Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 11 KAGAN, J., dissenting public can see all the opportunities and incentives in the system for political corruption. At least apparent quid pro quos will be perceived all around. In short, as the political party becomes the conduit for oversized donations to a candidate, the constraints on actual and apparent corruption once offered by the base limits effectively disappear. None of this is a new insight. (Indeed, to call it even an old insight is to understate its obviousness.) Some 25 years ago, this Court in Colorado II upheld limits on a party’s coordinated expenditures against a First Amendment challenge identical to the one presented here. 533 U. S., at 465. And the Court did so on exactly the grounds I have laid out above—because “unlimited coordinated spending by a party raises the risk of corruption (and its appearance) through circumvention of valid contribution limits.” Id., at 456. In so holding, the Court recognized the strong role parties play in politics, and reaffirmed its holding that a party’s independent expenditures could not constitutionally be limited. See id., at 444. But the Court drew a sharp line between those expenditures and a party’s coordinated ones, based on their value to the candidate’s campaign. “[A] party’s coordinated expenditure,” we explained, was functionally the same as “a direct party contribution to the candidate.” Id., at 464. And because that was so, “a party’s right of unlimited coordinated spending would attract increased contributions to parties” as a way for a donor to pass on funds to a potential office-holder. Ibid. With that predictable outcome, base “contribution limits would be eroded.” Id., at 457. And as those limits became more fictitious than real, the danger would grow of donors and candidates striking “quid pro quo agreements.” Id., at 441. The only real-world change that has happened since then is that the danger is now still larger. That is because, put simply, this Court has ensured that the numbers are still bigger. For years, campaign finance law imposed “aggregate limits” on the amount a donor could give to federal