Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 21

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

15 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

tial amounts of money in order to communicate [his] polit-
ical  ideas  through  sophisticated”  means.    National  Con-
servative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S., at 493.  Either 
way,  he  is  participating  in  an  electoral  debate  that  we
have recognized is “integral to the operation of the system 
of government established by our Constitution.”  Buckley, 
supra, at 14. 

Buckley  acknowledged  that  aggregate  limits  at  least 
diminish  an  individual’s  right  of  political  association.    As 
the  Court  explained,  the  “overall  $25,000  ceiling  does 
impose an ultimate restriction upon the number of candi-
dates and committees with which an individual may asso-
ciate himself by means of financial support.”  424 U. S., at 
38.  But  the  Court  characterized  that  restriction  as  a 
“quite  modest  restraint  upon  protected  political  activity.” 
Ibid.    We  cannot  agree  with  that  characterization.    An 
aggregate  limit  on  how  many  candidates  and  committees 
an  individual  may  support  through  contributions  is  not  a 
“modest  restraint”  at  all.    The  Government  may  no  more
restrict  how  many  candidates  or  causes  a  donor  may 
support  than  it  may  tell  a  newspaper  how  many  candi-
dates it may endorse.

To  put  it  in  the  simplest  terms,  the  aggregate  limits
prohibit  an  individual  from  fully  contributing  to  the  pri-
mary  and  general  election  campaigns  of  ten  or  more  can-
didates, even if all contributions fall within the base limits 
Congress views as adequate to protect against corruption. 
The  individual  may  give  up  to  $5,200  each  to  nine  candi-
dates, but the aggregate limits constitute an outright ban
on  further  contributions  to  any  other  candidate  (beyond
the  additional  $1,800  that  may  be  spent  before  reaching 
the  $48,600  aggregate  limit).    At  that  point,  the  limits 
deny  the  individual  all  ability  to  exercise  his  expressive
and  associational  rights  by  contributing  to  someone  who 
will  advocate  for  his  policy  preferences.    A  donor  must 
limit the number of candidates he supports, and may have