Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 80

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

29 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

the basis of a similar record. 

For  one  thing,  an  evidentiary  record  can  help  us  deter­
mine  whether  or  the  extent  to  which  we  should  defer  to 
Congress’  own  judgments,  particularly  those  reflecting  a
balance  of  the  countervailing  First  Amendment  interests 
I  have  described.  Determining  whether  anticorruption 
objectives  justify  a  particular  set  of  contribution  limits 
requires  answering  empirically  based  questions,  and  ap- 
plying  significant  discretion  and  judgment.  To  what  ex­
tent  will  unrestricted  giving  lead  to  corruption  or  its 
appearance?  What  forms  will  any  such  corruption  take? 
To what extent will a lack of regulation undermine public
confidence in the democratic system?  To what extent can 
regulation restore it?

These kinds of questions, while not easily answered, are
questions that Congress is far better suited to resolve than
are judges.  Thus, while court review of contribution limits 
has  been  and  should  be  “rigorous,”  Buckley,  424  U. S.,  at 
29,  we  have  also  recognized  that  “deference  to  legislative
choice  is  warranted.”  Beaumont,  539  U. S.,  at  155.    And 
that  deference  has  taken  account  of  facts  and  circum­
stances set forth in an evidentiary record.

For another thing, a comparison of the plurality’s opin­
ion  with  this  dissent  reveals  important  differences  of 
opinion on fact-related matters.  We disagree, for example,
on the possibilities for circumvention of the base limits in
the  absence  of  aggregate  limits.    We  disagree  about  how 
effectively  the  plurality’s  “alternatives”  could  prevent
evasion.  An  evidentiary  proceeding  would  permit  the
parties  to  explore  these  matters,  and  it  would  permit  the
courts  to  reach  a  more  accurate  judgment.    The  plurality
rationalizes  its  haste  to  forgo  an  evidentiary  record  by
noting  that  “the  parties  have  treated  the  question  as  a 
purely legal one.”  Ante, at 14, n. 4.  But without a doubt, 
the  legal  question—whether  the  aggregate  limits  are 
closely drawn to further a compelling governmental inter­