24 expenditures; (2) those that only contribute to candidates; and (3) those that make independent expenditures and contribute to candidates. Such political committees are, in the court’s view, entitled to raise and spend “unlimited money” for advertisements, get-out-the-vote efforts, and voter registration drives. Maj. Op. at 26. If these hybrid committees contribute to federal candidates, they must use hard money, says the court, but all other spending can be with soft money. This novel argument is not without considerable charm, but one must read Cal-Med with a squint to see that holding.14 There is no indication in Cal-Med that the committee did not make independent expenditures, but the Court still sustained the statute, without announcing the distinction the court draws today. The Court has consistently cited Cal-Med for the unqualified proposition that it is constitutional to limit contributions to multicandidate committees. See, e.g., FEC v. 14 The court relies heavily on Justice Blackmun’s concurring opinion in Cal-Med, arguing that it is controlling. But the opinion is controlling, if at all, only for “points that can be said to be fairly subsumed within the reasoning of the plurality.” John C. Eastman, Strictly Scrutinizing Campaign Finance Restrictions (and the Courts that Judge Them), 50 CATH. U. L. REV. 13, 37 (2000); see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977). This circuit has clarified it is only the narrowest opinion’s overlap with the broader opinion that counts. “Marks is workable—one opinion can be meaningfully regarded as ‘narrower’ than another—only when one opinion is a logical subset of other, broader opinions. In essence, the narrowest opinion must represent a common denominator of the Court’s reasoning; it must embody a position implicitly approved by at least five Justices who support the judgment.” King v. Palmer, 950 F.2d 771, 781 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (en banc). Presumably then, the controlling part of Justice Blackmun’s opinion is the holding that the FEC may constitutionally regulate contributions to fund independent political expenditures without contravening the First Amendment—no more and no less.