Page created
First version
197 words4 sources
Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Timeline timeline/2014-04-02-supreme-court-strikes-down-aggregate-contribution-limits-in-mccutcheon-v-fec
Page history
Every change to the Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Contribution Limits in McCutcheon v. FEC page: what changed, when it went live, and how it was reviewed.
Changes across the whole site →Lifecycle
Oct 24, 2026 – today · select a mark to jump to itChanges
- AI review Review 3 of 3
Reviewed: 1 finding, all fixed
Factual accuracy 1Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
Factual accuracyBefore “Shaun McCutcheon, who had given to 16 federal candidates in 2012 within the per-candidate limits”
After “Shaun McCutcheon, who had given to 16 federal candidates in the 2011-2012 election cycle within the per-candidate limits”
Why:
- Fix pass Review 2 of 3
Fix pass: 2 findings — 1 fixed, 1 dismissed
Factual accuracy 1Missing entity reference 1Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
Factual accuracySee all 2 findings in the review reportBefore “The aggregate limits, added to federal law by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and 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.”
After “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.”
Why: The aggregate contribution limit was not created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. It originated in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (an annual, non-indexed cap). BCRA (2002) restructured the existing limit — converting it to a biennial period and indexing it for inflation — but did not add it to federal law for the first time. The McCutcheon opinion itself describes this history.
- AI review Review 1 of 3
Reviewed: 3 findings — 1 fixed, 2 open
Factual accuracy 3Approved by the maintainer before it went live
Show changes Hide changes
Factual accuracySee all 3 findings in the review reportBefore “people: - title: "John Roberts" slug: "john-roberts" description: "Announced the judgment and wrote the four-Justice plurality opinion" - title: "Anthony Kennedy" slug: "anthony-kennedy" description: "Joined the plurality opinion" - title: "Samuel Alito" slug: "samuel-alito" description: "Joined the plurality opinion"”
After “people: - title: "John Roberts" slug: "john-roberts" description: "Announced the judgment and wrote the four-Justice plurality opinion" - title: "Antonin Scalia" slug: "antonin-scalia" description: "Joined the plurality opinion" - title: "Anthony Kennedy" slug: "anthony-kennedy" description: "Joined the plurality opinion" - title: "Samuel Alito" slug: "samuel-alito" description: "Joined the plurality opinion"”
Why: The frontmatter's people list omits Antonin Scalia, even though the entry itself describes Roberts as writing a 'four-Justice plurality opinion' and the file's own first source note states the plurality lineup was 'Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy and Alito.' As listed, only three justices (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito) are credited with the plurality, which is internally inconsistent with the 'four-Justice' description and factually incomplete — Scalia was part of the McCutcheon v. FEC plurality and should be added to the people list.