The form and character of corporate participation in the electoral process was defined by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case of 2010. Three years later, the judiciary once again found itself at center of political discussion over the scope of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's regulations. This time the issue concerned the restrictions the law imposed on contributions, both from the perspective of the amount of individual funds given to candidates for federal elections, and the amount of contributions donated in the two-year election cycle, called aggregate limits or overall limits. An Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon, who was deeply involved in contributing to Republican candidates in state and federal elections, challenged the aggregate limits; this prevented him from donating more funds in the 2011–2012 electoral cycle. The McCutcheon v. F.E.C. dispute was first adjudicated by the District Court, which found for the Federal Election Commission, upholding the BCRA provisions, and later by the Supreme Court, which announced its verdict in 2014.

Voting along ideological lines, the Justices declared the unconstitutionality of the aggregate limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, using similar arguments to those in the Citizens United decision. According to the conservative majority, freedom of speech prohibited the government from setting strict limits on twoyear election cycle contributions, as it did not serve a compelling state interest, which is to protect the system from corruption and an uncontrolled flow of money. The Justices argued that aggregate limits had no direct relation to the purposes of the campaign finance laws, and their functioning endangered the proper operation of the electoral process as they did not allow contributors to donate to all of the candidates they wanted, thus impairing the right to equal participation in election campaigns. Importantly, one of the Justices, Clarence Thomas, underlined in a concurring opinion the necessity remove all limitations to campaign contributions, which was at the heart of American democracy. Such an approach was criticized by liberals on the Court, who saw in the majority decision a danger to the integrity and effectiveness of the electoral process, and a serious limitation of the right of ordinary citizens to participate equally in the process with rich contributors.