Depending on how one counts, only 600 or 1,200 people ran up against the aggregate contribution limits overturned by McCutcheon. That's the universe of people who will gain a greater ability to make campaign contributions as a result of that decision, to the detriment of the rest of the nation's citizens.
As in Citizens United, five conservative Justices, led by the good ole' "umpire" John Roberts, decided that they know better than the nation's elected representatives whether one individual contributing millions to campaigns and parties creates the "appearance" of corruption. If that's not judicial activism, I don't know what is.
If the SCOTUS were to strike down the overall contribution limits in the McCutcheon case, we would be back to the same kind of corrupting contributions that resulted in the Watergate scandals in the '70s and the soft money scandals in the '90s. The legal and political consequences would be enormous.
McCutcheon presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm the importance of contribution limits in preventing political corruption and to recognize their role in promoting electoral competition. The Court should adhere to firmly established precedent and uphold the aggregate contribution limit.