28 are the more natural path to “corruption,” McConnell, 540 U.S. at 297 (Kennedy, J., dissenting), but if my colleagues are correct, Congress cannot regulate them the same way it regulates county directors of animal control.17 Precedent is plain: local officials must use hard money to attack federal candidates, see id. at 184–85, but as the court now resolves this case, multicandidate political committees cannot be so limited. Can that be right? The court’s opinion is boldly creative, and will, if followed, have profound results on campaign finance regulation. This case means: 1. Multicandidate political committees can spend unlimited amounts of soft money to run ads attacking or supporting federal candidates and political parties. 2. These committees can spend unlimited amounts of soft money on get-out-the-vote activities that support federal candidates and political parties. 3. These committees can solicit soft money by saying: “Just like you, we want [federal candidate] to win. You have already donated all the law allows to [federal candidate], but there is no limit on how much you can give to us to support [federal candidate].” 4. Congress can do nothing about any of this. These results are in tension—perhaps irreconcilable tension— with McConnell. 17 Though these regulations go further than BCRA § 323(f), by the court’s opinion, it would not matter if they were exactly the same: nonprofits are categorically distinct. See Maj. Op. at 22.