It is assumed that if the Court in McCutcheon revises the standard of review for contributions, it will do so to overthrow Buckley and to bring the standards for contributions and expenditures into alignment. Certainly this is a possibility, and it is the outcome being urged by Senator McConnell and dreaded by prominent voices in the reform community.

Of course, the Court has other choices. Depending how it goes about the task, the Court could improve on the Buckley jurisprudence without destroying altogether the contribution/expenditure distinction. The Court’s treatment of contributions and expenditures does not have to be same in order for the approach to contributions to be better—more rigorous in construction and more convincing in application—than it is today.

Rick Hasen has joined others in arguing that, if in McCutcheon the Supreme Court were to strike down the aggregate limit on political contributions, the large individual donor would be able to amass undesirable influence by donating to joint fundraising committees organized by candidates and parties. The money distributed through those committees is governed by limits—$2600 per participating candidate, etc.—but when first given to the joint fundraising committee, the total donated might be massive, in the millions, and the parties and candidates who would divide it up later could be insidiously grateful to the donor.

If the aggregate limit is a means of enforcing the base limits and blocking circumvention, it raises the question: how effective does an anti-circumvention measure have to be to prevail in a test of the provision’s constitutionality? In the case of the aggregate limit, the inquiry leads quickly to a consideration of a new fact of campaign finance—the super PACs.

As the McCutcheon case nears argument, there is more discussion of the consequences if the Court strikes down the individual aggregate contribution limits. The court could certainly take the occasion to alter the basic Buckley framework and tighten the scrutiny applied to contribution limits. But another line of argument holds that the consequences would be sufficiently drastic if the limits fell but the fundamental constitutional law of the land did not change. On this view, the aggregate contribution limit would invite massive spending for the benefit of candidates that would heighten the risk of corruption.

The Campaign Legal Center has alerted its readers to a “flood” of challenges to campaign finance laws, and its message is that the reform advocates must remain at their battle stations. It is certainly true that interests hostile to any campaign finance regulation are hard at work; they might well believe that in this time, with this Supreme Court, their moment has come and no time should be wasted. But not all of these challenges are fairly lumped together and described as one indiscriminate assault against any and all reasonable regulation. A few raise questions that even those favoring reasonable limits on campaign finance should take—and address—seriously.

The District Court in New Mexico that struck down a municipal ban on corporate contributions broke away from other courts that, confronting the question, resolved it the other way under the Supreme Court’s decision in Beaumont. Giant Cab Company v. Bailey, No. 13-cv-00426 (D.N.M filed May 6, 2013); Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003). Rick Hasen is confident that Beaumont assures reversal if the case proceeds on appeal (which it may not). Maybe so; but the New Mexico case and perhaps others to follow put in question Beaumont as controlling authority for absolute prohibitions on corporate contributions. In the wake of Citizens United, the outcome remains unclear.