On April 2, 2014, a divided Supreme Court changed the face of campaign financing in the McCutcheon campaign financing case. Here is a look at the events of that day – and the immediate reaction.
Chief Justice John Roberts and four other justices ruled in McCutcheon to strike down general limits on how much money can be spent on political campaigns over a two-year period.
Specific limits remain in effect for how much a donor can spend on each candidate, but the only overall financial limit is the number of possible campaigns and candidates that can receive funds.
In 2010, the Court delivered its controversial 5-4 decision in Citizens United, which set the stage for enormous sums of money to be spent in elections through super PACs and other independent entities.
The McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case was seen the sequel to Citizens United, with the potential to pour millions of dollars into United States elections, directly into the campaigns of candidates for elected office, or to groups supporting them.
At issue in the McCutcheon case was the amount of money a person can cumulatively contribute to all candidates for federal office and to party committees over the course of a two-year election cycle. These limits stood at $48,600 per cycle for candidate committees and $74,600 for contributions to party committees, for a total of $123,200.
These limits have existed since 1974, and they were upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1976 campaign finance case Buckley v. Valeo.
“For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley,” Roberts said. “They instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”
Link: Read Full Opinion
The McCutcheon decision doesn’t extend the $2,600 limit a donor can give to a federal candidate in each primary and a general election or the $32,400 limit that can go to a national party committee. Those issues about “base limits” weren’t contested in court because of concerns about quid pro quo corruption that are part of the federal law.
Under Justice Roberts’ ruling, campaign donors must obey the $2,600 limit, but they can give to as many campaigns as they want without worrying about a ceiling on the number of donations they make.
It was expected before the McCutcheon decision that if the aggregate limits fell, individuals would potentially be able to contribute as much as $3.6 million in a single election cycle by contributing the maximum amount under the base limits law to party committees and slates of Congressional candidates.
Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking from the bench for the four liberal dissenters, said the Court had threatened the integrity of the election process elections.
“Taken together with Citizens United, today’s decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws,” he said.
Media reaction
Here’s what the top news websites and interest groups involved in the case said on April 2 last year:
SCOTUSblog
Constitution Daily contributor Lyle Denniston was in the courtroom when the opinions were read.
“The decision was not as sweeping as the Court’s ruling four years ago, removing all restrictions on what corporations and labor unions can spend of their own money in federal campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), which has led to billions of dollars spent on politics,” Denniston said. “Even so, the practical result of the new ruling is almost sure to be that wealthy individuals will be able to spread their money around among more candidates and political groups.
The New York Times
Adam Liptak says “The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.”
He also quotes Justice Stephen Breyer’s impassioned dissent: “If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
Los Angeles Times
“The Supreme Court on Wednesday freed wealthy donors to give more money directly to congressional candidates, extending its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision that opened the door for unlimited independent spending on political issues,” David Savage says in his lead paragraph.
Savage also highlights a paragraph in Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion that compares political donations to Nazi parades and the Westboro Baptist Church.
“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the 1st Amendment protects,” Roberts said.
If the amendment protects “flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition,” Roberts argues.
The Washington Post
Chris Cillizza breaks down the winners and losers in the case. Cillizza says the winners are fundraising committees and big donors; the losers are campaign finance reformers and also big donors.
The New York Times Editorial Page
Jesse Wegman calls the McCutcheon decision “another blow to democracy” and it’s only a matter of time before all limits are taken away from campaign spending.
“Nevertheless, many of the tireless lawyers who worked to take down the aggregate limits, no doubt, have the per-candidate cap in their sights. Justice Roberts wrote that this issue was not on the table, but given the current make-up of the court, that is little reassurance for a democracy that is already awash in the money of a very few extremely rich and unrepresentative donors,” Wegman says.
Republican National Committee
“Today’s Court decision in McCutcheon v FEC is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse,” RNC Chair Reince Priebus said in a Wednesday statement.
People For The American Way
“Our nation’s wealthiest people don’t need even more political influence, but that’s what today’s decision hands them. The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to a government unduly influenced by the rich and powerful,” the group said in a statement.
Cato Institute
“The Supreme Court today correctly struck down the biennial campaign contribution limits and gave those who contribute money to candidates and parties as much freedom as those who spend independently to promote campaigns and causes. But it should have gone further,” says Ilya Shapiro.
Shapiro sides with Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion that the Court should also overrule Buckley v. Valeo (1976) because “[c]ontributions and expenditures are simply ‘two sides of the same First Amendment coin.”
