McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 200 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  Next

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

Opinion of Kennedy, J.

The majority, with a broad brush, paints § 323(a) as aimed at limiting contributions possessing federal officeholder corruption potential. From there it would justify § 323's remaining provisions as necessary complements to ensure the national parties cannot circumvent § 323(a)'s prohibitions. The broad brush approach fails, however, when the provisions are reviewed under Buckley's proper definition of corruption potential.

On its face § 323(a) does not regulate federal candidates' or officeholders' receipt of quids because it does not regulate contributions to, or conduct by, candidates or officeholders. See BCRA § 101(a) (setting out new FECA § 323(a): National parties may not "solicit, receive, or direct to another person . . . or spend any [soft money]").

The realities that underlie the statute, furthermore, do not support the majority's interpretation. Before BCRA's enactment, parties could only use soft money for a candidate's "benefit" (e. g., through issue ads, which all parties now admit may influence elections) independent of that candidate. And, as discussed later, § 323(e) validly prohibits federal candidate and officeholder solicitation of soft-money party donations. See infra, at 314. Section 323(a), therefore, only adds regulation to soft-money party donations not solicited by, or spent in coordination with, a candidate or officeholder.

These donations (noncandidate or officeholder solicited soft-money party donations that are independently spent) do not pose the quid pro quo dangers that provide the basis for restricting protected speech. Though the Government argues § 323(a) does regulate federal candidates' and office-holders' receipt of quids, it bases its argument on this flawed reasoning:

(1) "[F]ederal elected officeholders are inextricably linked to their political parties," Brief for Appellee/ Cross Appellant FEC et al. in No. 02-1674 et al., p. 21; cf. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 518 U. S. 604, 626 (1996) (Col-

299

Page:   Index   Previous  193  194  195  196  197  198  199  200  201  202  203  204  205  206  207  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007