How a Supreme Court Case Made an Alabama Businessman Famous

Eyes all over Washington are on the <em>McCutcheon</em> campaign finance case — and McCutcheon himself

Shaun McCutcheon (C) plaintiff in a case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, leaves the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013 in Washington, DC. The court heard oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee, a first amendment case that will determine how much money an individual can contribute directly to political campaigns. 
National Journal
Michael Catalin
Add to Briefcase
Michael Catalin
March 16, 2014, 7:39 a.m.

Shaun Mc­Cutcheon, the plaintiff in a cru­cial cam­paign fin­ance case pending be­fore the Su­preme Court, can hardly wait for the justices to rule. Whatever they de­cide, he’s ready, with his e-book, Out­sider In­side: The Su­preme Court, poised to pub­lish on his web­site with­in two days of the de­cision.

That Mc­Cutcheon — a busi­ness­man, en­gin­eer, polit­ic­al donor, and First Amend­ment ad­voc­ate from Alabama — is poised to take ad­vant­age of the Court’s rul­ing hints at the high stakes for polit­ic­al parties, can­did­ates, and com­mit­tees.

It also sug­gests just what a star he’s be­come.

Since the Court heard or­al ar­gu­ments in Oc­to­ber, Mc­Cutcheon is ex­per­i­en­cing a kind of polit­ic­al fame, pos­ing for pho­tos with fans at CPAC, pen­ning ed­it­or­i­als in Belt­way pub­lic­a­tions, get­ting to know Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee Chair­man Re­ince Priebus, and mix­ing with re­port­ers.

“I’ll come home, and there will be a mes­sage on my an­swer­ing ma­chine from Nina Toten­berg — like she’s my best friend,” he said. “Even in Alabama I’ve been no­ticed.”

The fame stems from the fact that Mc­Cutcheon is the plaintiff in Mc­Cutcheon v. Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, de­scribed by some as po­ten­tially a land­mark suit that could bookend the cam­paign fin­ance de­reg­u­la­tion that the Court began in the Cit­izens United case.

At the heart of the Mc­Cutcheon case is wheth­er Con­gress can con­sti­tu­tion­ally lim­it the total amount in­di­vidu­als may give to can­did­ates, polit­ic­al com­mit­tees, and parties com­bined. This is known as the ag­greg­ate lim­it.

Un­der the law, in­di­vidu­als can cur­rently give $48,600 to can­did­ates and $74,600 to PACs and parties, with an over­all cap of $123,200 per cycle. What Mc­Cutcheon and the Re­pub­lic­an Party are seek­ing to do is lift that over­all cap, ar­guing that the lim­it vi­ol­ates the Con­sti­tu­tion.

“Free speech is just try­ing to spread ideas, giv­ing people more in­form­a­tion, cre­at­ing com­pet­i­tion, and com­pet­i­tion in elec­tions is only gonna be a good thing,” Mc­Cutcheon said.

Not sur­pris­ingly, Demo­crats ob­ject to the GOP ar­gu­ment, say­ing that large donors can in­flu­ence cam­paigns, and this in­flu­ence can lead to cor­rup­tion or the ap­pear­ance of cor­rup­tion.

“If Mr. Mc­Cutcheon pre­vails it will of course fur­ther warp the in­cent­ive struc­ture for elec­ted of­fi­cials who are now forced to so­li­cit these con­tri­bu­tions,” said Josh Or­ton, polit­ic­al dir­ect­or of Pro­gress­ives United, a fed­er­al PAC star­ted by former Sen. Russ Fein­gold of Wis­con­sin.

In prac­tic­al terms, here’s what it would mean if the Court ruled in Mc­Cutcheon’s fa­vor: Donors would go from be­ing able to give $2,600 each to 18 can­did­ates, which is what can be done un­der the cur­rent cap, to giv­ing $2,600 each to an un­lim­ited num­ber of can­did­ates.

