Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 75.0

24 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

possibilities  for  circumvention.    Ante,  at  23.  That  is  be­
cause the regulation requires a showing that donors have
“knowledge  that  a  substantial  portion”  of  their  contribu­
tions  will  be  used  by  a  PAC  to  support  a  candidate  to 
whom  they  have  already  contributed.  §110.1(h)(2)  (em­
phasis added).  And “knowledge” is hard to prove. 

I have found nine FEC cases decided since the year 2000
that refer to this regulation.  In all but one, the FEC failed 
to find the requisite “knowledge”—despite the presence of 
Example  Two  or  Example  Three  circumstances.    See  Fac­
tual  and  Legal  Analysis,  In  re:  Transfund  PAC,  Matter 
Under  Review  (MUR)  6221,  p. 11  (FEC,  June  7,  2010) 
(although  the  donor  “might  reasonably  infer  that  some
portion  of  his  contribution”  to  a  candidate’s  Leadership 
PAC  would  be  used  to  support  the  candidate,  “such  an
inference  alone  does  not  suggest  that  [he]  had  ‘actual 
knowledge’ ”  of  such);  Factual  and  Legal  Analysis,  In  re: 
John Shadegg’s Friends, MUR 5968, pp. 3, 6–7 (FEC, Nov.
10,  2008)  (“[T]here  is  no  basis  on  which  to  conclude  that 
[the  donors]  knew  that  the  funds  they  contributed  to
LEAD  PAC  would  be  used  to  support  the  Shadegg  Com­
mittee”  even  though  Congressman  Shadegg  solicited  the 
donations  and  LEAD  PAC  was  Congressman  Shadegg’s
Leadership PAC); Factual and Legal Analysis, In re: Wal-
berg  for  Congress,  MUR  5881,  pp.  6,  9–11  (FEC,  Aug.  15,
2007) (finding seven contributors, who gave to a candidate 
and to a PAC that provided 86% of the candidate’s financ­
ing, had not shown “knowledge”); Factual and Legal Anal­
ysis, In re: Matt Brown for Senate, MUR 5732, p. 11 (FEC,
Apr. 4, 2007) (“Though it may be  reasonable to infer that
the individual donors solicited by Brown gave to the State 
Parties  under  the  assumption  that  some  portion  of  their 
contribution might then be donated to the Brown Commit­
tee, such an inference alone is insufficient to find reason to 
believe  11  CFR  §110.1(h)  has  been  violated”);  First  Gen­
eral Counsel’s Report, In re: Liffrig for Senate, MUR 5678,