Shaun McCutcheon, the businessman from Alabama who became
the lead plaintiff in the recently argued McCutcheon
v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case answered some questions
from RNLA leaders for our upcoming newsletter. Mr. McCutcheon gave his opinions
both on the aggregate contributions limits that drove him to the Supreme Court
and the recent Supreme Court argument.
The full interview is here. A highlighted answer is below:
The Supreme Court hearing
was pure enjoyment and greatly exceeded my expectations. The court room humor
by most all of the judges was unexpected. The fun was both a big surprise and a
welcomed relief. The jokes were funny yet based in fact. The actual questions
asked by the judges deviated from what I expected because they seemed to go further
down hypothetical roads and into other areas. The example about a Maserati for
the defense secretary seemed very strange and did not make any sense since that
is not an elected position. A legitimate need for any of the complex aggregate
limits on individual people was not to be found. Justice Scalia seemed to be
the most in favor of free speech. This case has always been about your right to
spend your money on as many candidates as you choose.
Again for the full interview go here.
No comments:
Post a Comment