In other words, aggregate limits wouldn't foster corruption, because using money to influence a campaign is much easier with the sort of independent expenditures that Citizens United makes possible.
Earlier decisions allowed the aggregate limits in order to prevent donors from using multiple contributions to get around the cap, by giving to numerous committees that might pass the money around and get it to the candidate anyway.
In striking down the aggregate limits on contributions that people can make to politicians and political parties, but leaving in place the limits on contributions to individual candidates (currently $5,200 per election cycle), the Court didn't go as far as it did in the Citizens United ruling, in 2010.
In the absence of aggregate limits, a joint fundraising committee could potentially link up to as many as hundreds of other committees and receive checks in excess of $1 million, supporters of the limits argue.
He also noted that with the explosion in independent electoral spending, the aggregate limits are not "stopping big money in politics".
Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on campaign donations, offers a novel twist in the conservative contemplation of what Nazis have to do with the way the rich are viewed in America.
By Amy Davidson Sorkin April 2, 2014 Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court struck down aggregate limits on campaign donations, offers a novel twist in the conservative contemplation of what Nazis have to do with the way the rich are viewed in America.
After Wednesday's Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission striking down aggregate limits on campaign contributions, the rules governing campaign money are crumbling around us.
Unlike product-liability sections in companies' property-and-casualty policies, which have aggregate limits, non-product liability is usually unlimited.
In McCutcheon, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that striking down the aggregate limits on contributions creates no cause for concern about the circumvention of those base limits.
