Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 20

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

to these requirements.  See post, at 3, 14–15.  And the re-
quirements  are  themselves  prophylactic  measures,  given 
that  “few  if  any  contributions  to  candidates  will  involve 
quid pro quo arrangements.”  Citizens United, 558 U. S., at 
357.  Such  a  prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis  approach,  we
have explained, is a significant indicator that the regulation
may not be necessary for the interest it seeks to protect.  See 
McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 221; see also Bennett, 564 U. S., 
at 752 (“In the face of [the State’s] contribution limits [and] 
strict disclosure requirements . . . it is hard to imagine what 
marginal corruption deterrence could be generated by [an 
additional measure].”).

There is no cause for a different conclusion here.  Because 
the Government is defending a restriction on speech as nec-
essary  to  prevent  an  anticipated  harm,  it  must  do  more 
than “simply posit the existence of the disease sought to be
cured.”  Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. 
Federal  Election  Comm’n,  518  U. S.  604,  618  (1996).    It 
must  instead  point  to  “record  evidence  or  legislative  find-
ings” demonstrating the need to address a special problem.  
Ibid.  We have “never accepted mere conjecture as adequate 
to  carry  a  First  Amendment  burden.”    McCutcheon,  572 
U. S., at 210 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government 
PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 392 (2000)).

Yet the Government is unable to identify a single case of 
quid pro quo corruption in this context—even though most
States do not impose a limit on the use of post-election con-
tributions to repay candidate loans.  Cf. Brief for Campaign
Legal  Center  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  17–18  (citing  the  10
States  that  do  impose  such  a  prohibition).    Our  previous
cases have found the absence of such evidence significant. 
See Citizens United, 558 U. S., at 357 (the Government did 
not claim that the political process was corrupted in the 26
States that allowed unrestricted independent expenditures 
by  corporations);  McCutcheon,  572  U. S.,  at  209,  n. 7  (the 
Government presented no evidence of corruption in the 30