17 articles
There has been a lot of public discussion and press attention about the Supreme Court’s decisions on campaign finance law, which can be a very complicated topic (especially for non-lawyers). So I thought it would be useful to write a short Explainer on what the Court is up to.
The Supreme Court majority in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission has continued on its step-by-step path to destroy the nation’s campaign finance laws.
The McCutcheon v. FEC ruling and the identity of the Justices aligned in it on one side or the other should surely have come as no surprise to Court-watchers. The case is both an easier one than Citizens United and a far less far-reaching one, both in theory and potential political impact.
Once the Court granted probable jurisdiction in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, it seemed likely, and was confirmed at oral argument, that a majority of Justices viewed aggregate contribution limits as unjustified under the First Amendment.
The Roberts Court rarely finds a campaign finance law that it likes. That skeptical tradition continued with its recent ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. We say “rarely” because a majority did leave intact a part of Buckley v. Valeo . . . for now, at least.
Richard L. Hasen publishes Election Law Blog and is Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine. Chief Justice Roberts has moved the Supreme Court’s election law jurisprudence steadily and stealthily in his preferred direction.
What kind of bizarro world do we live in where a near majority of Justices of the United States Supreme Court criticizes a First Amendment ruling for being overly concerned with “the individual’s right to engage in political speech”?
Help. American democracy is trapped in a sealed box built by the Supreme Court. As the Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission demonstrates, five Justices are slowly but surely pumping the air out of the box.
The Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision in McCutcheon v. FEC reassured some supporters of campaign finance regulation who feared that the Court might use a case attacking the aggregate limits on campaign financing set by federal law to effectively overturn all contribution limits, including the limits on how much can be contributed to an individual candidate.
The following essay is part of our online symposium on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies.” (emphasis added) That is a striking choice of words.
The following essay is part of our online symposium on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Photographs purport to show objective facts. But whether they illuminate or distort our understanding of the world depends entirely on choices — of lens, of frame — that the photographer has made.
The following essay is part of our online symposium on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Shaun McCutcheon is a well-to-do businessman from Alabama and a staunch believer in and supporter of the Republican Party and its candidates and causes.