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
    • First Ladies
    • Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    • Signers of the Declaration of Independence
    • Delegates of the U.S. Constitution
    • Misc – Great American Bios
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

September 16, 2025 | SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to South Carolina’s Exclusion of Planned Parenthood from State Medicaid Program

What’s on Deck: Campaign Finance Restrictions Again Take Center Stage

When the new term kicks off next moth, the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit some of its most controversial issues, including campaign finance reform. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, involves a constitutional challenge to aggregate contribution limits to federal candidates and political committees.

Under current campaign finance laws, 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, of which no more than $46,200 may go to non-national-party committees (state parties and political action committees).

The Supreme Court last considered the biannual limits Buckley v. Valeo, which was decided in 1976. The Court held that while contribution limits implicate First Amendment interests, they withstand constitutional scrutiny so long as they are closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest. In contrast, the Court did strike down limits on expenditures by candidates and committees, finding that they imposed “direct and substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech.”

In the current case, plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC) contend that the current bicentennial limits are unconstitutionally low and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest under the First Amendment. Although it noted that the “constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia previously rejected the challenges.

With regard to the plaintiffs’ arguments that the contribution limits should be subjected to strict scrutiny, the court held: “Contribution limits are subject to lower scrutiny because they primarily implicate the First Amendment rights of association, not expression, and contributors remain able to vindicate their associational interest in other ways.” It also rejected the contention that the limits are too low, stating, “…it is not the judicial role to parse legislative judgment about what limits to impose.”

Not surprisingly, the case has attracted a large number of amicus briefs representing both sides of the case. Proponents of a liberal First Amendment interpretation include the Cato Institute, Senator Mitch McConnell, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Finance reform advocates appealing to the Court include several democratic members of the House of Representatives, Americans for Campaign Finance Reform, and the Constitutional Accountability Center.

Given the implications on political fundraising, this case is likely to generate the same buzz as Citizen’s United v. FEC. With regard to how it may ultimately be decided, the Roberts Court has previously demonstrated that it is willing to overturn campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds. In addition, several justices have also publicly stated that Buckley should be overruled.

Oral arguments will be held on October 8.

Previous Articles

SCOTUS Rules Death Row Inmate Has Standing to Challenge Post Conviction DNA Testing Procedures
by DONALD SCARINCI on September 11, 2025

In Gutierrez v. Saenz, 606 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a death row inmate ha...

Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of First Step Act to Vacated Sentences
by DONALD SCARINCI on September 4, 2025

In Hewitt v. United States, 606 U.S. ____ (2025), a divided U.S. Supreme Court held that the First ...

Read More
SCOTUS Rules E-Cigarette Retailers Can Challenge FDA Order in Fifth Circuit
by DONALD SCARINCI on

In FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co., 606 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that e-cigare...

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

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of First Step Act to Vacated Sentences
  • SCOTUS Rules E-Cigarette Retailers Can Challenge FDA Order in Fifth Circuit
  • Supreme Court Expands Judicial Review of Agency Actions
  • Supreme Court Pauses Order Reinstating CPSC Commissioners

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