Join the Fight for Jobs!
Fight for Jobs
  • Home
  • About
    • Maps
    • Register to Vote
    • Contact Us
  • Top Issues
  • Voter Tools
  • Find Your Candidate

Impact of McCutcheon Decision

4/16/2014

0 Comments

 
Background

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) placed limits on the amount that could be contributed to other PACs, candidates and committees. In addition to contribution limits imposed on how much can be given to each candidate, PAC or committee, the FECA also placed a limit on how much an individual can contribute in aggregate, over a two year period.

In September 2012, Shaun McCutcheon brought a challenge to the law that placed limits on the amount of aggregate biennial contributions an individual can make to candidates and committees. McCutcheon and the RNC contended that aggregate contribution limits are a violation of First Amendment rights. On April 2nd, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCutcheon, deciding that aggregate limits are unconstitutional. This ruling does not impact the base contribution limits - the amount an individual may contribute to a specific federal candidate, political party, or political action committee.

Impact on PACs

What does the decision in favor of McCutcheon mean for PACs? Logistically speaking, a change in aggregate individual contribution limits does not have a major impact on corporate or trade association PACs. How much PACs are permitted to give and receive remains the same. The amount an individual is permitted to give to a PAC each year also has not changed however, this may permit some individuals who would like to contribute more than the aggregate limits previously allowed, to be able to give to a larger number of PACs.

Where PACs may be affected is in their ability to influence some campaigns. This decision will inevitably lead to an increase in money from individuals flowing through the campaign finance system. However, individuals are still subject to limits on how much they can contribute directly to each particular candidate and committee - they are now simply able to contribute to a greater number of them. Since PACs are not subject to aggregate limits, the total amount they can contribute to candidates and committees does not change and PACs are not able to contribute to a greater or fewer number of candidates or committees as a result of the ruling. Thus, the ruling does not necessarily change the influence an individual can have on one campaign by contributing directly to a candidate, because those limits have not changed. However, it could allow wealthy individuals to be bigger players in the overall political arena which is not likely to significantly diminish the role of PACs. It may simply change the way the political and campaign finance landscape is viewed.

Sources:  www.fec.gov  SCOTUS Blog
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    About Us

    There is a time for politics and a time for governing. The time for politics is over the time for governing is upon us.

    Learn More

    Archives

    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    August 2010

    Categories

    All
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nevada
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming

    RSS Feed

Fight for Jobs
© 2014 BIPAC. All rights reserved.

Fight for Jobs

> About Fight for Jobs
> Top Issues
> Voter Tools
> Find Your Candidate
> Register to Vote

Connect With Us

> Facebook
> Twitter
> YouTube
> Email

Search Fight For Jobs

Fight for Jobs is a product of:
BIPAC