24 III We now consider whether the 2004 FEC regulations at issue in this case comport with the relevant constitutional principles. They do not. The fundamental flaw, as counsel for EMILY’s List succinctly stated at oral argument, is that the Commission improperly “brought to bear what was essentially a political party analysis to a non-connected, independent committee which is not under the control of, or associated with Court had no need to address). In the key concluding sentence in the footnote, the Court rejected the idea that the government could only regulate “parties as pass-throughs.” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 152 n.48 (emphasis added). Moreover, footnote 48 was responding to a point in Justice Kennedy’s dissent that had nothing to do with non-profits. See Briffault, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. at 986 (“importantly, the McConnell footnote was written in the course of the Court’s analysis of BCRA’s application of contribution limits to the activities of political parties”). We would unfairly wrench footnote 48 from its context were we to adopt the broad interpretation some have proposed. Third, in a later passage in the McConnell opinion, the Court explained that, under the statute, “[i]nterest groups . . . remain free to raise soft money to fund voter registration, GOTV activities, mailings,” and advertisements. 540 U.S. at 187. That passage – and the accompanying discussion – would make little sense if footnote 48 were read to equate non-profits with political parties. Fourth, the Fourth Circuit in North Carolina Right to Life refused to adopt this broad reading of footnote 48; it eschewed the dissenting judge’s extensive reliance on it. See 525 F.3d at 333-34 (Michael, J., dissenting). In short, we decline to read this footnote addressing a different issue in McConnell to indirectly (i) overrule Buckley, (ii) discard Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Cal-Med, and (iii) equate non-profits with political parties, contrary to other discussion in McConnell.