McCutcheon vs. FEC: 9 Arguments

by - October 10, 2013

AYE: The $3.5 million scenario (see above) would have a negligible effect on overall political spending. Even with aggregate limits in place, $1.5 billion was spent in 2010 alone – Scalia NAY: $3.5 million goes into $1.5 billion 428 times. So in Scalia’s scenario, the country would essentially be run by less than 500 rich people – Solicitor General Don Verrilli AYE: The $3.5 million scenario is implausible given the number of regulations currently within the FEC framework that restrict earmarking and proliferation – Erin Murphy, attorney for the plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon. NAY: Aggregate limits foster democratic participation because they force candidates to seek support from many donors (as opposed to a few rich donors) – Ginsburg AYE: Aggregate limits contribute to an inconsistency in campaign finance law, because donors face no limits elsewhere, notably in how much they can fund their own PAC – Scalia NAY: Abolishing aggregate limits would allow donors to effectively shirk individual limits, which are not being tested by the court – Roberts

McCutcheon vs. FEC: 9 Arguments «

You May Love To Read