Impact of Supreme Court's Opinion Concerning Limits on Aggregate Campaign Contributions
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.03.14
On April 2, 2014, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC struck down the limits on aggregate campaign contributions by an individual to federal candidates, party committees, and political action committees combined ($123,200 for the 2013-2014 election cycle). The decision also eliminates the limit on aggregate contributions by an individual to all federal candidates combined, which before yesterday was $48,600 for the current election cycle.
The Court's decision does not impact the base contribution limit on an individual's contributions to a particular federal candidate, which is $2,600 per candidate for primary elections and $2,600 per candidate for general elections. The decision also does not impact the limit on individual contributions to particular political committees (currently set at $5,000 per calendar year for PACs, $32,400 per calendar year to national party committees, and $10,000 per year in aggregate to the affiliated state, district, or local party committees within a state). Though these caps remain in place, individuals may now contribute up to the maximum amount per candidate or committee to as many federal candidates and political committees as they wish without running afoul of any aggregate limits.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas said that he would have gone further by eliminating all contribution limits, including the limit on the amount of funds one may give per election to an individual candidate. In a strongly worded dissent, four other members of the Court (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) argued against even the elimination of the aggregate limits.
It remains unclear whether the Court's opinion foreshadows an inevitable evisceration of all campaign contribution limits. The majority did not take issue with the idea that avoiding circumvention of the base contribution limits is a legitimate goal of campaign finance regulation. Rather, the Court struck down the aggregate limits because, in its view, they abridge First Amendment interests without furthering that goal in any meaningful way. That said, the Court's opinion, like the Citizens United v. FEC decision in 2010 – which overturned restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, associations, and labor unions – represents another successful challenge to federal campaign finance laws, and no doubt will be viewed as an invitation by would-be challengers of the base contribution limits.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.31.26
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.31.26
Client Alert | 5 min read | 07.28.26
Data Centers in the Crosshairs: The Plaintiffs' Bar Has Begun Filing New Claims Using Old Tricks

