Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

14 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

“was  rendered  without  full  briefing  or  argument”).    We 
are  confronted  with  a  different  statute  and  different 
legal  arguments,  at  a  different  point  in  the  development 
of  campaign 
Appellants’  sub-
stantial  First  Amendment  challenge  to  the  system  of 
aggregate limits currently in place thus merits our plenary 
consideration.4 

finance  regulation. 

III 
The  First  Amendment  “is  designed  and  intended  to
remove  governmental  restraints  from  the  arena  of  public 
discussion, putting  the decision as to what  views shall be
voiced largely into the hands of each of us, . . . in the belief 
that no other approach would comport with the premise of 
individual  dignity  and  choice  upon  which  our  political 
system  rests.”  Cohen  v.  California,  403  U. S.  15,  24 
(1971).  As  relevant  here,  the  First  Amendment  safe-
guards  an  individual’s  right  to  participate  in  the  public
debate  through  political  expression  and  political  associa-
tion.  See  Buckley,  424  U. S.,  at  15.    When  an  individual 
contributes  money  to  a  candidate,  he  exercises  both  of 
those rights: The contribution “serves as a general expres-
sion  of  support  for  the  candidate  and  his  views”  and 
“serves  to  affiliate  a  person  with  a  candidate.”    Id.,  at 
21–22. 

Those First Amendment rights are important regardless
whether  the  individual  is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  “lone  pam-
phleteer[  ]  or  street  corner  orator[  ]  in  the  Tom  Paine
mold,”  or  is,  on  the  other,  someone  who  spends  “substan-

—————— 

4 The dissent contends that we should remand for development of an 
evidentiary  record  before  answering  the  question  with  which  we  were
presented.  See  post,  at  28–30  (opinion  of  BREYER,  J).  But  the  parties
have  treated  the  question  as  a  purely  legal  one,  and  the  Government 
has insisted that the aggregate limits can be upheld under the existing 
record  alone.    See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  43,  55–56.    We  take  the  case  as  it 
comes to us.