Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

Opinion of the Court 

on other legislative aims.  For example, we have denied at-
tempts  to  reduce  the  amount  of  money  in  politics,  see 
McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 191, to level electoral opportuni-
ties  by  equalizing  candidate  resources,  see  Bennett,  564 
U. S., at 749–750, and to limit the general influence a con-
tributor  may  have  over  an  elected  official,  see  Citizens 
United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 359–360 
(2010).  However well intentioned such proposals may be, 
the  First  Amendment—as  this  Court  has  repeatedly  em-
phasized—prohibits  such  attempts  to  tamper  with  the 
“right  of  citizens  to  choose  who  shall  govern  them.” 
McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 227; see also Davis, 554 U. S., at 
742; Bennett, 564 U. S., at 750. 

The  Government  argues  that  the  contributions  at  issue 
raise a heightened risk of corruption because of the use to
which they are put: repaying a candidate’s personal loans. 
It also maintains that post-election contributions are par-
ticularly troubling because the contributor will know—not 
merely hope—that the recipient, having prevailed, will be
in a position to do him some good.

We greet the assertion of an anticorruption interest here 
with a measure of skepticism, for the loan-repayment limi-
tation  is  yet  another  in  a  long  line  of  “prophylaxis-upon-
prophylaxis approach[es]” to regulating campaign finance. 
McCutcheon,  572  U. S.,  at  221  (quoting  Federal  Election 
Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 479 
(2007)  (opinion  of  ROBERTS,  C. J.)).    Individual  contribu-
tions to candidates for federal office, including those made
after the candidate has won the election, are already regu-
lated in order to prevent corruption or its appearance.  Such 
contributions are capped at $2,900 per election, see 86 Fed.
Reg.  7869,  and  nontrivial  contributions  must  be  publicly
disclosed, see 52 U. S. C. §§30104(b)(3)(A), (c)(1).  The dis-
sent’s dire predictions about the impact of today’s decision 
elide the fact that the contributions at issue remain subject