That's curious because McCutcheon, thanks to the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 ruling on Citizens United, could already donate as much as he wants to the Super PACs supporting the candidate of his choice. Remember, this past election Sheldon Adelson reportedly spent between $70 million to $100 million this election and around $32 million on Mitt Romney and Romney-related Super PACs — only to have his guy lose, proving that even well-funded Super PACs and candidates aren't bulletproof. But McCutcheon — and, by proxy and its response today, the RNC — wants unrestricted donation power directly to candidates and the parties they come from, without federal limits and without donations bundled through Super PACs.

With the Citizens United ruling and now the McCutcheon case, the Supreme Court's next move could do more than chip away at campaign finance rules — they could jackhammer them. The rules were instituted in the first place to clean up politics, to stop the buying of politicians, as Jeffrey Toobin wrote last year:

In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, named for the eccentric rogue Pitchfork Ben Tillman, the South Carolina senator who sponsored the legislation. The law barred corporations from contributing directly to federal campaigns, and established criminal penalties for violations. Loopholes proliferated, allowing, for example, individuals to give as much as they wanted to political campaigns and to be reimbursed for the contributions by their employers. Still, the Tillman Act was a first step toward what Congress described as its goal: elections "free from the power of money.”

We've sort of come a long way from that, with the chunk of the work already done by way of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling on Citizens United.

So what happens if the Supreme Court sides with McCutcheon? Or, rather, what's left of campaign finance?

"Dismantling the federal limit also could cast into doubt on state laws around the country. In New York, for instance, an individual cannot contribute more than $150,000 to candidates and political committees in the Empire State," writes Schouten at USA Today. Richard Hasen, a campaign-finance professor at the University of California at Irvine, went further in Politico's report:

"The ability to get around it does undermine the case for limits," Hasen said. But the case could have broader implications. It will be the first time since Citizens United that the court decides how to judge campaign finance laws."

How good does that look? Slate's Dave Weigel writes:

So, could the court rule for the plaintiff and destroy campaign finance limits? Anything's possible, but the recent experience hasn't been good for the let-money-flow crowd. When we last saw McCutcheon, it was being dismissed by the D.C. Circuit.

Politico's Kenneth Vogel, who was last seen sparring over campaign finance with Nate Silver, thinks this case has more than a chance to vanquish the efforts of McCain, Feingold, and all the rest — what with Citizens United and the Roberts court:

If conservative justices could follow Citizens United blueprint, they cud use McCutcheon to abolish contrib. limits: politico.com/story/2013/02/… — Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) February 19, 2013

The GOP is already celebrating this victory:

Pleased SCOTUS will hear our case: McCutcheon et al. v. FEC, that challenges aggregate biennial contribution limits on party & candidates. — RNC (@GOP) February 19, 2013

The case will be taken up in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.

Image via FEC

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.