Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 73

22 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

But  the  ultimate  question  in  the  affiliation  inquiry  is
whether “one committee or organization [has] been estab­
lished,  financed,  maintain  or  controlled  by  another  com­
mittee or sponsoring organization.”  Ibid.  Just because  a 
group of multicandidate PACs all support the same party
and  all  decide  to  donate  funds  to  a  group  of  endangered 
candidates  in  that  party  does  not  mean  they  will  qualify 
as  “affiliated”  under  the  relevant  definition.    This  rule 
appears  inadequate  to  stop  the  sort  of  circumvention
depicted in Example Three. 

Third, the  plurality says that a post-Buckley  regulation
has  strengthened  the  statute’s  earmarking  provision. 
Ante,  at  12.    Namely,  the  plurality  points  to  a  rule  pro-
mulgated by the FEC in 1976, specifying that earmarking
includes  any  “designation  ‘whether  direct  or  indirect, 
express  or  implied,  oral  or  written.’ ”    Ibid.  (quoting  11
CFR  §110.6(b));  accord,  41  Fed.  Reg.  35950  (1976).    This 
means  that  if  Rich  Donor  were  to  give  $5,000  to  a  PAC 
while  “designat[ing]”  (in  any  way)  that  the  money  go  to 
Candidate  Smith,  those  funds  must  count  towards  Rich 
Donor’s total allowable contributions to Smith—$5,200 per 
election  cycle.  But  the  virtually  identical  earmarking
provision in effect when this Court decided Buckley would 
have required the same thing.  That provision also counted,
when  applying  the  base  contribution  limits,  “all  contri- 
butions made by a person, either directly or indirectly, on
behalf  of  a  particular  candidate,  including  contributions
which  are  in  any  way  earmarked  or  otherwise  directed 
through  an  intermediary  or  conduit  to  a  candidate.”  88 
Stat. 1264; accord, 2 U. S. C. §441a(a)(8) (same).  What is 
the difference? 

Fourth,  the  plurality  points  out  that  the  FEC’s  regula­
tions “specify that an individual who has contributed to a
particular candidate committee may not also contribute to 
a single-candidate committee for that candidate.”  Ante, at 
12–13 (citing 11 CFR §110.1(h)(1); emphasis added).  The