Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 35.0

8  FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N v. TED CRUZ FOR SENATE 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

when he has become able to use the power of public office to 
the donor’s advantage (the quo).  The heightened threat of
corruption—and, even more, of its appearance—is self-evi-
dent (except, it seems, to observers allergic to all campaign
finance regulation).

In  addressing  that  special  danger,  Section  304  is  any-
thing but a “prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis,” as the majority
labels it.  Ante, at 14.  The idea behind that fancy-sounding 
epithet is just that the statute is a needless precaution: The 
$2,900  contribution  ceiling,  the  majority  asserts,  already 
provides generous protection against the corrupting poten-
tial of donations, so the loan-repayment provision is unnec-
essary.  See ibid.  But that claim ignores that Section 304 
targets only a subset of contributions, which raise (as just
described) unique corruption risks.  When an added protec-
tion addresses an added danger, the existence of a basic pro-
tection (however ordinarily ample) fails to show the supple-
ment’s  pointlessness.  Regular  seatbelts  might  suffice  to 
protect drivers on the interstate, but special belts—and roll 
cages to boot—are essential measures on the racetrack.  So 
too, a $2,900 cap might suffice to prevent corruption from
normal campaign contributions—but not from post-election
contributions to repay a candidate’s loan, and thus to enrich
him  personally.  When  Congress,  as  here,  responds  to  a
heightened threat with a heightened safeguard, the major-
ity has no call to “greet” it “with a measure of skepticism.” 
Ibid. 

Nor does the majority have reason to second-guess Con-
gress’s experience-based judgment about the specially cor-
rupting effects of post-election donations to repay candidate 
loans.  The  majority’s  first  attempt  to  counter  that  judg-
ment  is  that  “we  are  only  talking  about  repayment  of  a 
loan”: “If the candidate did not have the money to buy a car 
before  he  made  a  loan  to  his  campaign,  repayment  of  the 
loan would not change that in any way.”  Ante, at 19.  But 
that altogether misses the point.  However much money the