when shaun mccutcheon, an alabama businessman, and the republican national committee rnc, which manages the affairs of the national republican party, challenged fecas aggregate limits in u. Introduction on april 2, 2014, the united states supreme court issued the opinion in mccutcheon v. On appeal from the united states district court for. With the courts decision in mccutcheon, wealthy donors may now. By a vote of 54, the court ruled that the biennial aggregate limits are unconstitutional under the first amendment.
Federal election commission represented the most im portant election law decision since citizens united v. Brief amici curiae of thomas jefferson center for the protection of free. By a vote of 54, the court ruled that the biennial aggregate limits are unconstitutional under the. On one hand, the mccutcheon and citizens united decisions provide. Justice clarence thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he argued that the courts decision in buckley v. Federal election commission, which reaffirmed a value at the heart of the first amendment. The supreme court took another step toward protecting political speech tuesday by rejecting arbitrary campaignfinance restrictions. The 5 most absurd quotes in the mccutcheon v fec decision. The supreme courts april 2014 ruling struck down limits on how much donors could give, overall, to federal candidates, pacs, and party committees each election cycle. Supreme court case in which the court ruled that campaign donations can be considered a form of free speech protected by the first amendment to the u. Our clients receive free legal representation thanks to the generosity of our donors. Fec, striking down overall limits on campaign contributions. Supreme court strikes down federal aggregate campaign contribution limits.
Oct 04, 20 professor carolyn shapiro explains the issues involved in the upcoming supreme court case, mccutcheon v. Each of these contributions would have been compliant with the base contribution limits restricting the amounts that individuals may give to a particular candidate, party committee, or political action committee pac. The supreme court on wednesday struck down limits in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to. Fec that struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a twoyear period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Fec, 1 striking down longstanding limits on the overall amount an individual could spend on federal political contributions, will further loosen the reins on major political donors. Federal election commission fec chairman lee goodman talks about how the supreme courts mccutcheon v. Jan 15, 2015 in testimony pdf submitted today to the federal election commission fec, public citizen invoked the instructions of the u. Professor sanford greenberg of iit chicagokent college of law. On april 1, 2014, the court struck down these aggregate limits as failing to advance the accepted government interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof, and therefore impermissibly burdening first amendment rights. The campaign legal center has urged the supreme court to avoid similar judicial overreach in mccutcheon and to uphold its longstanding. Argued october 8, 20decided april 2, 2014 the right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the first amendment, but that. Fec case, the latest in a series of contentious decisions striking. Election commn is a landmark decision along with the case four years earlier of citizens united v.
In october of 20, the supreme court heard oral arguments in mccutcheon v. The brennan center filed an amicus brief urging the supreme court. Fec and the supreme courts return to buckley 97 thus, in mccutcheon the court provided some muchneeded clar ity by returning to its roots in, thereby resurrecting a nar. This supreme court case could usher in a system of. United states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit argued en banc september 30, 2014 decided july 7, 2015 no. Federal election commission audio transcription for opinion announcement april 02, 2014 part 1 in mccutcheon v. On april 2, 2014, the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits, holding that the aggregate limits did not meaningfully prevent. Fec, in which plaintiffs shaun mccutcheon and the republican national committee are.
759 1668 1322 1367 667 818 633 609 275 1308 1071 1652 1571 875 1336 126 1612 839 950 497 79 912 1072 693 1283 1053 330 1417 1531 1360 752 1480 1226 1274 1281 376 12 1232 413 1114 1092 1438