October Term 2013 · Docket 12-536

Do aggregate limits on political donations violate free speech?

Appellants argue aggregate caps equalize political influence. The government argues these caps prevent corruption.

Official caption
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Murphy argued aggregate limits equalize political ability.

    Mr. Burchfield argued these limits fail strict scrutiny.

    General Verrilli argued aggregate limits combat corruption.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the constitutionality of aggregate contribution limits. Appellants seek to remove these caps. The government defends them as anti-corruption measures.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 8, 2013.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Appellants want the Court to strike down aggregate limits.

The government wants the Court to uphold aggregate limits.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue aggregate limits impermissibly equalize political participation.

The government argues aggregate limits combat corruption.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked how a donor's $5,000 to 400 PACs creates a problem.

Justice Kagan asked about a donor giving $100,000 to five Senate candidates.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of political spending rights. It determines how much money individuals can give to candidates and PACs. The outcome shapes the balance between free speech and anti-corruption efforts.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON