12 registration drives. Non-profits in this category make no contributions to federal candidates or parties. The Supreme Court’s case law establishes that those nonprofit entities, like individual citizens, are constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office – with the narrow exception that, under Austin, the Government may restrict to some degree how non-profits spend donations received from the general treasuries of for-profit corporations or unions. See Cal. Med. Ass’n v. FEC, 453 U.S. 182, 202-03 (1981) (opinion of Blackmun, J.); see also FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, Inc. (MCFL), 479 U.S. 238, 259-65 (1986); NCPAC, 470 U.S. at 501; Citizens Against Rent Control, 454 U.S. at 296-99; Buckley, 424 U.S. at 47; N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274, 292-93 (4th Cir. 2008). Those principles were initially articulated in Cal-Med. There, Justice Blackmun determined that “contributions to political committees can be limited only if those contributions implicate the governmental interest in preventing actual or potential corruption, and if the limitation is no broader than necessary to achieve that interest.” Cal-Med, 453 U.S. at 203 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). Applying that standard, he found that “contributions to a committee that makes only independent expenditures pose no such threat” of “actual or potential corruption.” Id. “By pooling their resources, adherents of an association amplify their own voices; the association is but the medium through which its individual members seek to make more effective the expression of their own views.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Justice Blackmun thus concluded that Government