12th & High federal election cycle to different types of entities. In 2013-14, an individual may contribute up to $2,600 to a single federal candidate; $32,400 per year can be donated to any political committee set up by a national political party; $10,000 per year can be donated to any political committee set up by a state or local political party; and $5,000 per year can go to any other political committee — including non-party PACs. The total, or aggregate, amount that any one individual can donate for the two years of the current cycle is $123,200. Of that total, $48,600 can be donated to federal candidates, and $74,600 can go to PACs and parties. “Campaign finance law has received unprecedented attention in the last few years, especially since Citizens United was decided in January 2010,” said Daniel P. Tokaji, the Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Professor of Law and senior fellow at Election Law@Moritz. “Right now, contributions can be regulated, but independent expenditures can’t be. The basis for this distinction is the Supreme Court’s view that contributions are more likely to lead to corruption than expenditures, and that spending limits can’t be justified by the interest in promoting equality. The ultimate result is a greater proportion of political money coming from outside groups, as opposed to candidates and parties.” In the last election cycle, 2011-12, the aggregate limits on contributions to candidates and parties prevented plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon from going forward with a plan to contribute to 28 different federal candidates (all within the base limit individually), and from donating to the Republican National Committee and its committees helping GOP candidates for Senate and House seats. “The question in McCutcheon is whether aggregate limits can be justified as a means to prevent corruption,” said Tokaji. “Past decisions have allowed contribution limits that are closely drawn to prevent corruption, but the Roberts court has defined corruption very narrowly, as a quid pro quo – a contribution made in exchange for a political favor. And Citizens United took equality off the
“Campaign finance law has received unprecedented attention in the last few years, especially since Citizens United was decided in January 2010.” - Daniel P. Tokaji, Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Professor of Law
table, as a rationale that can ever justify spending limits. ” The court upheld the contribution limits in 1976 when it decided Buckley v. Valeo. The defendant, the Federal Election Commission, urged the court to dispose of McCutcheon without briefing and oral argument, contending the decision in Buckley settled the constitutionality of aggregate limits on donations and arguing that nothing has changed in campaign finance law or later decisions to alter the previously decided case. The court rejected that argument, and the case was argued in October. “Even though our democracy is premised on the idea that rich and poor alike should all have an equal voice, equality has become the Voldemort of campaign finance law,” said Tokaji. “It is the idea that must not be named, if any regulation is to survive constitutional scrutiny. The result is that, as long as the current Supreme Court sits, we are likely to see the brick-by-brick dismantling of our campaign finance laws. The question is how big a brick McCutcheon will be.”
Daimler AG v. Bauman This case is one of general personal jurisdiction. In it, the court will address
not only whether general jurisdiction lies over a corporation that does substantial business in a state but is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of business there, but also whether the contacts of a corporate subsidiary can be attributed to a foreign parent corporation for purposes of this analysis. “If you care about your clients, you care about this case,” said Arthur F. Greenbaum, the James W. Shocknessy Professor of Law. “This case will have the most impact of any case this term on clients and law practice. These issues are hard and very hotly contested.” In 1976, the president of Argentina was overthrown, resulting in the Dirty War, when the military declared war on political dissidents. Daimler operated a facility in Argentina, and the company often identified political enemies of the new government. These enemies were often beaten, murdered, or just disappeared. A subsidiary of Daimler operates in California and distributes Mercedes Benz cars throughout the state. The survivors and their families are attempting to sue Daimler in California courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed the lawsuit to go forward by attributing the contacts of the subsidiary to the parent. “In the personal jurisdiction area, the Supreme Court has emphasized the idea that defendants should be able to plan around where they will be subject to lawsuits,” Greenbaum said. “But, should a company be able to avoid jurisdiction by manipulating its corporate structure, here by outsourcing its distribution chain to a subsidiary corporation tightly under its control, rather than having the parent distribute the product directly in the forum?”
Moritz College of Law | W I N T E R 2 0 1 4
15