Citizens United v. FEC

This question requires you to compare a Supreme Court case you studied in class with one you have not studied in class. A summary of the Supreme Court case you did not study in class is presented below and provides all of the information you need to know about this case to answer the prompt. 

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 established a limit on the amount of money individuals could contribute to candidates in a two-year election cycle. Shaun McCutcheon was a political contributor that wanted to donate money that would violate the overall limit. McCutcheon sued the Federal Election Commission for establishing an aggregate limit that he believed was too low.

The district court ruled in favor of the Federal Election Commission, holding that the aggregate spending limit served the purpose of limiting governmental corruption and the appearance of corruption.  McCutcheon petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of McCutcheon holding that the aggregate spending limited an individual’s ability to participate in the political process and did little to limit the appearance of corruption. The court held that the spending limit could force an individual to pick and choose which candidates they could financially support, thus limiting their rights. 

 Identify the clause of the Constitution that is common to both Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014).

Explain how the reasoning in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission led to similar holdings.

Explain why a change in the composition of the United States Supreme Court may affect interpretation of the constitutional clause used in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.