National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶139

The majority’s second prophylactic reed—disclosure requirements—is even weaker. Here, the majority heralds the wonders of “modern technology,” which allows “massive quantities of information [to] be accessed at the click of a mouse.” Ante, at 16–17. But to what end exactly? It is good that voters can learn of the size of contributions—including substantial ones to fundraising committees. But that information does not reveal quid pro quo dealing, and so cannot adequately deter it. That is why this Court in Buckley held that although disclosure requirements were “salutary” measures, they could not possibly take the place of contribution limits. 424 U. S., at 28; see ibid. (“[C]orruption [is] inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed”). And if disclosure cannot…

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