Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 79.0

28 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

In  sum,  the  explanation  of  why  aggregate  limits  are
needed  is  complicated,  as  is  the  explanation  of  why  other 
methods  will  not  work.    But  the  conclusion  is  simple: 
There  is  no  “substantial  mismatch”  between  Congress’ 
legitimate objective and the “means selected to achieve it.” 
Ante,  at  10.  The  Court,  as  in  Buckley,  should  hold  that 
aggregate contribution limits are constitutional.  

V 
The  District  Court  in  this  case,  holding  that  Buckley
foreclosed  McCutcheon’s  constitutional  challenge  to  the 
aggregate  limits,  granted  the  Government’s  motion  to 
dismiss  the  complaint  prior  to  a  full  evidentiary  hearing. 
See  893  F.  Supp.  2d  133,  140–141  (DC  2012).    If  the  plu­
rality  now  believes  the  District  Court  was  wrong,  then
why does it not return the case for the further evidentiary
development which has not yet taken place? 

In  the  past,  when  evaluating  the  constitutionality  of
campaign  finance  restrictions,  we  have  typically  relied
upon  an  evidentiary  record  amassed  below  to  determine 
whether the law served a  compelling governmental objec­
tive.  And, typically, that record contained testimony from
Members of Congress (or state legislators) explaining why 
Congress  (or  the  legislature)  acted  as  it  did.  See,  e.g., 
McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  147–154  (upholding  federal  re­
strictions  on  soft  money  by  drawing  on  an  extensive  Dis­
trict Court record that contained declarations from current 
and former Members of Congress); Colorado II, 533 U. S., 
at  457–465  (upholding  federal  limits  on  coordinated  ex­
penditures between parties and candidates on the basis of 
a  summary  judgment  record  that  contained  declarations
from  party  operatives,  fundraisers,  and  Members  of  Con­
gress);  Shrink  Missouri,  528  U. S.,  at  393  (upholding
Missouri’s  contribution  limits  on  the  basis  of  the  lower 
court record, which contained similar declarations).  If we 
are to overturn an act of Congress here, we should do so on