Court Opinion

ID: 9434476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:46:47.969274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:50.935549
License: Public Domain

Justice Thomas,
with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting.
I continue to believe that campaign finance laws are subject to strict scrutiny. Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 465-466 (2001) (Colorado II) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 518 U. S. 604, 640 (1996) (Colorado I) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). *165See also Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 427 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). As in Colorado II, the Government does not argue here that 2 U. S. C. §441b survives review under that rigorous standard. Indeed, it could not. “[U]nder traditional strict scrutiny, broad prophylactic caps on ... giving in the political process . . . are unconstitutional,” Colorado 1, 518 U. S., at 640-641, because, as I have explained before, they are not narrowly tailored to meet any relevant compelling state interest, id., at 641-644; Nixon, supra, at 427-430. See also Colorado II, supra, at 465-466. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and respectfully dissent from the Court’s contrary disposition.