gloss · the reading room

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n · ¶56

That is a serious argument. This Court has recognized the risk of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance when a donor’s contributions are earmarked—that is, “are directed, in some manner, to a candidate or officeholder.” Ibid. (quotation marks omitted). Indeed, plaintiffs do not dispute that the Government possesses a constitutionally sufficient interest in restricting earmarking of funds over the contribution limits. Brief for Petitioners 21–24; Tr. of Oral Arg. 37.
Read in context ›

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