Mccutcheon v. FEC (572 U.S. 185)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 2, 2014 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 572 U.S. 185 · 134 S. Ct. 1434
- Decided
- April 2, 2014
- Term
- October Term 2013
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Roberts
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
McCutcheon and the RNC appealed directly to this Court, as authorized by law. 28 U.S.C. § 1253. In such a case, "we ha[ve] no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its merits," Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975), and accordingly we noted probable jurisdiction. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1242, 185 L.Ed.2d 177 (2013). II A Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659, presented this Court with its first opportunity to evaluate the constitutionality of the original contribution and expenditure limits set forth in FECA. FECA imposed a $1,000 per election base limit on contributions from an individual to a federal candidate. It also imposed a $25,000 per year aggregate limit on all contributions from an individual to candidates or political committees. 18 U.S.C. §§ 608(b)(1), 608(b)(3) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). On the expenditures side, FECA imposed limits on both independent expenditures and candidates' overall campaign expenditures. §§ 608(e)(1), 608(c). Buckley recognized that "contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities." 424 U.S., at 14, 96 S.Ct. 612. But it distinguished expenditure limits from contribution limits based on the degree to which each encroaches upon protected First Amendment interests. Expenditure limits, the Court explained, "necessarily…
Excerpt of a 151,132-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.