Citing the importance of protecting First Amendment rights, the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court struck down limits on the amount of money individuals could give to federal candidates during a two-year election cycle, (McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission). “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so, too, does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (The New York Times, April 2, 2014, by Adam Liptak)
The Court left the previous cap of $5,200 to an individual candidate in place, but with individuals now able to donate several million during an election cycle, the money can be given to fund-raising committees who could then relay it to individual candidates. In an editorial The New York Times argued that the decision gave the wealthy a greater First Amendment advantage in voicing their opinions and enforcing their values, “The real losers in the McCutcheon case are the vast majority of average American without barrels of cash to dump on elections.”
An analysis of the impact of the McCutheon decision claims that it is not simply that it will unleash an unchecked avalanche of money into federal elections. (Politico, April 2, 2014, by Kenneth P. Vogel)
Law professor Richard L. Hasen in Slate, April 2. 20014, decries the decision and its possible impact in gutting election finance reform, “…this is…a subtly awful decision. It is true that Roberts sidestepped today the question of whether to apply ‘strict scrutiny’ of contribution limits in another case; he did not need to take that dramatic (and high-profile) step to do a whole lot of damage to campaign finance law. Instead, he did three things which now set the course toward even more campaign finance challenges under the First Amendment and more deregulation.”
Writing in favor of the decision, law professor David Bernstein, April 2, 2014, The Volokh Conspiracy, says there is a strong tradition in the U.S. for the judiciary to play a strong role in protecting “broad individual speech rights.” He criticized Justice Stephen G. Breyer and other liberals for holding to a narrow reading of the First Amendment when it comes to election finance, the one area in which conservatives can enjoy a level playing field.