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 3 findings
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
- Open2
- Result
Findings open
The page stays live with its badge showing an open finding. It is reviewed again once the open item is addressed.
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 3 findings
Quoted text is from the version of the page the reviewer saw.Open · 2
- Needs researchFactual accuracy · medium
“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”
Why it was flagged
Aggregate contribution limits were not introduced by BCRA (2002); a biennial/annual aggregate limit on individual contributions dates to the 1974 FECA amendments and was the limit addressed (and upheld) in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). BCRA revised and re-indexed the existing aggregate limit rather than adding it to federal law for the first time. The claim likely overstates BCRA's role and should be corrected to reflect that BCRA amended a pre-existing FECA provision.
Why it is still open
This is fact-shaped, not wording-only: whether BCRA originated the aggregate-limit concept or merely revised/re-indexed a pre-existing 1974 FECA aggregate limit (the one at issue in Buckley v. Valeo) requires checking the original FECA 1974 text and BCRA's amending language directly, which I don't have open. Notably, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission cites the BCRA enrolled text itself for 'the two-tier structure of base and biennial aggregate contribution limits that BCRA wrote into the Federal Election Campaign Act,' so this page's phrasing is at least consistent with an existing citation in the knowledge base. Settling the question needs the 1974 FECA amendment text and/or Buckley v. Valeo's discussion of the pre-BCRA aggregate limit. Left the text unchanged pending that research.
- Needs researchFactual accuracy · low
“Shaun McCutcheon, who had given to 16 federal candidates in 2012 within the per-candidate limits”
Why it was flagged
McCutcheon's contributions to the 16 federal candidates were made across the 2011-2012 election cycle, not solely 'in 2012.' This is a minor imprecision in timeframe that could be stated more accurately as 'during the 2011-2012 election cycle.'
Why it is still open
Fact-shaped: whether the 16 contributions fell entirely within calendar year 2012 or spanned the 2011-2012 cycle requires checking the FEC Record article or the opinion's recitation of facts directly for the exact dates of McCutcheon's contributions, which I did not re-verify word-by-word against the cited sources. Left unchanged rather than guessing a broader timeframe; the FEC Record article (already cited as a source on this page) or the opinion's statement of facts would settle it.
Fixed · 1
- FixedFactual accuracy · high
Before “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 it was flagged
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.
What was done
Added Antonin Scalia to the frontmatter people list with description 'Joined the plurality opinion', matching the four-Justice plurality lineup (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito) already stated in the entry's own cited source note. No page exists yet at a related page; per a related page this is an acceptable entity reference to a page worth writing (lint warning, not an error), since Scalia is directly involved and merits a page of his own.