U.S. Supreme Court Decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission Sounds the Death Knell for the Biennial, Aggregate Contribution Limits in Federal Campaigns
In its most significant campaign finance decision since the landmark Citizens United ruling in early 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down as unconstitutional the biennial, aggregate contribution limits placed on individual donors by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), and its associated regulations. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, involved a challenge by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon to the constitutionality of the existing $123,200 cap on political contributions an individual can give in aggregate to all federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs) during a two-year election cycle. In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held these biennial limits to be an impermissible restriction on political speech and the First Amendment right to participate in the democratic process, and subsequently declared the overall restriction on candidate giving invalid. The majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito (and supported in concurrence by Justice Thomas), did not go so far as to strike down the federal contribution limits applicable to individual candidates, party committees or PACs, however.
For just over a decade, federal law has restricted individual campaign contributions through two distinct mechanisms – base and aggregate donation limits. Base contribution limits restrict how much money an individual donor can contribute to a particular candidate or political committee in a given election or calendar year. (For example, an individual may contribute $2,600 to a candidate per election). By comparison, aggregate contribution limits cap how much money a person can donate in total to all federal candidates and committees. It is these aggregate limits that were the crux of the Court’s ruling in McCutcheon, and which no longer apply to individual donors at the federal level.
Prior to today’s decision, federal law limited the amount an individual could give in the aggregate to all federal candidates, political parties and PACs to a total of $123,200 per two-year election cycle. As part of this overarching, cumulative cap enforced by the FEC, individuals were also limited to giving a maximum of $48,600 to all federal candidates and a maximum of $74,600 to all federal PACs and party committees (whether national, state, district or local in nature) during any given biennial period. These limits were nominally put in place by BCRA as a buffer against “the corrupting influence” of money in politics. The McCutcheon Court, however, found these biennial caps and the general mechanism of aggregate limits to be an inappropriate and unconstitutional means of achieving this goal of reducing corruption. In turn, individual donors across the country are now permitted to give to an unlimited number of federal candidates and political committees without concern for the restrictions put in place by the FEC’s former cumulative caps.
Despite the effective elimination of the biennial, aggregate contribution limits, individual donors should be mindful that theMcCutcheon decision does nothing to change the base limits on contributions to federal candidates and committees. Moving forward, individuals are still limited to donating $2,600 per election to any one federal candidate or candidate committees, $5,000 per calendar year to any one federal PAC, $10,0000 per calendar year to the combined state, district and local political party committees of a particular state, and $32,400 per calendar year to any one national political party committee. Likewise, individuals wishing to donate to non-federal candidates and political committees around the country must continue to adhere to the base contribution limits applicable to those specific state and local jurisdictions.
Although the direct effect of the McCutcheon case is solely to render the federal, biennial limits unenforceable for the remainder of the 2013-2014 election cycle and all future cycles, the indirect effects of the decision will be felt at a number of different levels. First and foremost, we anticipate that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down aggregate contribution limits in federal elections will lead to the eventual elimination of similar cumulative donation caps under state law. At present, over ten states and numerous municipalities utilize aggregate contribution limits to restrain the ability of individuals and entities to make political donations to candidates and committees. Whether by administrative, legislative or judicial action, we fully expect such limitations to be eliminated or struck down as unconstitutional.
Furthermore, we anticipate that the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon will have a profound effect on the current methodology for raising campaign funds at the federal level. With the elimination of the biennial, aggregate caps, candidates and political committees can begin to investigate new and more-efficient means of raising funds from individual donors. Undoubtedly, this will mean more federal candidates and political committees joining together to form super-expansive Joint Fundraising Committees (JFCs) that lower the administrative cost of wide-spread fundraising for like-minded officials and organizations. It will also mean the formation of new alliances and associations that will fundamentally alter the present political calculus for candidates, officeholders and fundraisers alike.
Finally, the success of the McCutcheon challenge is likely to lead to further legal efforts aimed at peeling back various campaign finance restrictions put in place by FECA, BCRA and their associated regulations. In the language of the majority opinion, the Supreme Court took great care to emphasize the prevention of quid pro quo corruption as the only legitimate government interest capable of justifying limits on political speech and campaign giving. With so few federal campaign finance laws and regulations being narrowly-tailored to that particular interest, it may not be long before we see the Supreme Court taking additional action to roll back legislative and administrative restrictions on the ability of individuals and entities to engage in political process through both financial and non-financial means.