# McConnell v. FEC (December 10, 2003) **Citation:** 540 U.S. 93 (2003) **Vote:** 5-4 **Decided:** December 10, 2003 **Statute challenged:** [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] (BCRA / McCain-Feingold, 2002) *McConnell v. FEC* is the case that **upheld BCRA** against [[First Amendment]] challenge — the high-water mark of post-*Buckley* deference to campaign-finance regulation. Senate Republican Leader [[Mitch McConnell]] was the lead plaintiff, joined by the National Rifle Association, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a coalition of political committees. The Rehnquist Court upheld the soft-money ban and the electioneering-communications restriction on a 5-4 vote. The principal majority opinion was authored jointly by Justices [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and John Paul Stevens (an unusual co-authorship reflecting the case's complexity), joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Rehnquist, [[Justice Scalia]], Justice Kennedy, and [[Justice Thomas]] dissented in separate opinions. *McConnell* is significant for three reasons: 1. **It was correctly decided under existing doctrine.** The majority opinion's reasoning was a straightforward application of the [[Buckley v. Valeo]] framework — Congress can regulate where there is a substantial risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and the documented record of soft-money corruption was substantial. 2. **It did not last.** *McConnell* was substantially overturned by [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (2010), which struck down the corporate-independent-expenditure restrictions that *McConnell* had upheld. The seven years between the two decisions are the period in which the Court's composition changed (Rehnquist died and was replaced by Roberts; O'Connor retired and was replaced by Alito) and in which the doctrinal direction reversed. 3. **The McConnell name persists.** [[Mitch McConnell]] as Senate Republican Leader has continued to be the principal Republican strategist on campaign-finance issues, including through the [[Garland Blockade]] (2016) and the Trump-era judicial-confirmation acceleration. The case bearing his name is the one significant moment when he lost a major campaign-finance case at the Supreme Court — a loss that the Roberts Court's later trajectory has substantially reversed. ## Significance for the KB *McConnell v. FEC* is the brief inflection point at which the post-Watergate campaign-finance framework appeared to have stabilized constitutionally. The Court's deference to Congressional findings about corruption risk suggested that BCRA's loophole-closing approach could withstand judicial review. Within seven years, the same Court (with new personnel) reversed course and dismantled the corporate-spending portion of BCRA. The arc from *McConnell* (2003) to [[Citizens United v. FEC]] (2010) illustrates how rapidly Supreme Court doctrine can change when Court composition changes — a fact that has structured every subsequent campaign-finance dispute. ## See Also - [[Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act]] — the statute upheld - [[Buckley v. Valeo]] — the doctrinal foundation - [[Citizens United v. FEC]] — the 2010 reversal - [[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life]] — the 2007 case that began gutting BCRA - [[Mitch McConnell]] — the lead plaintiff - [[Soft Money]] — the principal mechanism BCRA closed - [[Federal Election Commission]] — the named defendant - [[Campaign Finance Timeline]] — full chronological view - [[Campaign Finance]] — Foundations hub