Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

4 

MCCUTCHEON v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

(protecting the use of an obscenity for emphasis). 

Although  today’s  decision  represents  a  faithful  applica-
tion of our precedents, the plurality’s discussion of Buckley
omits  any  reference  to  these  discarded  rationales. 
In-
stead,  the  plurality  alludes  only  to  Buckley’s  last  remain-
ing reason for devaluing political contributions relative to 
expenditures.  See  ante,  at  8  (quoting  Buckley,  424  U. S., 
at  21).  The  relevant  sentence  from  Buckley  reads  as 
follows: 

“A  limitation  on  the  amount  of  money  a  person  may
give to a candidate or campaign organization thus in-
volves  little  direct  restraint  on  his  political  commu- 
nication,  for  it  permits  the  symbolic  expression  of
support  evidenced  by  a  contribution  but  does  not  in 
any  way  infringe  the  contributor’s  freedom  to  discuss
candidates and issues.”  Ibid. 

That  proposition,  read  in  full,  cannot  be  squared  with  a
key premise of today’s decision.

Among the Government’s justifications for the aggregate
limits set forth in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002  (BCRA)  is  that  “an  individual  can  engage  in  the
‘symbolic  act  of  contributing’  to  as  many  entities  as  he 
wishes.”  Brief  for  Appellee  20.    That  is,  the  Government 
contends  that  aggregate  limits  are  constitutional  as  long 
as an individual can still contribute some token amount (a
dime,  for  example)  to  each  of  his  preferred  candidates. 
The  plurality,  quite  correctly,  rejects  that  argument, 
noting that “[i]t is no answer to say that the individual can
simply contribute less money to more people.”  Ante, at 16. 
That is so because “[t]o require one person to contribute at
lower levels than others because he wants to support more 
candidates  or  causes  is  to  impose  a  special  burden  on
broader participation in the democratic process.”  Ibid. 

What  the  plurality  does  not  recognize  is  that  the  same
logic also defeats the reasoning from Buckley on which the