1. After the Watergate crisis with Richard Nixon, Congress attempted to limit the possibility of electoral corruption by passing the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Congress updated that law in 2002 with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. One of the provisions of the updated law was that no one individual could give more than a total of $46,200 to federal candidates for office. Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon had contributed a total of $33,088 to sixteen candidates in 2012 and wanted to contribute to twelve additional candidates. By doing so, however, he would exceed that cap on total contributions. He filed suit against the Federal Election Commission claiming that the limit was unconstitutional.

InMcCutcheon v. FEC (2014) the Supreme court agreed with the plaintiff in a 5-4 decision, striking down the law. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, "The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse." Justice Thomas added, "limiting the amount of money a person can give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication."

Based on the information above, respond to the following questions.

1. Identify a common constitutional principle used to make a ruling in bothCitizens United v. FEC (2008) andMcCutcheon v. FEC (2014).
2. Describe the reasoning or holding used by the Supreme Court inCitizens United v. FEC.
3. Explain a similarity of or difference in the reasoning or holding inCitizens United v. FECandMcCutcheon v. FEC.
4. Describe the impactMcCutcheon v. FEC might have on elections in the United States.