McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 174 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  Next

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

Opinion of Thomas, J.

A

Of course, by accepting Congress' expansion of what constitutes "coordination" for purposes of treating expenditures as limitations, the Court can pretend that it is, in fact, still only restricting primarily "contributions." I need not say much about this illusion. I have already discussed how the language used in new FECA § 315(a)(7)(B)(ii) is, even under Buckley's framework, overly broad and restricts fully protected speech. See Federal Election Comm'n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 467- 468 (2001) (Colorado II) (Thomas, J., dissenting). The particular language used, "expenditures made by any person . . . in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a national, State, or local committee of a political party," BCRA § 214(a)(2), captures expenditures with "no constitutional difference" from "a purely independent one." Id., at 468 (Thomas, J., dissenting).7 And new FECA § 315(a)(7)(C), although using the neutral term "coordinated," certainly has the purpose of "clarif[ying] the scope of the preceding subsection, § 315(a)(7)(B)," ante, at 202 ( joint opinion), and thus should be read to be as expansive as the overly broad language in § 315(a)(7)(B). Hence, it too is unconstitutional.

B

As for §§ 203 and 204, the Court rests its decision on another vast expansion of the First Amendment framework described in Buckley, this time of the Court's, rather than Congress', own making. In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 659-660 (1990), the Court recognized a "different type of corruption" from the " 'financial quid pro quo' ": the "corrosive and distorting effects of im-7 This is doubly so now that the Court has decided that there is no constitutional need for the showing even of an "agreement" in order to transform an expenditure into a "coordinated expenditur[e]" and hence into a contribution for FECA purposes. Ante, at 220-223 (joint opinion).

273

Page:   Index   Previous  167  168  169  170  171  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007