McCutcheon v. FEC

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito, concluded that the aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment.

Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment.

All told, an individual may contribute up to $123,200 to candidate and noncandidate committees during each two-year election cycle.

leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance.

They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

McCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N

The base limits thus restrict how much money a donor may contribute to any particular candidate or committee

The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.

As the Court later emphasized in McCutcheon , that kind of purported circumvention is one significant step removed from actual quid pro quo corruption

Assuming the Court does not revisit its decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, our findings raise troubling concerns about their implications for political equality.