ÃÛÌÒÖ±²¥

Legal Principle at Issue

Does limiting the total amount an individual can donate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs over a two-year period violate the First Amendment right to free speech?

Action

Reversed and remanded. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits on individual contributions. The Court held that the aggregate limits did not serve a legitimate governmental interest in preventing bribery. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said contributing to a candidate is a form of political expression, and limiting the total number of candidates or causes a person can support restricts free speech. The decision did not strike down limits on how much one can give to a single candidate or committee, but rather only the aggregate cap across multiple candidates or committees.

Facts/Syllabus

The case was brought by Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, and the Republican National Committee, who challenged the aggregate limits on how much an individual could donate to all federal candidates, political party committees, and PACs over a two-year election cycle. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, imposes two types of limits on campaign contributions. Base limits restrict how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee, whereas aggregate limits restrict how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees. McCutcheon contributed to 16 different federal candidates, complying with the base limits applicable to each, but alleged that aggregate limits prevented him from contributing to 12 additional candidates and to numerous political committees. McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee filed a complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting that the aggregate limits were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the case, so McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee appealed to the Supreme Court.

Importance of Case

McCutcheon v. FEC built on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), further loosening restrictions on political spending and marking a significant victory for campaign finance reform critics who argue that monetary contributions are a protected form of political speech.