Ben Jacobs explains the basics of McCutcheon v. SEC:
Currently, federal law doesn’t just limit the amount of money that any individual can give to any federal candidate or campaign committee but the total amount that can be contributed. Individuals can give no more than $48,600 to all federal candidates and an additional $74,600 to all political party committees. The question is whether the aggregate limits unconstitutionally inhibit the free speech of donors or are a necessary check on corruption, like a restriction on giving “a Maserati to the secretary of defense,” to cite an example used by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
Garrett Epps expects campaign finance regulation to suffer another blow:
In the years since Citizens United, some wishful commentators—including myself—have suggested the Court might be daunted by the chaos that case has unleashed. On the evidence of yesterday’s argument, however, that seems unlikely. The five conservatives are moving confidently toward total deregulation of campaign finance. The only real question is whether they will take only one step—holding that aggregate limits are not allowed but individual-contribution limits are—or the entire leap, holding that contributions are speech and cannot be limited at all.
Scott Lemieux agrees “the Supreme Court is overwhelmingly likely to strike down aggregate campaign limits to candidates and may go further than that.” Why he’s unhappy about that result:
Prohibiting corruption is important, but for democracy to be meaningful the inequalities of the market cannot allow a select group of extremely wealthy individuals to dominate the political process. … Social scientists have shown that politicians pay far more attention to the interests of the wealthy. This has contributed to making the United States unusually inegalitarian for an advanced democracy. Preventing Congress from modestly addressing this unequal influence requires much more compelling arguments than have been advanced by the challengers here.
Adam Lioz makes related points:
What’s at stake in the case? New research from Demos and U.S. PIRG projects that striking aggregate limits would bring more than $1 billion in additional “McCutcheon Money” through the 2020 election cycle, from just slightly more than 1,500 elite donors. This is not a sea change in overall election spending, and much of this money may be shifted from Super PACs to candidates and parties. But, it will continue to shift the balance of power from average citizens to a tiny minority of wealthy donors. And, who are these wealthy donors? In a nutshell, they don’t look like the rest of the country, but rather are avatars of what Public Campaign calls “Country Club Politics.”
Jacob Sullum, on the other hand, wants the campaign restrictions struck down. His argument:
Under current law, a wealthy man can spend as much money as he wants on his own political campaign or on independent messages advocating a candidate’s election. But he can give that candidate’s campaign no more than $5,200.
This puzzling restriction violates the First Amendment rights of the candidate as well as the donor. It rules out insurgent campaigns by challengers (such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968) who have not managed to build wide networks of donors but have attracted support from a few rich patrons. It thereby makes elections less competitive, contributing to alarmingly high re-election rates for members of Congress.
Richard Hasen is unsure how SCOTUS will rule:
I am not certain that the five conservative justices who struck down the corporate spending limits in Citizens United will strike the aggregate limits in McCutcheon. The concerns that would raise about corruption are nicely illustrated in an amicus brief from the Campaign Legal Center, a public interest group supporting campaign finance regulation. A member of Congress, for example, would be able ask for a single $3.6 million contribution (through a “joint fundraising committee”—essentially an arrangement to take a check to be disbursed to more than one campaign) to distribute to all federal congressional candidates and to national and local political parties. He or she could keep from that check only $5,200 ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general election), but the parties and PACs could then use the passed-on funds to run ads attacking his or her opponent. As a big bundler, this member of Congress would have great influence over other members. And, of course, the $3.6 million donor would have the most influence of all.
(Photo: David Barrows, of Washington, DC, waves a flag with corporate logos and fake money during a rally against money in politics outside the Supreme Court October 8, 2013 in Washington, DC. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee, a first amendment case that will determine how much money an individual can contribute directly to political campaigns. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The Dish 