Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

14  FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N v. TED CRUZ FOR SENATE 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

turn.”  App. 351–353.  That bears repeating: 81%—an over-
whelming perception across all demographic categories, as
well as across all party affiliations and political ideologies.
See ibid.  As the court reviewing the Kentucky version of
Section  304  explained:  “[T]here  is  an  impression”  when  a 
contribution  repays  a  loan  after  an  election  that  the  con-
tributor is simply “lining the candidate’s pocket, as there is 
no  ongoing  campaign  to  which  the  contribution  may  be
made.”  Wilkinson, 876 F. Supp., at 930; see supra, at 12. 
The  majority  flyspecks  the  polling  questions:  Why  didn’t 
the poll define “political favor”?  Did the poll mention that
the contributions had to comply with the $2,900 cap?  And 
so forth.  See ante, at 17–18.  But really—is it likely that
such tinkering would have made a real difference?  The poll
results were so lopsided because the post-election contribu-
tions  Section  304  targets—ones  adding  to  the  candidate’s
personal  wealth—have  so  conspicuous  a  potential  to  cor-
rupt.  The public knows that to be true.  The public’s repre-
sentatives in Congress knew it to be true.  Only this Court—
somehow—does not. 

* 

* 

* 

“Democracy works only if the people have faith in those 
who govern.”  Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 390 (internal 
quotation  marks  omitted).    And  the  people  cannot  have 
faith in representatives who trade official acts for financial 
gain.  Section  304  prevents  that  kind  of  corruption,  at
barely discernable cost to First Amendment freedoms.  The 
provision limits one narrow use of third-party contributions 
to a campaign, thus “entail[ing] only a marginal restriction”
on speech.  Buckley, 424 U. S., at 20.  And the provision tar-
gets  a  practice  posing  exceptional  risks  of  quid  pro  quo
deals.  Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won elec-
tion cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The 
money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activi-
ties.  All the money does is enrich the candidate personally