How the Oct 24, 2026 review of Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Contribution Limits in McCutcheon v. FEC went
This pass acted on findings from an earlier review. Every finding is listed below with what happened to it.
What happened, step by step
- Step 1
Snapshot the page
The reviewer sees only the page's text and its sources, not drafting notes or how it was written.
Which version of the page was reviewed: not recorded.
- Step 2
Checks, each run separately
- Factual accuracy 1 finding
- Missing entity reference 1 finding
Which checks ran was not recorded, so a check with no findings is not listed.
- Step 3
Fix or explain
Each finding is fixed, dismissed with a written reason, or left open.
- Fixed1
- Dismissed1
- Result
Nothing left open
Every finding was fixed or dismissed with a written reason.
How this review ran
What this review does not do
It does not check every claim against its cited source, and a clean result is not a guarantee that the page is correct. Readers can report a problem on any page.
Report a problem on the pageAll 2 findings
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Fixed · 1
- FixedFactual accuracy · high
Before “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 it was flagged
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.
What was done
Confirmed against the cited opinion (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-536): FECA 'originally imposed a $25,000 per year aggregate limit on all contributions from an individual to candidates or political committees', which Buckley upheld, and BCRA restructured the limits into the inflation-adjusted two-year caps ($48,600 / $74,600 for 2013-2014). Reworded the sentence to match and extended the Cornell source's notes to cover the history. Did not name 1974 specifically, since the opinion passage says only 'FECA of 1971, as amended'.
Dismissed · 1
- Dismissed — won't fixMissing entity reference · low
“The aggregate limits, added to federal law by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and indexed for inflation... 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.”
Why it was flagged
The body treats Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) as substantive legal authorities underlying the decision — comparable to how Citizens United v. FEC is treated, which is listed in frontmatter 'lawsrulings' with a description. Neither Buckley v. Valeo nor BCRA has a corresponding the Laws & Rulings pages page, and neither is listed in this event's 'lawsrulings' array, even though the body cites Buckley as the source of the 'closely drawn' standard the plurality applies and as the precedent Justice Thomas urged overruling, and identifies BCRA as the statute that created the aggregate limits being struck down. For consistency with how Citizens United was handled in this same file, both should either get lawsrulings pages and frontmatter entries, or the omission should be treated as a known gap (per a related page's 'may name an entity that has no page yet' allowance).
Why it was dismissed
Neither a related page nor a BCRA page exists. Writing those pages is a cross-file change outside a one-file fix; the omission is a known gap rather than an error, and both are candidates for new lawsrulings pages via /write-content. Leaving the frontmatter as is, at low severity.