McCutcheon v. FEC

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2014 United States Supreme Court case

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance . The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 , which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013, being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote, reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts , Scalia , Kennedy , and Alito invalidated "aggregate contribution limits" (amounts one can contribute over the two-year period) as violating the First Amendment . Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote but concurred separately in the judgment, while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCutcheon_v._FEC&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was first passed in 1971. Amendments to FECA in 1974, after the Watergate scandal , limited the total amount of direct contributions an individual could make to national political parties and federal candidates in a given year.

These "aggregate contribution limits" were subsequently upheld in _Buckley v. Valeo _ (1976). The Court's decision in Valeo recognized that independent contributions were protected speech, but also held that the aggregate contribution limits were constitutional because the government had a compelling interest in preventing "corruption" and the "appearance of corruption".

In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed. The BCRA revised the aggregate limits, adjusted them to future (but not past) inflation, and changed the individual limitations from annual to biennial; The aggregate contribution ceiling on individuals during the 2011-2012 election cycle stood at $46,200 for federal candidates and $70,800 for national parties, or a $117,000 aggregate limit.

Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon is a businessman and electrical engineer from suburban Birmingham, Alabama , who is a campaign contributor and self-described activist of the Republican Party .

The founder and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development Corporation, McCutcheon began donating to Republican candidates in the late 1990s, and would ultimately join the Jefferson County Republican Party Executive Committee. At a 2011 Young Conservatives Coalition event, McCutcheon met attorney and campaign finance expert Dan Backer, who would play a major role in encouraging McCutcheon to file suit against the FEC. In September 2012, McCutcheon had given $33,088 to sixteen federal candidates during the 2011-2012 cycle. He also had the desire to contribute $25,000 to each of the three Republican national party committees during that same cycle but was restricted by the aggregate limit on contributions to political committees. McCutcheon intended to continue making similar contributions in the future, aiming to donate at least $60,000 to various candidates and $75,000 to non-candidate political committees during the 2013-2014 election cycle, bringing his contribution total over the federal aggregate limit on federal candidates. McCutcheon filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), where he was joined in his lawsuit by the Republican National Committee .

U.S. District Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCutcheon_v._FEC&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: U.S. District Court")
]

On June 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia , asking the court to revisit the precedent set in the Buckley case and calling the limits on contributions to federally elected candidates a "burden on speech and association ." The case was heard by a three-judge court, with judges James E. Boasberg , Janice Rogers Brown and Robert L. Wilkins designated to hear the case.

On September 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the FEC's motion to dismiss; upholding the aggregate limits. The court held that:

The government may justify the aggregate limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption , or as a means of preventing circumvention of contribution limits imposed to further its anticorruption interest.

On October 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court; the Court noted probable jurisdiction on February 19, 2013.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCutcheon_v._FEC&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2013. Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC , argued for the appellants . Attorney Michael T. Morley was counsel of record for Appellant McCutcheon and was primarily responsible for preparing his principal brief. United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued for the appellees: the Federal Election Commission and the Obama administration .

On April 2, 2014, the court ruled, 5–4, for the appellants. While the ruling overturned limits on aggregate federal campaign contributions, it did not affect limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which remain at $2,700 per election.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts , concluded that the aggregate limits violated the First Amendment because they did not serve a compelling government interest and were not narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the legal opinion : "The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."

Concurrence and dissent

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McCutcheon_v._FEC&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Concurrence and dissent")
]

Justice Thomas concurre

…