Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

23 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

cepting the validity of Buckley’s circumvention theory, it is 
hard to see how a candidate today could receive a “massive
amount[ ] of money” that could be traced back to a particu-
lar contributor uninhibited by the aggregate limits.  Ibid. 
The  Government  offers  a  series  of  scenarios  in  support  of 
that  possibility.    But  each  is  sufficiently  implausible  that 
the Government has not carried its burden of demonstrat-
ing that the aggregate limits further its anticircumvention 
interest. 

The  primary  example  of  circumvention,  in  one  form  or 
another,  envisions  an  individual  donor  who  contributes 
the maximum amount under the base limits to a particu-
lar candidate, say, Representative Smith.  Then the donor 
also  channels  “massive  amounts  of  money”  to  Smith 
through a series of contributions to PACs that have stated
their intention to support Smith.  See, e.g., Brief for Appel-
lee 35–37; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4, 6.

Various  earmarking  and  antiproliferation  rules  disarm
this  example.  Importantly,  the  donor  may  not  contribute
to the most obvious PACs: those that support only Smith. 
See 11 CFR §110.1(h)(1); see also §102.14(a).  Nor may the 
donor contribute to the slightly less obvious PACs that he
knows will route “a substantial portion” of his contribution 
to Smith.  §110.1(h)(2).

The  donor  must  instead  turn  to  other  PACs  that  are 
likely  to  give  to  Smith.    When  he  does  so,  however,  he 
discovers that his contribution will be significantly diluted 
by  all  the  contributions  from  others  to  the  same  PACs.
After all, the donor cannot give more than $5,000 to a PAC 
and  so  cannot  dominate  the  PAC’s  total  receipts,  as  he 
could when Buckley was decided.  2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(1)(C). 
contribution, 
He 
11 CFR §110.1(h)(3), direct his money “in any way” to Smith,
2  U. S. C.  §441a(a)(8),  or  even  imply  that  he  would 
like  his  money  to  be  recontributed  to  Smith,  11  CFR 
§110.6(b)(1).  His  salience  as  a  Smith  supporter  has  been 

control  over  his 

cannot 

retain