Your web browser is not supported You're using Internet Explorer, some features might not work. Please switch to another browser like Chrome, Firefox, or Edge for a better experience.


An official website of the United States government Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Federal Election Commission | United States of America Calendar
           Glossary
          Search
              Search


Menu
      Home
      Campaign finance data
        All data
            Raising
            Spending
            Loans and debts
            Filings and reports
            Candidates
            Committees
            Bulk data
            Campaign finance statistics
        Find elections. Search by state or ZIP code
          Look up contributions from specific individuals
      Help for candidates and committees
        All compliance resources
            Guides
            Forms
            Dates and deadlines
            Trainings
        Learn about electronic filing
          Find and contact your committee's analyst
      Legal resources
        All legal resources
            Advisory opinions
            Enforcement
            Statutes
            Legislation
            Regulations
            Court cases
            Policy and other guidance
        Search across all legal resources
          Search guidance documents
      About
        All about the FEC
            News and announcements
            Commission meetings
            Mission and history
            Leadership and structure
            Reports about the FEC
            Careers
            Working with the FEC
            Contact
        Introduction to campaign finance and elections


- Home
- ›
      FEC Record: Litigation
- ›
      McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC (District court 2012)

FEC Record: Litigation*McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC* (District court 2012)October 2, 2012 On September 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC) challenging the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (the Act’s) biennial limit
    on individual contributions. The plaintiffs had contended the limit was unconstitutionally low and not supported by a sufficient governmental interest. Background The Act imposes separate limits on the amounts that individuals may contribute to federal candidates and other political committees. Some of these limits are indexed for inflation. Currently, an individual may contribute up to $2,500 per election to federal
    candidates, up to $30,800 per calendar year to a national party committee and up to $5,000 per calendar year to any non-party political committee. Additionally, the Act imposes an overall limit on the aggregate amount individuals may contribute in a two-year period. Under the inflation-adjusted limits effective January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012, an individual may contribute no more than
    a total of $46,200 to all federal candidates, and no more than $70,800 to federal political action committees and political party committees. Combining those amounts, the aggregate biennial limit in 2011-2012 for an individual is $117,000. Alabama resident Shaun McCutcheon would like to contribute more than the current biennial limit permits, and the RNC would like to receive contributions from individuals like Mr. McCutcheon that would exceed the aggregate limits. The plaintiffs challenge both the $46,200 aggregate limit on candidate contributions and the $70,800 aggregate limit on other contributions as violating the First Amendment. They ask for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the FEC from enforcing the aggregate
    limits. Court decision Previously, in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions implicate fundamental First Amendment interests,
    but that such limits may be imposed as long as they are closely drawn to match a sufficiently important governmental interest. The plaintiffs argue in this case that the biennial limits are effectively limitations on expenditures, which are subject
    to a higher “strict scrutiny” standard of review. The court rejected this assertion, instead stating that “the difference between contributions and expenditures is the difference between giving money to an entity and spending that money directly on advocacy. Contribution limits are subject to lower scrutiny
    because they primarily implicate the First Amendment rights of association, not expression, and contributors remain able to vindicate their associational interest in other ways.” As such, the court held that aggregate limits do not regulate money
    spent to influence the national political discourse; instead, “the regulated money goes into a pool from which another entity draws to fund its advocacy.” The court further stated that the government may justify aggregate contribution limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, or as a means of preventing circumvention of contribution limits imposed to further the government’s
    anti-corruption interest. The aggregate limits are able to prevent evasion of the base contribution limits. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the contribution limits were unconstitutionally low and overbroad, writing, “...it is not the judicial role to parse legislative judgment about what limits to impose.” The court noted that there are no “danger
    signs” that the contribution limits were not narrowly tailored to achieve the governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption. The aggregate contribution limits affect what an individual may contribute directly to committees;
    those individuals still remain free to volunteer, join political associations and engage in independent expenditures. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss. The text of the District Court's opinion is available here. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case 1:12-cv-01034 Resources:  McCutcheon et al. v. FEClitigation page
 Author
          Myles MartinIcon of email being sentPublic Affairs Specialist


Read next: McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court finds aggregate biennial limits unconstitutional
 Related: Explore campaign finance data »


This information is not intended to replace the law or to change its meaning, nor does this information create or confer any rights for or on any person or bind the Federal Election Commission or the public. The reader is encouraged also to consult the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), Commission regulations (Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Commission advisory opinions and applicable court decisions.


About
          Careers
          Press
          Contact
   Privacy and security policy
          Plain language
          No FEAR Act
          Strategy, budget and performance
 Open government
          Protected Voices
          USA.gov
          Inspector General
          FOIA
 OpenFEC API
          GitHub repository
          Release notes
          FEC.gov status


Federal Election Commission
 The FEC's Twitter page
            The FEC's YouTube page Sign up for FECMail


Hide glossary Glossary Search terms