Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 81

30 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

est—turns on factual questions about whether corruption, 
in  the  absence  of  such  limits,  is  a  realistic  threat  to  our 
democracy.  The plurality itself spends pages citing figures
about  campaign  spending  to  defend  its  “legal”  conclusion. 
Ante,  at  24–26,  27–28,  30–32.    The  problem  with  such
reasoning  is  that  this  Court’s  expertise  does  not  lie  in 
marshaling facts in the primary instance.  That is why in 
the  past,  when  answering  similar  questions  about  the 
constitutionality of restrictions on campaign contributions, 
we  have  relied  on  an  extensive  evidentiary  record  pro­
duced below to inform our decision. 

Without  further  development  of  the  record,  however,  I
fail  to  see  how  the  plurality  can  now  find  grounds  for 
overturning  Buckley.  The  justification  for  aggregate  con­
tribution  restrictions  is  strongly  rooted  in  the  need  to
assure  political  integrity  and  ultimately  in  the  First
Amendment  itself.  Part  II,  supra.  The  threat  to  that 
integrity posed by the risk of special access and influence 
remains  real.  Part  III,  supra.    Even  taking  the  plurality
on its own terms and considering solely the threat of quid 
pro  quo  corruption  (i.e.,  money-for-votes  exchanges),  the
aggregate  limits  are  a  necessary  tool  to  stop  circumven­
tion.  Ibid.  And there is no basis for finding a lack of “fit” 
between  the  threat  and  the  means  used  to  combat  it, 
namely the aggregate limits.  Part IV, supra. 

The  plurality  reaches  the  opposite  conclusion.    The  re­
sult, as I said at the outset, is a decision that substitutes 
judges’  understandings  of  how  the  political  process  works
for  the  understanding  of  Congress;  that  fails  to  recognize 
the difference between influence resting upon public opin­
ion  and  influence  bought  by  money  alone;  that  overturns 
key precedent; that creates huge loopholes in the law; and 
that  undermines,  perhaps  devastates,  what  remains  of 
campaign finance reform.
With respect, I dissent.