McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 132 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  Next

Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)

Opinion of the Court

The McConnell and Chamber of Commerce plaintiffs challenge BCRA § 311 by simply noting that § 311, along with all of the "electioneering communications" provisions of BCRA, is unconstitutional. We disagree. We think BCRA § 311's inclusion of electioneering communications in the FECA § 318 disclosure regime bears a sufficient relationship to the important governmental interest of "shed[ding] the light of publicity" on campaign financing. Buckley, 424 U. S., at 81. Assuming as we must that FECA § 318 is valid to begin with, and that FECA § 318 is valid as amended by BCRA § 311's amendments other than the inclusion of electioneering communications, the challenged inclusion of electioneering communications is not itself unconstitutional. We affirm the District Court's decision upholding § 311's expansion of FECA § 318(a) to include disclosure of disbursements for electioneering communications.

BCRA § 318

BCRA § 318, which adds FECA § 324, prohibits individuals "17 years old or younger" from making contributions to candidates and contributions or donations to political parties. 2 U. S. C. § 441k (Supp. II). The McConnell and Echols plaintiffs challenge the provision; they argue that § 318 violates the First Amendment rights of minors. We agree.

Minors enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. See, e. g., Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 511-513 (1969). Limitations on the amount that an individual may contribute to a candidate or political committee impinge on the protected freedoms of expression and association. See Buckley, supra, at 20-22. When the Government burdens the right to contribute, we apply heightened scrutiny. See ante, at 136 ( joint opinion of Stevens and O'Connor, JJ.) ("[A] contribution limit involving even ' "significant interference" ' with associational rights is nevertheless valid if it satisfies the 'lesser demand' of being ' "closely drawn" ' to match a ' "sufficiently important

231

Page:   Index   Previous  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007