Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2013 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MCCUTCHEON ET AL. v. FEDERAL ELECTION
 
COMMISSION 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

No. 12–536.  Argued October 8, 2013—Decided April 2, 2014 

The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is 
protected  by  the  First  Amendment,  but  that  right  is  not  absolute.
Congress  may  regulate  campaign  contributions  to  protect  against
corruption  or  the  appearance  of  corruption.    See,  e.g.,  Buckley  v. 
Valeo,  424  U. S.  1,  26–27.    It  may  not,  however,  regulate  contribu-
tions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict
the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative in-
fluence  of  others.    See,  e.g.,  Arizona  Free  Enterprise  Club’s  Freedom 
Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U. S. ___, ___. 

The  Federal  Election  Campaign  Act  of  1971  (FECA),  as  amended
by  the  Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act  of  2002  (BCRA),  imposes
two  types  of  limits  on  campaign  contributions.    Base  limits  restrict 
how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or
committee  while  aggregate  limits  restrict  how  much  money  a  donor 
may  contribute  in  total  to  all  candidates  or  committees.    2  U. S. C. 
§441a. 

In the 2011–2012 election cycle, appellant McCutcheon contributed 
to 16 different federal candidates, complying with the base limits ap-
plicable to each.  He alleges that the aggregate limits prevented him 
from  contributing  to  12  additional  candidates  and  to  a  number  of
noncandidate political committees.  He also alleges that he wishes to
make  similar  contributions  in  the  future,  all  within  the  base  limits. 
McCutcheon  and  appellant  Republican  National  Committee  filed  a
complaint before a three-judge District Court, asserting that the ag-
gregate  limits  were  unconstitutional  under  the  First  Amendment.
The  District  Court  denied  their  motion  for  a  preliminary  injunction 
and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss.  Assuming that the