Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf
Page Number: 24

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

able to have a level playing field so I could stay in the ball 
game.”);  see  also  147  Cong.  Rec.  S2541  (March  20,  2001)
(remarks  of  Sen.  Hutchison)  (“Our  purpose  is  to  level  the 
playing field.”).

That the limit may have been designed to protect incum-
bents should come as no surprise.  Section 304 was enacted 
as  part  of  the  “Millionaire’s  Amendment”  to  BCRA,  de-
signed to hobble wealthy candidates mounting self-financed 
campaigns.  See Davis, 554 U. S., at 739.  And it was de-
bated together with another provision we have already held 
unconstitutional, in part because it pursued the same im-
permissible  goal  of  “level[ing]  electoral  opportunities  for
candidates of different personal wealth.”  Id., at 741.  The 
connection  between  these  two  provisions  casts  further
doubt on the anticorruption interest the Government now 
asserts in this case. 

3 
Perhaps to make up for its evidentiary shortcomings, the
Government falls back on what it calls a “common sense” 
analogy: Post-election contributions used to repay a candi-
date’s  loans  are  akin  to  a  “gift”  because  they  “add  to  the 
candidate’s personal wealth” as opposed to the campaign’s 
treasury.  Brief for Appellant 33.  The risk of corruption is
thus greater, the Government argues, because the donor is
lining the pockets of a legislator or legislator-elect. 

The dissent at multiple points makes the same argument, 
contending  that  contributions  that  go  toward  repaying  a 
candidate’s loan “enrich the candidate personally,” allowing
him to “buy a car or make tuition payments or join a country
club.”  Post, at 7, 14; see also post, at 2, 3, 8, 13.  But this 
forgets that we are talking about repayment of a loan, not 
a gift.  If the candidate did not have the money to buy a car 
before  he  made  a  loan  to  his  campaign,  repayment  of  the 
loan would not change that in any way.  

On  top  of  that,  contributions  that  go  toward  retiring  a