Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 72.0

Cite as:  572 U. S. ____ (2014) 

21 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

legal  changes  to  which  the  plurality  points  makes  clear
that those changes cannot effectively stop the abuses that 
I have depicted.

First,  the  plurality  points  out  that  in  1976  (a  few 
months after this Court decided Buckley) Congress “added 
limits  on  contributions  to  political  committees,”  i.e.,  to 
PACs.  Ante,  at  11;  accord,  90  Stat.  487  (codified  at  2 
U. S. C.  §441a(a)(1)(C)).    But  Example  Three,  the  here­
relevant  example,  takes  account  of  those  limits,  namely, 
$5,000 to a PAC in any given year.  And it shows that the 
per-PAC limit does not matter much when it comes to the 
potential  for  circumvention,  as  long  as  party  supporters
can  create  dozens  or  hundreds  of  PACs.    Federal  law 
places no upper limit on the number of PACs supporting a
party  or  a  group  of  party  candidates  that  can  be  estab­
lished.  And  creating  a  PAC  is  primarily  a  matter  of  pa­
perwork, a knowledgeable staff person, and a little time.

Second,  the  plurality  points  out  that  in  1976,  Congress
“also  added  an  antiproliferation  rule  prohibiting  donors 
from  creating  or  controlling  multiple  affiliated  political 
committees.”  Ante,  at  12.    The  rule  provides  that  “all 
contributions  made  by  political  committees  established or 
financed or maintained or controlled” by the same corpora­
tion, labor organization, person, or group of persons, “shall 
be  considered  to  have  been  made  by  a  single  political 
committee.”  §441a(a)(5).    But  different  supporters  can
create  different  PACs.   Indeed,  there  were  roughly  2,700
“nonconnected”  PACs  (i.e.,  PACs  not  connected  to  a  spe- 
cific corporation or labor union) operating during the 2012
elections.  Ante,  at  24.    In  a  future  without  aggregate
contribution  limits,  far  more  nonconnected  PACs  will 
likely  appear.  The  plurality  also  notes  that  the  FEC  can
examine  certain  “ ‘circumstantial  factors,’ ”  such  as  “ ‘com­
mon or overlapping membership’ ” or “ ‘similar patterns  of
contributions,’ ” to determine whether a group of PACs are 
affiliated.  Ante,  at  25  (quoting  11  CFR  §100.5(g)(4)(ii)).