Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Docket No.: 12-536
Argued: October 8, 2013

Topics:

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, First Amendment, Miranda, preliminary injunction

PartyNames: Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants v. Federal Election Commission
Petitioner: Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants
Respondent: Federal Election Commission

Court Below: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Citation: 2012 WL 4466482
Supreme Court Docket

Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants
v.
Federal Election Commission
Background:

Federal law imposes two types of limits on individual political contributions. Base limits restrict the amount an individual may contribute to a candidate committee ($2,500 per election), a national-party committee ($30,800 per calendar year), a state, local, and district party committee ($10,000 per calendar year (combined limit)), and a political-action committee ("PAC") ($5,000 per calendar year). 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1) (current limits provided). Biennial limits restrict the aggregate amount an individual may contribute biennially as follows: $46,200 to candidate committees; $70,800 to all other committees, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national-party committees (e.g., state parties and PACs). 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3) (current limits provided) (see Appendix at 20a (text of statute)). Appellants present five questions:

Question Presented:

1. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national-party committees. 2. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. 3. Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially. 4. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S. C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. 5. Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutionally too low.

McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 8, 2013

Listen to Oral Argument in McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)