Laura Holmes, et al. v. Federal Election Commission

This Court has held that political contribution limits “operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities” and are “subject to the closest scrutiny.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14, 25

1. (per curiam). But it has also required deference to Congress’s judgment in setting those limits, holding that courts have “no scalpel to probe” the specific caps selected. Id. at 30. Congress, for its part, has determined that “it is perfectly fine”—that is, non-corrupting—“to contribute $5,200 to” a candidate for federal office. McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 134 S. Ct. 1434, 1451-52 (2014) (Roberts, C.J., controlling opinion). But the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) requires that non-corrupting amount to be contributed in two installments: $2,600 for the primary and $2,600 for the general election. In practice, this means that a candidate without a serious primary opponent can effectively receive, and the donor give, $5,200 for the general election. But where a donor, like Petitioners, wishes to forego a contested primary, and instead give solely to her party’s eventual general election candidate, she may contribute just $2,600. The questions presented are:

2. Whether FECA’s per-election structure is subject to closely drawn scrutiny?

3. If so, does the First Amendment permit a rule requiring that Petitioners’ anticipated, noncorrupting contributions be divided on a per-election basis?