Free speech unblocked 2014: McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst

May 29, 2018, 01:21 AM


(Photo:Destroy this mad brute—United States propaganda (Harry R. Hopps; 1917)

Harry R. Hopps, (1869-1937) - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID ds.03216. This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information.

Propaganda poster shows a terrifying gorilla with a helmet labeled "militarism" holding a bloody club labeled "kultur" and a half-naked woman as he stomps onto the shore of America. )

Twitter: @BatchelorShow

Free speech unblocked: McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst

This past week, in McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission, a bitterly divided United States Supreme Court struck down yet another portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) this time, the aggregate limit of $123,200 for contributions by any one individual to all candidates and non-candidate committees in any two-year election cycle. That BCRA provision blocked Shaun McCutcheon from making $1,776 contributions to twelve candidates he favored, because he had already contributed his maximum amount of $33,088 to sixteen candidates for federal office. He challenged the limitation as an abridgement of his constitutional right of freedom of speech, for which he found a receptive audience in five members of the Supreme Court.

The four-member plurality (Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito), struck down that aggregate limit, while leaving the limitation on individual contributions untouched, on the grounds that the aggregate limit was not reasonably tailored to prevent the risk of corruption in political elections, which the Court narrowly defined to cover only quid for pro corruption. The four member plurality was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, who has long insisted that all contribution limits run afoul of the First Amendment.