Where our candidates stand on McCutcheon v FEC

[rachacha]

Like Citizens United, which both candidates have come out strongly against, McCutcheon v FEC allows wealthy contributors to have more say in our political process.

On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. By a vote of 5-4, the Court ruled that the biennial aggregate limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

With the help of Google, it's trivial to determine where Sanders stands on this decision:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/mccutcheon-vs-fec

To find Clinton's position is a little harder, but you can see that she spoke out against it in early 2014:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-campaign-finance-super-pacs

Neither officially lists the decision on their campaign websites. But the Clinton campaign is currently under fire from the Sanders campaign for using the Hillary Victory Fund as a loophole to allow higher individual contributions to aid Hillary's campaign.

Is this a legitimate complaint? Why or why not?

[DebDoo]

1. Kick