McCutcheon v. FEC: Sacrificing Campaign Finance Regulation in the Name of Free Speech

Haley S. Peterson

The 2008 elections marked the first time that campaign spending by presidential candidates exceeded $1 billion, more than double the amount spent in 2004. Private contributions, in particular to the Obama campaign, were credited as one of the major reasons for this enormous spending increase. Four years later, during the 2012 election, candidates spent $3.2 billion, doubling spending again according to Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) estimates. Individuals alone contributed over $540 million to the Obama campaign and over $300 million to the Romney campaign.

The Federal Elections Campaign Act (“FECA”) sought to limit these types of campaign contributions by individuals, among other campaign finance regulations. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court considered whether aggregate limits on campaign contributions violated individuals' First Amendment rights of free speech. The Court determined that by setting a ceiling on campaign contributions, the aggregate limits essentially forced individuals to ration their political participation in violation of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the government only could justify limits on free speech in the interest of preventing quid pro quo corruption--that is, money given to public officials in direct exchange for political favors. The Court struck down the aggregate limits, concluding that they were not sufficiently related to the government's interest in preventing this type of corruption.