National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶135

But there is no need to belabor the majority’s failures respecting stare decisis because today’s decision is wrong even if the Court were appropriately starting from scratch. The challenge for the majority is to explain how to prevent circumvention of the base contribution limits without the limits on a party’s coordinated expenditures in place. The majority takes some time to get around to that undertaking; it first wends its way through no less than three strawman arguments. See ante, at 10–13; see, e.g., ante, at 10 (“[N]o one actually invokes or defends” such an argument). And one can see why the majority is stalling: Once it gets to the crucial question, it has no satisfying account to offer. The majority places all its hopes on two alternative “prophylactic measures”: earmarking rules and disclosure requirements. Ante, at 21. But those two measures alone are insufficient to the…

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