McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 254 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  Next

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

Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting

186 (declaration of Stephen L. Dasbach et al. ¶11 (describing Libertarian Party)).

As these activities illustrate, political parties often foster speech crucial to a healthy democracy, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 820 (Leon, J.), and fulfill the need for like-minded individuals to band together and promote a political philosophy, see Jones, supra, at 574; Eu, supra, at 225. When political parties engage in pure political speech that has little or no potential to corrupt their federal candidates and officeholders, the Government cannot constitutionally burden their speech any more than it could burden the speech of individuals engaging in these same activities. E. g., National Conservative Political Action Comm., supra, at 496-497; Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. Berkeley, 454 U. S. 290, 297-298 (1981); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 27. Notwithstanding the Court's citation to the numerous abuses of FECA, under any definition of "exacting scrutiny," the means chosen by Congress, restricting all donations to national parties no matter the purpose for which they are given or are used, are not "closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms," id., at 25.

BCRA's overinclusiveness is not limited to national political parties. To prevent the circumvention of the ban on the national parties' use of nonfederal funds, BCRA extensively regulates state parties, primarily state elections, and state candidates. For example, new FECA § 323(b), by reference to new FECA §§ 301(20)(A)(i)-(ii), prohibits state parties from using nonfederal funds 1 for general partybuilding activities such as voter registration, voter identification, and get out the vote for state candidates even if federal candidates are not mentioned. See 2 U. S. C. §§ 441i(b), 431(20)(A)(i)-(ii) (Supp. II). New FECA § 323(d) prohib-1 The Court points out that state parties may use Levin funds for certain activities. Levin funds, however, are still federal restrictions on speech, even if they are less onerous than the restrictions placed on national parties.

353

Page:   Index   Previous  247  248  249  250  251  252  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007