National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶137

Perhaps the majority thinks (I am guessing here, given the majority’s unwillingness to deal in the specifics of campaign finance) that no quid pro quo can occur in the above scenario because the $550,000 payment to the Victory Fund is unaccompanied by directions to use the money for the candidate. If so, that would be wrong. Suppose John Smith says to a donor: “If you give money to my Victory Fund, I will subsidize your latest venture” (or if John Smith were a Congressman, “I will vote to subsidize the venture”). And then the donor gives that money, without any earmark. That is a quid pro quo, pure and simple: The donor is making a requested payment to the candidate’s joint fundraising committee in exchange for an official act. The donor does not need to say any earmarking words. In fact, he does not even need to understand the campaign finance plumbing that will eventually make the…

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