Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

June 5, 2025 | SCOTUS Sides with Military Reservist in Differential Pay Dispute

Campaign Financing Headed Back to Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to wade back into the controversial issue of campaign financing. The Court recently granted certiorari in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which challenges the current monetary cap on individual political contributions.

Under current campaign finance rules, individuals cannot donate more than $117,000 over a two-year election cycle. This includes to $46,200 to a candidate for federal office and $70,800 to other entities, including national political parties and state political parties, and non-party committees. The Supreme Court last considered the biannual limits in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case.

In the instant case, political activist and businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee want to remove the biannual limits. The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. previously rejected their argument that limiting contributions violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In its opinion, the circuit court expressed concern about the corrupting power of unlimited individual contributions, noting that candidates at the receiving end of a large contribution “will know precisely where to lay the wreath of gratitude.” It further referenced Buckley’s holding holding that the limits represent “a coherent system rather than merely a collection of individual limits stacking prophylaxis upon prophylaxis.”

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has previously shown a willingness to turn campaign finance laws on their head. As a result, the case certainty warrants the hype surrounding it. In fact, many are predicting that it could rival the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision by allowing even more money to flow into political campaigns. However, a decision will likely not come until 2014, as the Court will not consider the case until its next term, which begins this fall.

 

Previous Articles

Will US Supreme Court Allow Religious Charter Schools?
by DONALD SCARINCI on June 3, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a key First Amendment case involving the se...

Read More
Supreme Court Sides With FDA on Flavored Vape Denials
by DONALD SCARINCI on May 21, 2025

In Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the...

Read More
SCOTUS Agrees to Consider Birthright Citizen Cases
by DONALD SCARINCI on

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s execut...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards


Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising