Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-122_k536.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

THOMPSON v. HEBDON 

Per Curiam 

eral Election Comm’n, 572 U. S. 185, 206–207 (2014); Citi-
zens  United  v.  Federal  Election  Comm’n,  558  U. S.  310, 
359–360 (2010)).  The court below explained that under its 
precedent in this area “the quantum of evidence necessary 
to  justify  a  legitimate  state  interest  is  low:  the  perceived 
threat must be merely more than ‘mere conjecture’ and ‘not 
. . . illusory.’ ”  909 F. 3d, at 1034 (quoting Eddleman, 343 
F. 3d,  at  1092;  some  internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  
The  court  acknowledged  that  “McCutcheon  and  Citizens 
United created some doubt as to the continuing vitality of 
[this] standard,” but noted that the Ninth Circuit had re-
cently reaffirmed it.  909 F. 3d, at 1034, n. 2. 
  After surveying the State’s evidence, the court concluded 
that the individual-to-candidate contribution limit “ ‘focuses 
narrowly on the state’s interest,’ ‘leaves the contributor free 
to affiliate with a candidate,’ and ‘allows the candidate to 
amass sufficient resources to wage an effective campaign,’ ” 
and thus survives First Amendment scrutiny.  Id., at 1036 
(quoting  Eddleman,  343  F. 3d,  at  1092;  alterations  omit-
ted); see also 909 F. 3d, at 1036–1039.  The court also found 
the individual-to-group contribution limit valid as a tool for 
preventing  circumvention  of  the  individual-to-candidate 
limit.  See id., at 1039–1040. 
  In reaching those conclusions, the Ninth Circuit declined 
to apply our precedent in Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230 
(2006), the last time we considered a non-aggregate contri-
bution limit.  See 909 F. 3d, at 1037, n. 5.  In Randall, we 
invalidated a Vermont law that limited individual contribu-
tions on a per-election basis to: $400 to a candidate for Gov-
ernor, Lieutenant Governor, or other statewide office; $300 
to a candidate for state senator; and $200 to a candidate for 
state representative.  JUSTICE BREYER’s opinion for the plu-
rality  observed  that  “contribution  limits  that  are  too  low 
can . . . harm the electoral process by preventing challeng-
ers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbent 
officeholders, thereby reducing democratic accountability.”