Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 47

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 12–536 
_________________ 

SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, ET AL., APPELLANTS v.
 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

[April 2, 2014]

 JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. 

I adhere to the view that this Court’s decision in Buckley
 
v.  Valeo,  424  U. S.  1  (1976)  (per  curiam),  denigrates  core
First  Amendment  speech  and  should  be  overruled.  See 
Randall  v.  Sorrell,  548  U. S.  230,  265–267  (2006) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment);  Federal  Election 
Comm’n  v.  Beaumont,  539  U. S.  146,  164–165  (2003) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting);  Federal  Election  Comm’n  v. 
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 
431,  465–466  (2001)  (Colorado  II)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissent-
ing); Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 
(2000)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting);  Colorado 
377,  412–420 
Republican  Federal  Campaign  Comm.  v.  Federal  Election 
Comm’n,  518  U. S.  604,  635–640  (1996)  (Colorado  I )
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment  and  dissenting  in 
part).

Political  speech  is  “ ‘the  primary  object  of  First  Amend-
ment  protection’ ”  and  “the  lifeblood  of  a  self-governing 
people.”  Colorado  II,  supra,  at  465–466  (THOMAS,  J., 
dissenting).  Contributions  to  political  campaigns,  no  less 
than  direct  expenditures,  “generate  essential  political
speech”  by  fostering  discussion  of  public  issues  and  can- 
didate  qualifications.  Shrink  Missouri,  supra,  at  412 
(THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also id., at 410–411.  Buckley
itself  recognized  that  both  contribution  and  expenditure