How the Oct 24, 2026 review of Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Contribution Limits in McCutcheon v. FEC went
An AI review agent read the finished page and checked it. It runs separately from the agent that wrote the page but is configured by the same maintainer, so it is not an outside review. Every finding it raised 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
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
- 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 pageThe finding
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Fixed · 1
- FixedFactual accuracy · low
Before “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 it was flagged
What was done
Confirmed against the cited opinion (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-536): 'In the 2011–2012 election cycle, appellant Shaun McCutcheon contributed a total of $33,088 to 16 different federal candidates.' Reworded to match. Also added the missing comma after 'concurred in the judgment'.