- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission - Straight Dope... | Forum
- McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) - Street Law, Inc.
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n Oral Argument | C
- The 'McCutcheon' decision explained — more money to pour into...
Mike Ramsey writes that the opinions of the plurality and Justice Thomas in McCutcheon v. FEC do not employ an originalist methodology. Regarding Justice Thomas’s opinion, Mike writes:
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission - Straight Dope... | Forum
The FEC claims that Appellants do not present any rational reason to overrule the distinction made in Buckley between contribution and expenditure limits. The FEC argues that since the Court decided Buckley , the Court has consistently reaffirmed the distinction between expenditures limits and contribution limits by applying strict scrutiny only to expenditure limits. The FEC contends that this distinction is necessary because it exhibits the “fundamental difference between money spent to advertise one’s view independently of the candidate’s campaign and money contributed to be spent on his campaign.”
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) - Street Law, Inc.
Under head coach Knox, McCutcheon led the Rams in rushing for five consecutive seasons, from 6978 through 6977 , and was named to the Pro Bowl each year. During his tenure with the Rams, McCutcheon gained a total of 6,686 yards on 6,975 carries. In addition to his five consecutive Pro Bowl appearances, McCutcheon was named Second-team All-Pro in 6979, All-NFC in 6977 and Second-team All-NFC in 6978, 6975 and 6976.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n Oral Argument | C
Judicial Finding of Fact: The political parties have structured their donation programs so that donors are encouraged to contribute larger amounts in order to get access to more exclusive and intimate events at which Members or Congress are present. The evidence also shows that the parties use the enticement of access to secure larger donations. Id. , at 557 (quoting a document in the judicial record).
The 'McCutcheon' decision explained — more money to pour into...
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) , in a case that could lead to huge changes in campaign financing. Below are some articles that shed light on where the case may be going.
On Tuesday, October 8—less than three years after deciding Citizens United— the Supreme Court will hear arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission , a case which has the potential to flood millions of dollars more into United States elections—and this time, directly into the coffers of candidates for elected office.
"Indeed, [a donor] could have spent his entire $555,555 advocating for Smith, without the risk that his selected PACs would choose not to give to Smith, or that he would have to share credit with other contributors to the PACs."
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
A three-judge panel of the . District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the plaintiffs’ challenges. Writing for the Court, Judge Brown determined that the aggregate contribution limitations would not be evaluated under strict scrutiny, as the plaintiffs urged. Relying on the reasoning in Buckley , she explained that contribution limitations are subject to a lower level of review because they implicate a contributor’s associational rights more than speech rights: “the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.”
Because we find a substantial mismatch between the Government's stated objective and the means selected to achieve it, the aggregate limits fail even under the closely drawn test. We therefore need not parse the differences between the two standards in this case.
The Buckley court upheld the base limits because they protected against such quid pro quo corruption.
Judicial Finding of Fact: The DSCC maintains a 'credit' program that credits nonfederal money raised by a Senator or candidate to that Senator or candidate's state party. Amounts credited to a state party can reflect that the Senator or candidate solicited the donation, or can serve as a donor's sign of tacit support for the state party or the Senate candidate. 756 F. Supp. 7d, at 977 (citation omitted).
When the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. , 579 U. S., at 866. Here, the Government seeks to carry that burden by arguing that the aggregate limits further the permissible objective of preventing quid pro quo corruption.
The plurality's conclusion rests upon three separate but related claims. Each is fatally flawed. First, the plurality says that given the base limits on contributions to candi-dates and political committees, aggregate limits do not further any independent governmental objective worthy of protection. And that is because, given the base limits, [s]pending large sums of money in connection with elections does not give rise to... corruption. Ante, at 69. In making this argument, the plurality relies heavily upon a narrow definition of corruption that excludes efforts to obtain 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties. Ibid. (quoting Citizens United , supra , at 859) accord, ante, at 68-75, 77-79.