Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 506.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

345 

Opinion of the Court 

Later,  in  Pipeﬁtters  v.  United  States,  407  U. S.  385,  400– 
401  (1972),  the  Court  reversed  a  conviction  for  expenditure 
of  union  funds  for  political  speech—again  without  reaching 
the  constitutional  question.  The  Court  would  not  resolve 
that question for another four years. 

2 

In Buckley, 424 U. S. 1, the Court addressed various chal­
lenges  to  the  Federal  Election  Campaign  Act  of  1971 
(FECA)  as  amended  in  1974.  These  amendments  created 
18  U. S. C.  § 608(e)  (1970  ed.,  Supp.  V),  see  88  Stat.  1265,  an 
independent  expenditure  ban  separate  from  § 610  that  ap­
plied to individuals as well as corporations and labor unions, 
Buckley, 424 U. S., at 23, 39, and n. 45. 

Before  addressing  the  constitutionality  of  § 608(e)’s  inde­
pendent  expenditure  ban,  Buckley  ﬁrst  upheld  § 608(b), 
FECA’s  limits  on  direct  contributions  to  candidates.  The 
Buckley Court recognized a “sufﬁciently important” govern­
mental interest in “the prevention of corruption and the ap­
pearance of corruption.”  Id., at 25; see id., at 26.  This fol­
lowed  from  the  Court’s  concern  that  large  contributions 
could be given “to secure a political quid pro quo.”  Ibid. 

The  Buckley  Court  explained  that  the  potential  for  quid 
pro quo corruption distinguished direct contributions to can­
didates from independent expenditures.  The Court empha­
sized  that  “the  independent  expenditure  ceiling . . . fails to  
serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the 
reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process,” 
id.,  at  47–48,  because  “[t]he  absence  of  prearrangement  and 
coordination . . . alleviates the danger that expenditures will 
be  given  as  a  quid  pro  quo  for  improper  commitments  from 
the candidate,” id., at 47.  Buckley invalidated § 608(e)’s re­
strictions on independent expenditures, with only one Justice 
dissenting.  See Federal Election Comm’n v.  National Con­
servative  Political  Action  Comm.,  470  U. S.  480,  491,  n.  3 
(1985) (NCPAC).