Talk:McCutcheon v. FEC

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCutcheon v. FEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050730082922/http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm to http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Sfieldman (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC) The page number is unofficial. This bound volume has not yet been released. I've seen the page number used in a couple of briefs filed in the Supreme Court, but honestly, I have no idea where they got it. SCOTUS themselves have never given this case a page number. It will have one in a year or two when volume 572 of the US Reporter is released. Currently, the most recent volume is 569. The proper way to cite it until then is "572 U.S. ___"[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMendoza120 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SalviaPalthZelaya.

— Assignment last updated by SalviaPalthZelaya (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Articles: McCutcheon v. FEC[edit]

McCutcheon v. FEC is a pivotal Supreme Court case in the United States that has shaped campaign finance regulations and the interpretation of the First Amendment's protection of political speech. The case revolved around Shaun McCutcheon, an individual donor, challenging the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) contribution limits for aggregate campaign contributions. McCutcheon's legal battle ignited a contentious debate on the balance between regulating campaign financing and safeguarding the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections. This article examines the case's significance, its historical context, and the profound implications it has had on campaign finance laws.

At the heart of McCutcheon v. FEC was a fundamental question: Did certain contribution limits imposed by the FEC infringe upon the First Amendment's protection of political speech? The case specifically focused on the biennial aggregate contribution limits, which restricted the total amount an individual could donate to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) over a two-year election cycle.

Before McCutcheon, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 established contribution limits for individual candidates and committees. However, it also imposed an overall aggregate limit on an individual's total contributions to federal candidates, parties, and political committees combined. The constitutional validity of these "aggregate contribution limits" had been affirmed in the landmark Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. The Valeo ruling acknowledged that independent contributions constituted protected speech but contended that the government had a compelling interest in preventing "corruption" and the "appearance of corruption." This justified the constitutionality of the aggregate contribution limits. The Court viewed direct contributions to candidates as a potential avenue for enabling bribery, leading to the conclusion that restrictions on such donations reduced the potential for undue influence through substantial financial contributions.

In 2013, Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy Republican Party supporter from Alabama, asserted that these aggregate contribution limits violated his First Amendment rights by limiting his ability to financially support multiple candidates and political committees. During the 2011-2012 election cycle, McCutcheon adhered to the established limits, contributing $33,088 to 16 different federal candidates. However, he intended to donate $1,776 to 12 more candidates but was prevented from doing so due to the imposed cap on contributions to candidates. McCutcheon also donated $27,328 to various non-candidate political committees within the prescribed limits. Yet, he was unable to contribute $25,000 to each of the three Republican national party committees due to the aggregate limit on contributions to political committees. McCutcheon expressed his intention to continue making similar contributions, aiming to donate at least $60,000 to various candidates and $75,000 to non-candidate political committees during the 2013-2014 election cycle.

In a closely divided 5-4 decision in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCutcheon. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, asserting 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 its appearance. The Court acknowledged the legitimate government interest in preventing corruption but found that aggregate limits were not necessary to achieve that goal. It made a clear distinction between contributions to individual candidates and contributions to multiple candidates or committees, determining that the latter did not present the same risk of corruption. Consequently, the decision effectively eliminated the biennial aggregate contribution limits, allowing individuals to contribute to as many federal candidates, parties, and PACs as they desired, as long as they did not exceed the individual contribution limits to each.

McCutcheon v. FEC stands as a watershed moment in American campaign finance law and the interpretation of the First Amendment. It challenged the boundaries of regulating campaign contributions and reshaped the landscape of political financing. While it bolstered the rights of individual donors to express their political views through contributions, it also raised concerns about the potential influence of wealthy donors in American politics. McCutcheon's legacy underscores the enduring debate between preserving democratic ideals and guarding against potential corruption in the political process. AMendoza120 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]