Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 64

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

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Citizens United with respect to this matter argues strongly 
in  favor  of  treating  the  language  quoted  above  as  dic- 
tum,  as  an  overstatement,  or  as  limited  to  the  context  in 
which it appears.  Citizens United itself contains language 
that supports the last mentioned reading, for it says that
“[Buckley] did not extend this rationale [about the reality 
or appearance of corruption] to independent expenditures, 
and  the  Court  does  not  do  so  here.”  558  U. S.,  at  357 
(emphasis  added).    And  it  adds  that,  while  “[t]he  BCRA 
record  establishes  that  certain  donations  to  political  par­
ties, called ‘soft money,’ were made to gain access to elected
officials,”  “[t]his  case,  however,  is  about  independent 
expenditures,  not  soft  money.”  Id.,  at  360–361  (emphasis
added).

The plurality’s use of Citizens United’s narrow definition 
of  corruption  here,  however,  is  a  different  matter.    That 
use  does  not  come  accompanied  with  a  limiting  context
(independent expenditures by corporations and unions) or 
limiting  language.  It  applies  to  the  whole  of  campaign 
finance regulation.  And, as I have pointed out, it is flatly
inconsistent with the broader definition of corruption upon
which McConnell’s holding depends. 

So: Does the Court intend today to overrule McConnell? 
Or does it intend to leave McConnell and BCRA in place? 
The  plurality  says  the  latter.  Ante,  at  20–21,  n. 6  (“Our 
holding about the constitutionality of the aggregate limits 
clearly  does  not  overrule  McConnell’s  holding  about  ‘soft
money’ ”).  But how does the plurality explain its rejection
of  the  broader  definition  of  corruption,  upon  which 
McConnell’s  holding  depends?  Compare  ante,  at  18–21, 
with McConnell, 540 U. S., at 146, 149–153. 

III 
The  plurality  invalidates  the  aggregate  contribution 
limits  for  a  second  reason.  It  believes  they  are  no  longer
needed to prevent contributors from circumventing federal