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

Warning: Use of undefined constant caseTitle - assumed 'caseTitle' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1147

McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Case Documents

1McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Oral Argument Transcript
2Questions Presented in McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
3Slip Opinion in McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (Opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.)
4McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Oral Argument Audio