In a ruling that came this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of free speech rights when it struck down aggregate contribution limits to candidates for public office, ruling them unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. You can read the Court’s opinion here (PDF).

Here’s a statement on the ruling from Shaun McCutcheon, emailed from his attorney Dan Backer:

Today the United States Supreme Court took a stand in favor of our Constitutional Freedom of Speech as codified in our First Amendment. First Amendment Free Speech enables us to support candidates for public office who share our views. While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to 1st amendment freedom. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits.

With the ruling, we continue to chip away at the long entrenched status quo from the grassroots–a status quo that has kept challengers, better ideas, and new entrants to the political arena mostly locked out. Ensuring that citizens are able to contribute to multiple candidates or causes who share their views only provides further support to a system in which “We the People” hold the ultimate reins of power.

I commend the Supreme Court for their decision to defend our freedom. The entire legal process is outlined in my book “Outsider Inside the Supreme Court” if you want more information. Free Speech and the Political process is now more important than ever. Thank you!

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman and Capital University law professor Brad Smith said this:

Today is a good day for democracy. The Court has put some teeth into the requirement that campaign contribution limits must have a legitimate anti-corruption purpose. This will make it easier for candidates and parties to raise funds and that is also a good thing.

Smith is now the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Virginia. CCP filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) in the case, and published a primer on the issues at stake in the case. My former Cato Institute colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus also filed an amicus brief in the case.

Under the previous law, individuals could contribute up to $2,600 per candidate per election cycle (at the federal level), up to 18 candidates. McCutcheon gave to 16 candidates in the 2012 election cycle, and wanted to give to 12 more–but the law wouldn’t permit it. So he did what every great defender of free speech and rights of political participation would do: he sued the government (the Federal Election Commission specifically). This decision says the government must be clearer in making its case that contributions to Candidates 19 and beyond are somehow inherently more corrupting than contributions to Candidates 1-18, and until it does, individuals should be unrestricted (well, less restricted) in how they exercise their right to participate in the political process. The ruling also struck down the $74,600 aggregate contribution limits to PACs and and political parties.

This is a great victory for free speech and competitive elections. If you hated the ruling in Citizens United because it steered money away from candidates and parties, you should love the ruling in McCutcheon.