McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC

Federal law limits how much one person can contribute directly to a single candidate for Congress or president in an election (the “base limits”). At the time of this case, federal law also set “aggregate limits”: a cap on the total amount one person could contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and political committees combined during a two-year election cycle.

Shaun McCutcheon, a businessman from Alabama, had contributed to many federal candidates and wanted to give to more of them, staying within the base limit for each one. The aggregate limits would not allow it. He and the Republican National Committee sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the aggregate limits violated the Constitution.

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits but left the base limits in place. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the main opinion, joined by three other justices; a fifth justice agreed with the result but would have gone further. The main opinion said that contributing money to candidates is a form of political participation and expression, and that the only legitimate reason for limiting it is to prevent corruption in the form of a direct exchange of money for official acts (quid pro quo) or the appearance of such corruption. Because the base limits already addressed that danger, the opinion concluded that capping the number of candidates a person may support restricted participation without a sufficient reason.