> the plurality, quite correctly, rejects that argument [...] because [t]o require one person to contribute at lower levels than others [...] imposes a special burden on broader participation in the democratic process. id at 231 (thomas, j., concurring). thomas endorses the majoritys view that restricting contributions at lower levels imposes an undue burden on democratic engagement, limiting the extent of participation for some contributors. *-* [dissenting opinion: justice breyer] > nearly 40 years ago in buckley v. valeo, [...] this court considered the constitutionality of laws that imposed limits upon the overall amount a single person can contribute to all federal candidates, political parties, and committees taken together. 572 u.s. at 232(breyer, j., dissenting). justice breyer begins by recalling the courts historical stance in buckley, where limits on aggregate contributions were upheld to maintain an electoral system responsive to all voters, not just those with significant financial influence. > corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary chain of communication between the people and their representatives. it derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. id at 240. (breyer, j., dissenting). breyer emphasizes that corruption distorts the relationship between citizens and their representatives, breaking the link that first amendment protections are meant to secure between public opinion and governmental action.
United States