Ramifications of the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon campaign finance ruling
By Frederick K Lowell, Emily B Erlingsson, Kathryn E Donovan and Anita D Stearns Mayo
The US Supreme Court’s decision in an important campaign finance case frees individual political donors to contribute to an unlimited number of federal campaigns and committees, as long as each contribution is within statutory base limits.
In McCutcheon v FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that the overall aggregate biennial limits are invalid under the First Amendment. The court opined that the aggregate limits do not address the concern of preventing corruption, but instead seriously restrict participation in the democratic process.
The overall aggregate biennial limits are no longer valid ($48,600 [£29,300] and $74,600). Therefore, individuals may contribute to as many different candidates or committees as they would like, subject to the base limits, without violating any restrictions…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.
Scaling back considerably from the October 2012 term, the US Supreme Court issued only a few rulings affecting environmental law during the October 2013 term.