Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

36 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

at  275–277  (opinion  of  THOMAS,  J.).  For  that  reason, 
disclosure often represents a less restrictive alternative to 
flat  bans  on  certain  types  or  quantities  of  speech.    See, 
e.g.,  Federal  Election  Comm’n  v.  Massachusetts  Citizens 
for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 262 (1986).

With modern technology, disclosure now offers a partic-
ularly  effective  means  of  arming  the  voting  public  with
information.    In  1976,  the  Court  observed  that  Congress
could regard disclosure as “only a partial measure.”  Buck-
ley, 424 U. S., at 28.  That perception was understandable 
in a world in which information about campaign contribu-
tions was filed at FEC  offices and was therefore virtually
inaccessible  to  the  average  member  of  the  public.    See 
Brief  for  Cause  of  Action  Institute  as  Amicus  Curiae  15– 
16.  Today, given the Internet, disclosure offers much more
robust protections against corruption.  See Citizens United, 
supra,  at  370–371.    Reports  and  databases  are  availa- 
ble  on  the  FEC’s  Web  site  almost  immediately  after  they 
are  filed,  supplemented  by  private  entities  such  as  Open-
Secrets.org  and  FollowTheMoney.org.    Because  massive 
quantities of information can be accessed at the click of a 
mouse,  disclosure  is  effective  to  a  degree  not  possible  at
the time Buckley, or even McConnell, was decided. 

The existing aggregate limits may in fact encourage the 
movement  of  money  away  from  entities  subject  to  dis-
closure.  Because  individuals’  direct  contributions  are 
limited,  would-be  donors  may  turn  to  other  avenues  for
political speech.  See Citizens United, supra, at 364.  Indi-
viduals can, for example, contribute unlimited amounts to
501(c)  organizations,  which  are  not  required  to  publicly 
disclose  their  donors.  See  26  U. S. C.  §6104(d)(3).    Such 
organizations  spent  some  $300  million  on  independent
expenditures in the 2012 election cycle. 

V 
At oral argument, the Government shifted its focus from