Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

33 

Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

explained, “restrictions on direct contributions are preven-
tative, because few if any contributions to candidates will
involve quid pro quo arrangements.”  Citizens United, 558 
U. S.,  at  357.  The  aggregate  limits  are  then  layered  on
top, ostensibly to prevent circumvention of the base limits. 
This  “prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis  approach”  requires
that  we  be  particularly  diligent  in  scrutinizing  the  law’s 
fit.  Wisconsin  Right  to  Life,  551  U. S.,  at  479  (opinion  of 
ROBERTS,  C. J.);  see  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  268–269 
(opinion of THOMAS, J.). 

2 
Importantly, there are multiple alternatives available to
Congress  that  would  serve  the  Government’s  anticircum-
vention interest, while avoiding “unnecessary abridgment” 
of First Amendment rights.  Buckley, 424 U. S., at 25. 

The most obvious might involve targeted restrictions on
transfers  among  candidates  and  political  committees.
There  are  currently  no  such  limits  on  transfers  among 
party  committees  and  from  candidates  to  party  commit-
tees.  See  2  U. S. C.  §441a(a)(4);  11  CFR  §113.2(c).    Per-
haps  for  that  reason,  a  central  concern  of  the  District
Court,  the  Government,  multiple  amici  curiae,  and  the 
dissent has been the ability of party committees to trans-
fer money freely.  If Congress agrees that this is problem-
atic, it might tighten its permissive transfer rules.  Doing
so  would  impose  a  lesser  burden  on  First  Amendment
rights,  as  compared  to  aggregate  limits  that  flatly  ban
contributions  beyond  certain  levels.    And  while  the  Gov-
ernment has not conceded that transfer restrictions would 
be  a  perfect  substitute  for  the  aggregate  limits,  it  has
recognized that they would mitigate the risk of circumven-
tion.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 29.

One possible option for restricting transfers would be to
require contributions above the current aggregate limits to 
be  deposited  into  segregated,  nontransferable  accounts