Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 9 Opinion of the Court particularly Colorado II in 2001—cloud the issue and require additional and more nuanced analysis. This Court’s precedents start with the basic precept that when “the Government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U. S. 185, 210 (2014) (plurality opinion) (quotation marks omitted).3 Restrictions on campaign expenditures for political speech are permitted only in the exceedingly rare circumstances where they promote a compelling interest and are the “least restrictive means to further the articulated interest.” Id., at 197. The Court has held that statutory limits on contributions to candidates or parties—as distinct from limits on expenditures—are subject to “closely drawn” scrutiny, a nominally “lesser but still rigorous standard of review.” Ibid. (quotation marks omitted). The Government must demonstrate “a sufficiently important interest” and employ means “closely drawn” to that interest. Ibid. (quotation marks omitted). In recent cases such as McCutcheon and Cruz, the Court has stressed that, in order to satisfy closely drawn scrutiny, a regulation may not be “disproportionate” and must be “necessary” and “narrowly tailored” to its asserted goal. McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 199 (law must avoid “unnecessary” abridgment of speech to survive “rigorous” review (quotation marks omitted)); id., at 218 (law must be “narrowly tailored” to meet the objective (quotation marks omitted)); id., at 220 (law cannot be “disproportionate to the Government’s interest”); Cruz, 596 U. S., at 306 (law must be “necessary for the interest it seeks to protect”). —————— 3 In McCutcheon, THE CHIEF JUSTICE wrote the controlling opinion for four Justices. See Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 193 (1977). JUSTICE THOMAS concurred in the judgment on broader grounds.