* From an October 6, 2013 Reuters story about the US Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case…

The disputed section limits the aggregate amounts that a person can contribute in a two-year election cycle to candidates, political party committees and PACS. The Supreme Court has allowed government more latitude to enact such limits on contributions - as opposed to limits on independent spending on campaign activities - because contributions involve money that goes directly to a candidate or committee and could more likely lead to quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Base limits, such as the $2,600 for a candidate, are not at issue in McCutcheon. Rather it’s the aggregate cap of $48,600 on what an individual may give overall to federal candidates and the $74,000 that an individual may give to political party committees and PACs.

Erin Murphy, the attorney representing McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee before the justices, said the overall limits were unnecessary to fight any appearance of corruption and impinge on First Amendment rights.

As she has previously over the past two years, Kagan used her questions to lawyers to strategically telegraph arguments to her colleagues. When Kagan challenged Murphy with multi-million-dollar contribution scenarios, Kennedy immediately picked up the thread to question Murphy - and also question Kagan’s assertions.

Alito declared his suspicion of the line of hypotheticals Kagan raised. As Kagan, who sits to his left, faced him, Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli, “How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they’re all going to transfer it to one candidate?”

More from Justice Alito…

“What troubles me about your argument, General Verrilli, and about the district court’s opinion is that what I see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible or — and lack, certainly lack any empirical support,” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the arguments “divorced from reality.”

The Supremes eventually ruled 5-4 that limiting aggregate contributions would violate free speech rights.

* This past September, the Washington Post noted that “Just four years ago, the most a donor could give a national political party was $30,800″…

The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue ­million-dollar donors with zeal.

Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to $1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about $1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.

In return, elite donors are being promised perks such as exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the nominating conventions and special dinners organized by contribution rank at this month’s RNC finance committee gala.

* And the Clinton campaign is taking full advantage, with a Chicago twist…

Here’s how it works: Donors are limited by how much they can give to campaign committees, national party committees and state party committees. A single donor can give $5,400 to a candidate’s campaign to cover both a primary and general election, $33,400 annually to a national party committee’s general fund and $10,000 annually to each state party. These limits are known as “base” contribution limits. (Additionally, donors can give $100,200 annually to each of the national party committee’s convention, building and legal funds thanks to a provision slipped into the 2014 omnibus budget bill.)

Since the Hillary Victory Fund links the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 33 state parties, the total amount a donor could give is $669,400 per year. Technically, a maximum contribution to the fund would include $330,000 to be split among the 33 state parties. Since party committees are allowed to make unlimited transfers between each other, that money can easily be sent to the state parties most advantageous to the candidate raising the money — in a swing state, for example. Or, as is happening with the Hillary Victory Fund, that money can be sent to the DNC, which redistributes it as they see fit.
Wealthy donors like Fred Eychaner, M.K. and J.B. Pritzker and Donald Sussman have seen their six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund split into $33,400 contributions to the DNC and $10,000 to a variety of state parties. The state parties have then sent the exact amounts received from Hillary Victory Fund donors directly to the DNC.

Emphasis added for obvious reasons.