![handle is hein.journals/ndalro93 and id is 1 raw text is:
ESSAY
DEAD PRECEDENTS
Riley T. Svikhart*
INTRODUCTION
Shaun McCutcheon's was the next big campaign finance case to go before
the Supreme Court. When the Alabama GOP warned the conservative
businessman that his 2010 federal campaign contributions might soon exceed a
congressionally imposed limit, he decided to take a stand.,,2 Together,
McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC)-which wish[ed] to
receive the contributions that McCutcheon and similarly situated individuals would
like to make in the absence of such aggregate contribution limits3-challenged the
responsible statutory regime on First Amendment grounds and attracted national
attention en route to a victory before the Supreme Court.
But while McCutcheon and the RNC prevailed in their case, they failed in
another noteworthy regard-Chief Justice Roberts's controlling opinion declined
their request to squarely overrule a relevant portion of the landmark campaign
C 2017 Riley T. Svikhart. Individuals and nonprofit institutions may reproduce and
distribute copies of this Essay in any format, at or below cost, for educational purposes, so long as
each copy identifies the author, provides a citation to the Notre Dame Law Review Online, and
includes this provision and copyright notice.
* Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2018; Bachelor of Arts in
Economics & Business, Westmont College, 2015. Thank you to Professor John Nagle for his
help and guidance throughout law school, and for allowing me to prepare this Essay in a directed
reading. Thanks also to Connor Whitting for encouraging my pursuit of this topic.
1 Paul Blumenthal, Next Citizens United? McCutcheon Supreme Court Case Targets
Campaign Contribution Limits, HUFFINGTON POST (July 31, 2013),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/3 1/mccutcheon-supreme-court_n_3678555.html.
2 Shaun McCutcheon, Donation Caps Hurt Democracy, POLITICO (Oct. 6, 2013),
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mccutcheon-how-campaign-spending-caps-hurt-
american-democracy-097834.
3 McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1443 (2014) (plurality opinion).
4 See Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92-225, 86 Stat. 3 (1972),
amended by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81.
5 A plurality of the Supreme Court sided with McCutcheon, holding the aggregate limits
McCutcheon complained of invalid under the First Amendment. AIcCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at
1442.
I](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ndalro93&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most