Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

18 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

interest  only  so  long  as  it  does  not  unnecessarily  infringe 
an individual’s right to freedom of speech; we do not trun-
cate this tailoring test at the outset. 

IV 

A 

With the significant First Amendment costs for individ-
ual  citizens  in  mind,  we  turn  to  the  governmental  inter-
ests  asserted  in  this  case.    This  Court  has  identified  only
one  legitimate  governmental  interest  for  restricting  cam-
paign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of 
corruption.  See  Davis,  supra,  at  741;  National  Conserva-
tive  Political  Action  Comm.,  470  U. S.,  at  496–497.    We 
have consistently rejected attempts to suppress campaign
speech  based  on  other  legislative  objectives.    No  matter 
how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable govern-
mental  objective  to  “level  the  playing  field,”  or  to  “level 
electoral  opportunities,”  or  to  “equaliz[e]  the  financial
resources  of  candidates.”    Bennett,  564  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip 
op., at 22–23); Davis, supra, at 741–742; Buckley, supra, at 
56.  The  First  Amendment  prohibits  such  legislative  at-
tempts  to  “fine-tun[e]”  the  electoral  process,  no  matter
how  well  intentioned.  Bennett,  supra,  at  ___  (slip  op., 
at 21). 

As  we  framed  the  relevant  principle  in  Buckley,  “the 
concept  that  government  may  restrict  the  speech  of  some 
elements  of  our  society  in  order  to  enhance  the  relative
voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” 
424 U. S., at 48–49.  The dissent’s suggestion that Buckley 
supports  the  opposite  proposition,  see  post,  at  6,  simply 
ignores  what  Buckley  actually  said  on  the  matter.    See 
also  Citizens  Against  Rent  Control/Coalition  for  Fair 
Housing  v.  Berkeley,  454  U. S.  290,  295  (1981)  (“Buckley
. . . made clear that contributors cannot be protected from
the possibility that others will make larger contributions”).