Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

39 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

such contributions as “a direct and necessary regulation of 
federal  candidates’  and  officeholders’  receipt  of  quids”).
We have no occasion to consider a law that would specifi-
cally ban candidates from soliciting donations—within the 
base limits—that would go to many other candidates, and 
would add up to a large sum.  For our purposes here, it is
enough that the aggregate limits at issue are not directed 
specifically to candidate behavior. 

* 

* 

* 
For  the  past  40  years,  our  campaign  finance  jurispru-
dence  has  focused  on  the  need  to  preserve  authority  for 
the  Government  to  combat  corruption,  without  at  the
same  time  compromising  the  political  responsiveness  at
the  heart  of  the  democratic  process,  or  allowing  the  Gov-
ernment  to  favor  some  participants  in  that  process  over
others.  As Edmund Burke explained in his famous speech
to  the  electors  of  Bristol,  a  representative  owes  constitu-
ents the exercise of his “mature judgment,”  but judgment 
informed  by  “the  strictest  union,  the  closest  correspond-
ence,  and  the  most  unreserved  communication  with  his 
constituents.”  The  Speeches  of  the  Right  Hon.  Edmund
Burke 129–130 (J. Burke ed. 1867).  Constituents have the 
right  to  support  candidates  who  share  their  views  and 
concerns.  Representatives  are  not  to  follow  constituent 
orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and respon-
sive to those concerns.  Such responsiveness is key to the
very concept of self-governance through elected officials.

The Government has a strong interest, no less critical to
our  democratic  system,  in  combatting  corruption  and  its 
appearance.  We  have,  however,  held  that  this  interest 
must be limited to a specific kind of corruption—quid pro 
quo corruption—in order to ensure that the Government’s
efforts  do  not  have  the  effect  of  restricting  the  First
Amendment  right  of  citizens  to  choose  who  shall  govern
them.  For  the  reasons  set  forth,  we  conclude  that  the