Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 60

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

9 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Election  Comm’n  v.  Colorado  Republican  Federal  Cam-
paign  Comm.,  533  U. S.  431,  441,  457–460  (2001)  (Colo-
rado II ), the Court upheld limits imposed upon coordinated 
expenditures  among  parties  and  candidates  because  it 
found they thwarted corruption and its appearance, again
understood  as  including  “undue  influence”  by  wealthy 
donors.  In Shrink Missouri, the Court upheld limitations
imposed by the Missouri Legislature upon contributions to 
state  political  candidates,  not  only  because  of  the  need  to
prevent  bribery,  but  also  because  of  “the  broader  threat 
from  politicians  too  compliant  with  the  wishes  of  large
contributors.”  528 U. S., at 389. 

C 

Most important, in McConnell, this Court considered the 
constitutionality  of  the  Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act 
of 2002, an Act that set new limits on “soft money” contri­
butions to political parties.  “Soft money” referred to funds
that,  prior  to  BCRA,  were  freely  donated  to  parties  for 
activities other than directly helping elect a federal candi­
date—activities  such  as  voter  registration,  “get  out  the 
vote”  drives,  and  advertising  that  did  not  expressly  advo­
cate a federal candidate’s election or defeat.  540 U. S., at 
122–124.  BCRA imposed a new ban on soft money contri­
butions  to  national  party  committees,  and  greatly  cur­
tailed  them  in  respect  to  state  and  local  parties.  Id.,  at 
133–134, 161–164. 

The  Court  in  McConnell  upheld  these  new  contribution 

restrictions  under  the  First  Amendment  for  the  very  rea­
son  the  plurality  today  discounts  or  ignores.  Namely,
the  Court  found  they  thwarted  a  significant  risk  of  cor­
ruption—understood  not  as  quid  pro  quo  bribery,  but  as
privileged access to and pernicious influence upon elected 
representatives.

In reaching its conclusion in McConnell, the Court relied 
upon  a  vast  record  compiled  in  the  District  Court.    That