Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

is  nothing  novel  or  implausible  about  Section  304’s  ra-
tionale—once again, that payments going to line an elected 
official’s pockets pose an especial risk of corruption.  It is in 
fact  what  everyone  knows  to  be  true—because  everyone
knows people (including politicians) will often do things for 
money.  The majority suggests that we should discard our 
understanding of how the world works because the Govern-
ment  has  not  come  forward  with  adjudicated  instances  of 
corruption in the loan-repayment context.  See ante, at 15– 
16.  But  quid  pro  quo  exchanges,  in  that  and  every  other 
setting,  are  nigh-impossible  to  detect  and  prove.    That  is 
indeed  why  we  have  campaign  finance  laws  like  Section
304.  They prohibit conduct posing a heightened risk of cor-
ruption, so that the Government does not have to ferret out
illicit exchanges case by case by case.  To strike down Sec-
tion 304 because the Government has not proved to a cer-
tainty  some  number  of  loan-repayments-for-political-pay-
backs is to miss the provision’s essential point. 

In  any  event,  the  Government  and  its  amici  have  mar-
shalled  significant  evidence  showing  that  the  loan  repay-
ments  Section  304  targets  have  exactly  the  dangers  Con-
gress  thought.  See  Brief  for  Appellant  37–40;  Brief  for 
Campaign  Legal  Center  et al.  27–29.    Here  is  a  sampling
from the record, involving jurisdictions unprotected by ei-
ther Section 304 or a state equivalent.  In Ohio, various law 
firms donated almost $200,000 to help the newly elected at-
torney  general  recoup  his  personal  loans.    Those  donors 
later received more than 200 state contracts worth nearly 
$10 million in legal fees.  See L. Bischoff, Donations Help-
ing DeWine Pay Down Campaign Loan, Springfield News-
Sun, Feb. 2, 2012, p. A1.  In Alaska, a lobbyist collected al-
most  $100,000  for  post-election  repayment  of  the  Gover-
nor’s personal loans.  A business in which he held an inter-
est later received a $9 million state contract.  See B. Curry,
Alaska  Gov.  Sheffield’s  Impeachment  Inquiry  Has  Over-
tones of Watergate Scandal, L. A. Times, July 19, 1985, p.