National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶133

The majority, to be sure, eventually proposes three changed circumstances (two legal, one factual) to support its holding—but none lives up to the billing. First, the majority contends that the Colorado II Court applied a standard of review more deferential than the one now used. See ante, at 23. But that is not so: Colorado II used the standard recognized as appropriate for the last 50 years. It asked “whether the restriction is ‘closely drawn’ to match what we have recognized as the ‘sufficiently important’ government interest in combating political corruption.” 533 U. S., at 456; see Buckley, 424 U. S., at 25 (same); McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 197 (same). In fact, even today’s majority ends up using that standard. See ante, at 10 (noting that the difference between it and some supposedly different test is “subtle” and in the end “academic”). Second, the majority faults the Colorado II…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.