# McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980 "2013-09-30T04:44:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980/1 "2013-09-30T04:44:07Z")
How do you think the members of the SCOTUS will vote? Issue: > [@](#): > > Issue: (1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. > **[McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission - SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/)** > > Issue: (1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national party committees; and (2)... My predictions: Scalia, Alito, Thomas: hell yeah, no limits on campaign contributions! Money is speech! Roberts: No, I can’t see him shitting on his own court by voting for this bleeding right-edge case. Kennedy: Yes! Must preserve dignity of the wealthy and not ostracize them for their wealth. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980/2 "2013-09-30T10:01:20Z")
Is “facially” like “prima facie”? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980/3 "2013-09-30T14:29:39Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Is “facially” like “prima facie”? No, it’s more like a porn-cumshot thing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980/4 "2013-09-30T14:47:08Z")
I don’t know about you guys, but “cognizable” is my new unfavorite word. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission/669980/5 "2013-09-30T17:47:45Z")
Why would anything have changed? It’ll be Citizens United down the line with Kagan filling in for Stevens. The only change is that this time Roberts will want the majority opinion himself instead of handing it over to Kennedy. Ginsburg will probably take the dissent. The usual suspects will file individual concurrences/dissents. What I can’t figure out is what they’re being asked to rule on. The lower court dismissed, right? IIUC, that means the USSC can only remand back not actually strike down the law or is the Court just gonna have the trial itself and deal with the underlying issue, not just the procedural stuff? Edited because I brain-farted on Stevens being available to dissent in the third sentence (after recognizing that Kagan took his place in the first sentence!). Idiot.