Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 52

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–536 
_________________ 

SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.
 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

[April 2, 2014]

 JUSTICE  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 
Nearly  40  years  ago  in  Buckley  v.  Valeo,  424  U.  S.  1 

(1976)  (per  curiam),  this  Court  considered  the  constitu­
tionality  of  laws  that  imposed  limits  upon  the  overall
amount a single person can contribute to all federal candi­
dates,  political  parties,  and  committees  taken  together.
The  Court  held  that  those  limits  did  not  violate  the  Con­
stitution.  Id., at 38; accord, McConnell v. Federal Election 
Comm’n,  540  U. S.  93,  138,  n. 40,  152–153,  n. 48  (2003) 
(citing with approval Buckley’s aggregate limits holding).

The Buckley Court focused upon the same problem that 

concerns the Court today, and it wrote: 

“The  overall  $25,000  ceiling  does  impose  an  ultimate
restriction  upon  the  number  of  candidates  and  com­
mittees  with  which  an  individual  may  associate  him­
self  by  means  of  financial  support.    But  this  quite 
modest  restraint  upon  protected  political  activity
serves  to  prevent  evasion  of  the  $1,000  contribution 
limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute 
massive  amounts  of  money  to  a  particular  candidate
through  the  use  of  unearmarked  contributions  to  po­
litical  committees  likely  to  contribute  to  that  candi­
date, or huge contributions to the candidate’s political 
party.    The  limited,  additional  restriction  on  associa­