That’s not the only po­ten­tial re­per­cus­sion. Na­tion­al parties may also be­ne­fit by set­ting up joint fun­draisers with state parties to gath­er more money from donors. “To me the biggest im­pact would be the re­turn of the ‘big ask’ where lead­er­ship mem­bers and party lead­ers so­li­cit sev­en-fig­ure con­tri­bu­tions to these joint ef­forts,” said Bob Bier­sack, a former FEC of­fi­cial now at the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics, in an email. “Feels like the ‘90s soft money days to me.”

Demo­crats see cor­rup­tion there. Mc­Cutcheon sees the ex­er­cise of free speech. “I think the First Amend­ment cer­tainly out­weighs the gov­ern­ment telling us how we are go­ing to elect the gov­ern­ment,” he said.

If he does suc­ceed with his case, it’s not just the book that Mc­Cutcheon has ready to go. He says he has already maxed out to the RNC and ex­pects to give more to the oth­er polit­ic­al com­mit­tees, in­clud­ing the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­ori­al Com­mit­tee and the Na­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al Com­mit­tee. Mc­Cutcheon said he hasn’t settled on any can­did­ates in par­tic­u­lar he plans to fund.

And it’s not just Mc­Cutcheon await­ing the Court’s de­cision, which ob­serv­ers ad­mit is dif­fi­cult to pre­dict. The parties have an in­terest too.

“I’m sure they’re wait­ing with a list of donors that are maxed out,” said Ken Gross, a polit­ic­al law at­tor­ney and part­ner at Skad­den. “I’m sure they’re poised to hit them up. That will be the most im­me­di­ate palp­able ef­fect.”

That might be an un­der­state­ment. The case has a grav­it­a­tion­al force of its own. It has at­trac­ted amicus briefs from Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell; the House and Sen­ate GOP cam­paign arms; and Demo­crat­ic House mem­bers. The rank­ing mem­bers of the House Budget Com­mit­tee and Home­land Se­cur­ity Ap­pro­pri­ations Sub­com­mit­tee — Chris Van Hol­len of Mary­land and Dav­id Price of North Car­o­lina, re­spect­ively — also sub­mit­ted a joint brief, sep­ar­ately from the their Demo­crat­ic col­leagues.

Mc­Cutcheon de­scribes all the at­ten­tion in pos­it­ive terms and said he wants to pur­sue free speech more, pos­sibly work­ing with the Coolidge-Re­agan Found­a­tion. Asked wheth­er he’ll seek a suit to end in­di­vidu­al lim­its, he laughed.

“I think the chances an in­di­vidu­al could do two Su­preme Court cases in a life­time “¦ ” he said, but shif­ted gears mid-sen­tence. “I need some time off.”

What We're Following See More »
TRUMP’S ATTORNEY WAS SET TO TESTIFY ON WEDNESDAY
Senate Intel Postpones Testimony by Cohen
1 days ago
THE LATEST
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
INTERVIEWED BY COMMITTEE STAFF
Lewandowski Meets with Senate Intelligence Committee
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared on Capitol Hill for a closed-door interview with the Senate intelligence committee Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter. Lewandowski is the latest senior official in Trump's orbit who has met with the committee as part of its investigation into Russian election meddling and possible collusion with the Trump campaign."

Source:
FISHING EXPEDITION
Some Members Seek to Wrap Up Russia Investigations by Year’s End
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"A growing number of key Republicans are sending this message to the leaders of the congressional committees investigating potential Trump campaign collusion with the Russians: Wrap it up soon. In the House and Senate, several Republicans who sit on key committees are starting to grumble that the investigations have spanned the better part of the past nine months, contending that the Democratic push to extend the investigation well into next year could amount to a fishing expedition."

Source:
WROTE LAW THAT WEAKENED OPIOID OVERSIGHT
Trump: Marino Withdrawing Nomination for Drug Czar
4 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login