McCutcheon v. FEC: Worse for Partisanship than Citizens United?

image
Author: Chad Peace
Created: 08 Oct, 2013
Updated: 21 Nov, 2022
1 min read

The Supreme Court has heard the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case, which has been labeled Citizens United 2 by some.

At issue is the aggregation limits placed on political contributors, which refers to the total amount of money a person can contribute to political candidates, parties, and other organizations.

Today, individuals can give to candidates only $2,600 per election, but can give a National Party committee $32,400 per year, State and Local committees $10,000 per year, or a PAC up to $5,000 per year.

The popular discussion centers on a “freedom of speech” v. “quid-pro-quo corruption” concerns; whether aggregate donation limits to political parties and political action committees are Constitutional.

Not only are limits on giving to groups (parties, PACs, and other political associations) more than 10 times greater in a year than an individual candidate can receive in an entire election cycle, but no one is even challenging those limits in this case.

And we already give special access to our electoral process by paying, with public tax dollars, for parties to hold their private primary elections, to the tune of over $500 million dollars a year.

 

But now, that state of our political discourse has us staking our “freedom of speech” concerns around our ability to contribute to a third party to do our political bidding for us.

No-one asks whether direct donations, with transparency, might actually increase accountability and reduce partisanship.

IVP Donate

Wouldn’t it make sense that parties have leverage over candidates when political donations have to be funneled through their machines?

Probably why the Republican Party is the party challenging the aggregate limits as applied to organizations, and not individuals.

Find out  more information on McCuthceon v. FEC from the SCOTUSBlog.

Latest articles

Cnannabis and CBD oil
Sen. Padilla Pushes, But DEA Nominee Terry Cole Won’t Commit to Cannabis Rescheduling
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 30, DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole declined to commit to the proposed federal rescheduling of cannabis, leaving a critical policy question unresolved as the process transitions to new leadership under the Trump administration....
30 Apr, 2025
-
3 min read
Nurse standing in front of a backdrop that shows a blank map of California and a blank map of Mexico.
Cross-Border Healthcare: A Complex Problem Meets a Bipartisan Solution
While healthcare in California has seen massive investments in coverage and access, these gains often mean little to border residents who split time, family, or even residency across two countries...
30 Apr, 2025
-
2 min read
NYC skyline
Over 1 Million Unaffiliated Voters Left Out of NYC Primaries, CFB Report Finds
New York City has a massive voter suppression problem. A new report from the NYC Campaign Finance Board (CFB) found that 1-in-5 voters (21.1%) in the city are registered unaffiliated and are excluded from taxpayer-funded primary elections....
30 Apr, 2025
-
5 min read