Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

19 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.

  Moreover, while preventing corruption or its appearance
is  a  legitimate  objective,  Congress  may  target  only  a 
specific type of corruption—“quid pro quo” corruption.  As 
Buckley explained, Congress may permissibly seek to rein
in “large contributions [that] are given to secure a political 
quid  pro  quo  from  current  and  potential  office  holders.” 
424  U. S.,  at  26.    In  addition  to  “actual  quid  pro  quo
arrangements,”  Congress  may  permissibly  limit  “the  ap-
pearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of 
the  opportunities  for  abuse  inherent  in  a  regime  of  large
individual  financial  contributions”  to  particular  candi-
dates.  Id.,  at  27;  see  also  Citizens  United,  558  U. S.,  at 
359  (“When  Buckley  identified  a  sufficiently  important
governmental  interest  in  preventing  corruption  or  the 
appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid 
pro quo corruption”). 

Spending  large  sums  of  money  in  connection  with  elec-
tions,  but  not  in  connection  with  an  effort  to  control  the 
exercise  of  an  officeholder’s  official  duties,  does  not  give 
rise to such quid pro quo corruption.  Nor does the possi-
bility  that  an  individual  who  spends  large  sums  may 
garner  “influence  over  or  access  to”  elected  officials  or
political  parties.  Id.,  at  359;  see  McConnell  v.  Federal 
Election  Comm’n,  540  U. S.  93,  297  (2003)  (KENNEDY, J., 
concurring  in  judgment  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part).
And  because  the  Government’s  interest  in  preventing  the
appearance  of  corruption  is  equally  confined  to  the  ap-
pearance of quid pro quo corruption, the Government may
not  seek  to  limit  the  appearance  of  mere  influence  or 
access.  See Citizens United, 558 U. S., at 360. 

The  dissent  advocates  a  broader  conception  of  corrup-
tion, and would apply the label to any individual contribu-
tions  above  limits  deemed  necessary  to  protect  “collective
speech.”  Thus, under the dissent’s view, it is perfectly fine 
to  contribute  $5,200  to  nine  candidates  but  somehow 
corrupt to give the same amount to a tenth.