Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Contribution Limits in McCutcheon v. FEC
Event Reviewed Automatically reviewed for factual accuracy, tone, and neutrality. Review does not check claims against cited sources. Last reviewed 24 October 2026.By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court holds the biennial aggregate limits on an individual's total contributions to federal candidates, parties and PACs unconstitutional under the First Amendment, while leaving the per-recipient base limits in place.
Removes the cap on total individual giving; per-recipient limits remain.
The aggregate limits, first imposed under the Federal Election Campaign Act as a $25,000 annual cap and restructured by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 into two-year limits indexed for inflation, had capped an individual’s combined contributions in the 2013-2014 cycle at $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to other committees. Shaun McCutcheon, who had given to 16 federal candidates in the 2011-2012 election cycle within the per-candidate limits, sued with the Republican National Committee, arguing the aggregate caps kept him from giving to additional candidates and committees.
Chief Justice Roberts’s plurality opinion held that the aggregate limits do little to prevent circumvention of the base limits and so fail even the “closely drawn” standard applied to contribution limits, while reaffirming that preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance is the interest that justifies limiting contributions. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, writing that Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision that set out the framework for contribution limits, should be overruled. Justice Breyer’s dissent argued that removing the aggregate cap would allow large sums from a single donor to be channeled toward a candidate or party through multiple committees.
Sources
- 01.
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014). (2014). Opinion text and syllabus in No. 12-536. Source for the April 2, 2014 decision date, the 5-4 judgment, the plurality lineup (Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy and Alito), Justice Thomas's concurrence in the judgment, the dissent by Justice Breyer joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, the history of the aggregate limits (a $25,000 annual cap under the Federal Election Campaign Act, upheld in Buckley v. Valeo, later restructured by BCRA), and the holding that the aggregate limits are invalid while base limits remain.
- 02.
Supreme Court of the United States. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185. (2014). U.S. Reports bound volume via the Library of Congress; official text of the decision.
- 03.
Federal Election Commission. McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court finds aggregate biennial limits unconstitutional. (2014). FEC Record article of April 15, 2014. Source for the scope of the aggregate limits (total contributions to all federal candidates, parties and PACs in a two-year period), the facts of McCutcheon's challenge, and the base limits that remained in effect.
- 04.
Federal Election Commission. Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 78 Fed. Reg. 8530. (2013). Source for the indexed 2013-2014 aggregate limits: $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to other committees.
Timeline
Timeline view for this event will display chronological context and related events.
Network Graph
Network visualization showing connections between this event and related entities.