Voting Rights and Democracy

McCutcheon v. FEC

McCutcheon v. FEC involved a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of campaign finance legislation that established aggregate contribution limits in federal elections.

Case Summary

Federal law permitted an individual to make a total of $123,200 in contributions in each two-year election cycle ($48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to parties and non-party political committees). The district court rejected Shaun McCutcheon’s challenge to the aggregate limits, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.

On July 25, 2013, Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of prominent constitutional law scholar Professor Lawrence Lessig, urging the Court to uphold the federal aggregate contribution limits. Our brief presented to the Court path-breaking research – involving review of every Founding-era discussion of corruption in debates over the Constitution – on the Framers’ understanding of corruption. This research, which had never before been presented to the Supreme Court, showed that the Framers understood corruption in institutional terms: their chief concern was preventing the nation’s new institutions of government from developing an “improper dependence” on outside forces. Our brief demonstrated that, under the Framers’ understanding of corruption, the federal aggregate contribution limits challenged by McCutcheon are constitutional. By preventing massive hard money contributions to candidates and their political parties, the aggregate limits aim to prevent the very sort of improper dependence on outside forces that the Framers wrote the Constitution to check.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCutcheon on October 8, 2013. Read CAC’s reaction to oral argument here. On April 2, 2014, in a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the aggregate contribution limits that an individual donor can make to candidates, parties, and political party committees. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy, held that the aggregate limits “intrud[ed] without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise `the most fundamental First Amendment activities.’” Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, in which he agreed with the decision but noted that he would have gone further and eliminated the base limits. In a strong dissent joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, Justice Breyer argued that the majority’s ruling “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”

Case Timeline

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
September 11, 2020

The Civil War Beginnings of America’s Absentee Ballots

Mental Floss
For the first century or so of American independence, people stayed close to home and...
By: Becca Damante, By Ellen Gutoskey
Voting Rights and Democracy
September 4, 2020

Fact check: All mailed ballots — called ‘absentee’ and not — require voter verification

USA Today
Claim: Absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are not the same; absentee requires proof of identity,...
By: Becca Damante, By Ella Lee
Voting Rights and Democracy
August 26, 2020

OP-ED: How the Right to Vote Became Fundamental

Take Care
A century ago, the Nineteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution, prohibiting state-sponsored voting discrimination...
By: David H. Gans
Voting Rights and Democracy
August 30, 2020

OP-ED: Senator McConnell: Put out the fire at the Postal Service

The Hill
This is the situation we’re in with the U.S. Postal Service: It’s as if your...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

City of San Jose v. Trump; California v. Trump

In City of San Jose v. Donald Trump and California v. Trump, the district court for the Northern District of California is considering, among other things, whether a Trump Administration rule excluding undocumented immigrants from the apportionment...
Voting Rights and Democracy
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Common Cause v. Donald Trump

In Common Cause v. Donald Trump, the district court for the District of Columbia is considering, among other things, whether a Trump Administration rule excluding undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base violates the Constitution.