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

May 6, 2025 | SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission Removes Limit on Aggregate Campaign Contributions

In the most important election law case since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the overall limits on the amount individuals are allowed to donate during a federal two-year cycle. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is one of a series of cases the Court has been considering that address the constitutionality of the laws regulating and restricting campaign contributions.

The Facts

Shaun McCutcheon, the Chief Executive Officer of Coalmont Electrical Development, is the treasurer of a super PAC called the Conservative Action Fund. The lawsuit was filed to contest the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s $74,600 two-year ceiling on contributions to non-candidate committees along with the $48,600 two-year ceiling on donations to candidate organizations.

History

In 2010, the Court rendered the Citizens United v. F.E.C. decision which removed all restrictions on what corporations and labor unions can spend in donations to federal campaigns. The Citizens United decision was based upon the right to free speech (political speech) to spend money in elections. As a result of the ruling, millions of dollars have been expended in support of candidates through super-pacs, which allow donors making contributions to specific candidates to essentially remain anonymous.

The Decision

McCutcheon did not eliminate the limit on how much individuals can donate to candidates or party committees. Individuals cannot donate as much as they want to any candidate they choose. The case struck down the aggregate limit on how much people can give in capped donations to campaigns and parties, which would have been $123,200 in 2014. In other words, individuals can continue giving maximum donations to every candidate they wish. However, the maximum donation per candidate is still limited.

Campaign Financing after McCutcheon

How much an individual can donate under McCutcheon remains to be seen depending on how the Federal Election Commission (FEC) interprets and implements the decision. Some analysts predict that the ruling could allow a single donor to give close to $6 million to candidates and committees.

Additionally, the McCutcheon ruling does not alter the rules requiring campaign donations to be disclosed to the FEC. Thus, in order for a donor’s contribution to remain anonymous, nonprofits are still the only option.

It has been predicted that McCutcheon will allow the parties to regain some of the power and funds that has been taken over by PACs and other outside groups. The parties are expected to create joint fundraising committees made up of state and national party committees as well as numerous candidates. The goal being that donors could give the joint committees a single donation that encompasses the maximum amount allowed for each candidate and committee.

It is left to the FEC to provide guidance regarding what is permitted and not permitted under the McCutcheon decision. With midterm elections approaching, the FEC will need to act quickly.

Previous Articles

Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025

In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...

Read More
SCOTUS Confirms Right to Renew Lawsuit Ater Voluntary Dismissal
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 22, 2025

In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held ...

Read More
Supreme Court Rules Trademark Infringement Damages Include Only Named Defendant’s Profits
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 14, 2025

In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., 604 U.S. __ (2025), the U.S. SupremeCourt held...

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