What Does McCutcheon Mean for New York?

If you are reading this, then you are likely aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down aggregate limits on federal campaign contributions. The decision does not eliminate limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, currently $2,600 per election.

In the Court’s 5-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts said that the aggregate limits do not prevent corruption, but they do interfere with “the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”  (In other words, if a state cannot show that its aggregate campaign donation limits are intended to prevent corruption, then this Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold them.)

Campaign finance reform advocates are apoplectic, while groups that promote more political speech (i.e. fewer limits on campaign donations) are very happy.

But what impact will it have in New York State?

In the near term, none.  This case took aim at the aggregate limits imposed in federal elections under federal law.  New York State’s elections laws, which cover state and local races, have not been challenged.

But, the court’s reasoning could provide a basis upon which to challenge New York’s individual aggregate donation limit of $150,000 in a calendar year.

McCutcheon is also likely to be used by public financing advocates – who are not happy that the Governor and Legislature approved a limited pilot’ program of publicly-financed campaigns – to argue in support of a system of public campaign finance for all statewide and state legislative offices. (Here is one example.)

Looking beyond New York, Adam Liptak of the New York Times suggests that the decision “may increase overall campaign spending, but it may also rechannel some of it away from “super PACs” and toward candidates and parties.”