Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

ance  of  corruption.  Essentially  all  the  Government’s  evi-
dence,  however,  concerns  the  sort  of  “corruption,”  loosely
conceived, that we have repeatedly explained is not legiti-
mately regulated under the First Amendment. 

The  academic  article—cited  for  various  propositions  by
both sides—concludes that “indebted politicians” are “more
likely  to  switch  their  votes”  if  they  receive  contributions 
from  the  banking  or  insurance  industries.    Ovtchinnikov, 
Debt 31.  But the authors explicitly note that they cannot
distinguish between voting pattern changes traceable to le-
gitimate  donor  influence  or  access,  and  voting  pattern
changes as part of an illicit quid pro quo.  See A. Ovtchinni-
kov & P. Valta, Self-Funding of Political Campaigns, Man-
agement  Science,  Articles  in  Advance  18  (April  7,  2022) 
(Ovtchinnikov, Self-Funding).  As noted, our precedents de-
mand adherence to that distinction.  See, e.g., McCutcheon, 
572 U. S., at 209.  The authors also state that their analysis 
is  merely  a  “first  step”  in  understanding  whether  politi-
cians’  self-funding  decisions  impact  voting  behavior,  be-
cause they cannot “pin down a causal link” yet.  Ovtchinni-
kov, Self-Funding 21. 

The  online  poll  the  Government  asks  us  to  consider 
similarly misses the mark.  The poll, conducted at the Gov-
ernment’s  behest  for  this  litigation,  reports  that  most  re-
spondents thought it “very likely” or “likely” that a person
who “donate[s] money to a candidate’s campaign after the
election expect[s] a political favor in return.”  App. 351–352.
But  it  failed  to  ask  whether  those  same  respondents
thought it likely that donors who contribute to a campaign 
before the election also are likely to expect political favors 
in return.  Nor did the poll mention that the individual base
limits still apply to such contributions.  And it failed to de-
fine the term “political favor,” leaving unclear the critical
issue  whether  the  respondents  associated  such  contribu-
tions  with  the  direct  exchange  of  money  for  official  acts,