Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

12 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

rower  definition  of  “corruption,”  and  hence  of  the  public’s 
interest in political integrity, it is flatly inconsistent with 
McConnell. 

D 
One  case,  however,  contains  language  that  offers  the
plurality support.  That case is Citizens United.  There, as 
the  plurality  points  out,  ante,  at  19,  the  Court  said  that 
“[w]hen  Buckley  identified  a  sufficiently  important  gov­
ernmental  interest  in  preventing  corruption  or  the  ap­
pearance  of  corruption,  that  interest  was  limited  to  quid 
pro quo corruption.”  558 U. S., at 359.  Further, the Court 
said  that  quid  pro  quo  corruption  does  not  include  “influ­
ence  over  or  access  to  elected  officials,”  because  “  ‘generic
favoritism or influence theory . . . is at odds with standard
First  Amendment  analyses.’  ”    Ibid.  (quoting  McConnell, 
supra,  at  296  (KENNEDY,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment  in
part and dissenting in part)).

How  should  we  treat  these  statements  from  Citizens 
United now?  They are not essential to the Court’s holding
in  the  case—at  least  insofar  as  it  can  be  read  to  require
federal  law  to  treat  corporations  and  trade  unions  like 
individuals  when  they  independently  pay  for,  e.g.,  televi­
sion  advertising  during  the  last  60  days  of  a  federal  elec­
tion.  Citizens United,  supra, at 365.  Taken  literally, the
statements  cited  simply  refer  to  and  characterize  still­
earlier Court cases.  They do not require the more absolute 
reading that the plurality here gives them. 

More  than  that.  Read  as  the  plurality  reads  them  to­
day, the statements from Citizens United about the proper 
contours  of  the  corruption  rationale  conflict  not  just  with
language  in  the  McConnell  opinion,  but  with  McConnell’s 
very  holding.  See  supra,  at  9–11.    Did  the  Court  in  Citi-
zens United intend to overrule McConnell?  I doubt it, for 
if it did, the Court or certainly the dissent would have said
something  about  it.  The  total  silence  of  all  opinions  in