Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 12–536 _________________ SHAUN MCCUTCHEON, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [April 2, 2014] JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment. I adhere to the view that this Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), denigrates core First Amendment speech and should be overruled. See Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U. S. 230, 265–267 (2006) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment); Federal Election Comm’n v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146, 164–165 (2003) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 465–466 (2001) (Colorado II) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 412–420 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 518 U. S. 604, 635–640 (1996) (Colorado I ) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). Political speech is “ ‘the primary object of First Amendment protection’ ” and “the lifeblood of a self-governing people.” Colorado II, supra, at 465–466 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Contributions to political campaigns, no less than direct expenditures, “generate essential political speech” by fostering discussion of public issues and candidate qualifications. Shrink Missouri, supra, at 412 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also id., at 410–411. Buckley itself recognized that both contribution and expenditure