Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 69.0

18 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

coordinated  expenditures—in  amounts  that  range  from
$46,600 to $2.68 million for a general election (depending 
upon the size of Smith’s State and whether he is running 
for a House or Senate seat).  78 Fed. Reg. 8530–8532.  See 
Appendix B, Table 2(b), infra, at 40. 

The upshot is that Candidate Smith can receive at least 
$2.37 million and possibly the full $3.6 million contributed 
by  Rich  Donor  to  the  Smith  Victory  Committee,  even
though  the  funds  must  first  be  divided  up  among  the 
constituent  units  before  they  can  be  rerouted  to  Smith.
Nothing requires the Smith Victory Committee to explain 
in advance to Rich Donor all of the various transfers that 
will  take  place,  and  nothing  prevents  the  entities  in  the 
Committee  from  informing  the  donor  and  the  receiving
candidate after the fact what has transpired.  Accordingly,
the  money  can  be  donated  and  rerouted  to  Candidate 
Smith  without  the  donor  having  violated  the  base  limits 
or  any  other  FEC  regulation.    And  the  evidence  in  the 
McConnell  record  reprinted  in  Appendix  A,  infra—with 
respect  to  soft  money  contributions—makes  clear  that 
Candidate Smith will almost certainly come to learn from 
whom he has received this money.

The parties can apply the same procedure to other large
donations,  channeling  money  from  Rich  Donor  Two  to 
Candidate Jones.  If 10 or 20 candidates face particularly 
tight  races,  party  committees  and  party  candidates  may
work  together  to  channel  Rich  Donor  One’s  multimillion 
dollar contribution to the Most Embattled Candidate (e.g., 
Candidate  Smith),  Rich  Donor  Two’s  multimillion  dollar 
contribution  to  the  Second  Most  Embattled  Candidate 
(e.g.,  Candidate  Jones),  and  so  on  down  the  line.    If  this 
does  not  count  as  evasion  of  the  base  limits,  what  does? 
Present aggregate limits confine the size of any individual 
gift to $123,200.  Today’s opinion creates a loophole meas­
ured in the millions. 

Example  Three:  Proliferating  Political  Action  Commit-