Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

2 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

tional  freedom  imposed  by  the  overall  ceiling  is  thus
no  more  than  a  corollary  of  the  basic  individual  con­
tribution limitation that we have found to be constitu­
tionally valid.”  424 U. S., at 38. 

Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding.  It 
is wrong to do so.  Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a 
record-based, view of the facts.  Its legal analysis is faulty:
It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional 
interests  at  stake.  It  understates  the  importance  of  pro­
tecting  the  political  integrity  of  our  governmental  insti- 
tutions. 
It  creates  a  loophole  that  will  allow  a  single 
individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party 
or  to  a  candidate’s  campaign.    Taken  together  with  Citi-
zens  United  v.  Federal  Election  Comm’n,  558  U. S.  310 
(2010), today’s  decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign
finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with
the  grave  problems  of  democratic  legitimacy  that  those
laws were intended to resolve. 

I 
The plurality concludes that the aggregate contribution
limits  “ ‘unnecessar[ily]  abridg[e]’ ”  First  Amendment 
rights.  Ante,  at  8,  30  (quoting  Buckley,  supra,  at  25).  It 
notes that some individuals will wish to “spen[d] ‘substan­
tial  amounts  of  money  in  order  to  communicate  [their] 
political ideas through sophisticated’ means.”  Ante, at 14– 
15  (quoting  Federal  Election  Comm’n  v.  National  Con-
servative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 493 (1985) 
(NCPAC)).    Aggregate  contribution  ceilings  limit  an  indi­
vidual’s ability to engage in such “broader participation in
the  democratic  process,”  while  insufficiently  advancing
any legitimate governmental objective.  Ante, at 16, 21–29. 
Hence, the plurality finds, they violate the Constitution. 

The plurality’s conclusion rests upon three separate but
related claims.  Each is fatally flawed.  First, the plurality
says  that  given  the  base  limits  on  contributions  to  candi­