The Fresno State community is full of potential voters, and a case before the Supreme Court could increase the amount of money an individual or organization can donate to campaigns, possibly affecting the influence of big-money donors.

Aggregate limits, which currently restrict an individual to giving $123,200 to candidates and parties over a two-year election cycle, could be struck down as a result of the McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission case.

“This latest case, if McCutcheon wins, means anyone can give any amount of money without using super PACs,” said political science professor Dr.­Thomas Holyoke. “It would become the Wild West out there as far as campaign finances goes.”

On Oct. 8, Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the case.

The Obama administration’s top lawyer, Donald Verrilli insisted that “aggregate limits combat corruption,” and he warned that “the risk of corruption is real” as money flows through the political pipelines.

Federal candidates, parties and committees reported raising and spending more than $7 billion during 2011 and 2012, according to the Federal Election Commission.

“(The) limits are an impermissible attempt to equalize the relative ability of individuals to participate in the political process,” said McCutcheon’s attorney, Erin E. Murphy, adding that the limits “seek to prevent individuals from engaging in too much First Amendment activity.”

Holyoke said that because money plays a vital role in campaigns, successful candidates are the ones who can fundraise the best.­ In his view, the lawmaking ability of an election candidate has been deemphasized in favor of who can raise the most money.

Justice Elena Kagan warned about the potential risks of allowing unlimited total donations. Adding up all federal candidates and political parties, Kagan noted, removing aggregate limits could permit an individual to distribute some $3.5 million during a two-year election cycle.

“Whoever contributes the most will have the most influence,” Holyoke said. “If it [money] is free speech, who has the loudest voice gets heard the most.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg added that, “by having these limits, you are promoting democratic participations, (so) the little people will count some, and you won’t have the super-affluent as the speakers that will control the elections.”

Holyoke said that nobody has been able to prove that big-money donors “buy” votes.­ He said the issue is before the elections even take place.

“This is about what gets on the agenda,” Holyoke said. “This is about what becomes a priority for a politician.­ Whoever gives the most money will set the agenda.”

This is far from the first case to address the issue of campaign finance and free speech.

A 1974 campaign finance law, enacted in the wake of the Watergate political scandal, imposed several kinds of restrictions. Limits were placed on how much an individual or committee could give a particular candidate. Aggregate limits were also set, capping the total that a donor might contribute.

In a 1976 decision, called Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld much of the 1974 law and divined a difference between campaign donations and campaign spending. Spending by a candidate was deemed tantamount to political speech, and so received greater First Amendment protection. Campaign donations to the candidate were deemed potentially corrupting and hence subject to regulation.

“A handful of people can give hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Justice Stephen Breyer said, and “those people do have undue influence.”

Justice Samuel Alito countered that some of the lavish contribution scenarios spelled out by liberal justices are “not obviously plausible,” and Justice Antonin Scalia sounded scornful when he dismissed the role of what he called “big money in politics.”

The current aggregate limit is $123,200 for each two-year election cycle. Of this total, an individual can give up to $48,600 to federal candidates and their campaign committees and up to$74,600 to political parties and non-candidate committees.

McClatchy Washington Bureau reporter Michael Doyle contributed to article.­