About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


7 Calif. L. Rev. Circuit 1 (2016)

handle is hein.journals/callro7 and id is 1 raw text is: California Law Review Circuit VOL.7 APRIL 2016 Copyright © 2016 by California Law Review, Inc. Shaun McCutcheon v. FEC: More Money, No Problem Alexander S. Epstein* INTRODUCTION Unrestricted campaign contributions pose a straightforward threat: individuals with the deepest pockets will gain unfairly disproportionate access to political decision-making. In light of this threat, Congress imposes limits on campaign contributions.1 Without these limits, our government-founded on the axiomatic notion of by the people, for the people2 -risks becoming a government by the rich, for the rich. Today, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA or the Act), as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), permits an individual to contribute up to $2,700 per election to a candidate ($5,400 total for the primary and general elections); $33,400 per year to a national party committee; $10,000 per year to a state or local party committee; and $5,000 per year to a political action committee (PAC).3 Likewise, a national committee, state or local party committee, or multicandidate PAC may contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate.4 In addition to these base contribution limits, Congress also imposed important aggregate limits, which remained in effect until April 2014. The aggregate limits restricted how much money a donor could contribute, to all candidates or committees, in a DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z388C36 * J.D., University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2016; B.A. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2012. 1. See52 U.S.C.A. § 30116 (West 2015). 2. Gettysburg Address, BRITANNICA, http://www.britannica.com/event/Gettysburg-Address (last updated Aug. 5, 2014). 3. 52 U.S.C.A. § 30116(a)(1) (West 2015); 80 Fed. Reg. 5750-02 (Feb. 3, 2015). 4. § 30116(a)(2).