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.