dissenting.
HH
Section 9011(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes the Federal Election Commission (FEC), “the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President” to institute actions “to implement or construe” the Fund Act. Relying on this provision, both the FEC and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) brought suit to enjoin expenditures by appellees that violated § 9012(f). Despite the identity of the issues raised and the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the majority holds that only the FEC properly invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court because only its action is “appropriate.” I disagree.
A
By its plain terms, § 9011(b)(1) confers standing on the DNC.1 The DNC’s suit is an “actio[n] for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief,” brought by “the national committee of [a] political party,” in order “to implement or construe” a provision of the Fund Act. See § 9011(b)(1). Therefore, the only possible reason for not allowing the suit is that, as the majority holds, it is inconsistent with the statute’s limitation to “such actions ... as may be appropriate.”
The majority exalts the requirement of appropriateness by ignoring the term’s context. Section 9011(b)(1) does not impose a free-floating requirement that any action brought thereunder meet some undefined standard of sound policy. Rather it merely refers to “such actions ... as may be appropriate to implement or con[s]true” the Fund Act. The term “appropriate” limits the type of suit permissible to those aimed at implementing or construing the Act. Thus, the *503named plaintiffs cannot bring just any action for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, but only those that would be “appropriate to implement or con[s]true” the Act.2 The DNC’s present suit satisfies that standard. The focus is the nature of the lawsuit, not the identity of the plaintiff. To read more into the term than this is to treat it as an invitation to unconstrained judicial policymaking.
By placing a greater burden on the term “appropriate” than it can bear, the majority reaches a result that also conflicts with the rest of the provision. Section 9011(b)(1) itself draws no distinction between the FEC and other plaintiffs. To the contrary, by listing them together it implies that they enjoy an equal capacity to bring suit. Indeed, the majority seems to agree. Acknowledging that a suit by the DNC might be “appropriate,” it finds its hands tied by the statute’s failure to distinguish between possible plaintiffs: “Congress simply did not draft the statute in a way that distinguishes the DNC from any individual voter.” Ante, at 488. This statement is perplexing, for the statute does not distinguish either from the FEC — though the majority does so anyway. *504It is not clear why the majority feels free to ignore the statutory language in order to separate the FEC from other plaintiffs, but obliged to adhere to it so as not to distinguish party committees from individual voters.
Rather than applying the statute’s plain words, the majority examines the overall election law scheme to discover what it thinks Congress would consider “appropriate.” But Congress does not usually operate by such complex hidden meanings, and if Congress had intended what the majority says it did, it chose the least helpful way of saying so. It is surprising to learn that while the FEC, a national committee, and an individual may each sue under the Act, the latter two may sue only the first. Surely if this is what Congress had intended, it would have chosen a more convenient way of saying it.3
The majority relies primarily on 2 U. S. C. §437c(b)(l), which grants the FEC “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of” the Act. When it adopted this provision, Congress did not change §9011, which had already been in existence for five years. Indeed, except for the 1974 substitution of the Commission for the Comptroller General, § 9011 has never been amended, despite the frequent changes to the FECA and to other Fund Act provisions. By basing its argument on §437c(b)(l), the majority contends in effect that § 9011 was repealed by implication. Absent a clear indication that such a repeal was intended, we should not infer *505it. Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U. S. 72, 88 (1982); Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503 (1936).
Here, all indications are to the contrary. When enacted, as part of the 1974 amendments to the FECA, §437c(b)(l) provided the Commission with “primary jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of” that Act. S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1237, p. 22 (1974). There was no reference to the Fund Act at that time, or to the FEC’s “exclusive” jurisdiction. Those were added in 1976. Pub. L. 94-283, § 101(c)(2), 90 Stat. 476. Two points must be made about the 1976 Amendments. First, the reference to “exclusive” jurisdiction was designed to centralize all governmental enforcement authority in the FEC. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-917, pp. 3-4 (1976).4 The majority does not deny this, but states that there is no indication that anyone other than the Government agencies ever had any enforcement authority. Ante, at 489. The indication that the majority overlooks is § 9011(b)(1) itself.5
The second significant aspect of the 1976 Amendments is the addition of 2 U. S. C. § 437d(e). That section provides: “Except as provided in section 437g(a)(8) of this title, the power of the Commission to initiate civil actions under, subsection (a)(6) of this section shall be the exclusive civil remedy for the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.”
*506“This Act” is specifically defined as the FECA. §431(19). See also H. R. Rep. No. 94-917, p. 61 (1976). The reference to “this Act” in §437d(e) is in marked contrast to the repeated references to “the provisions of this Act and chapter 95 and chapter 96 of title 26” (i. e., the Fund Act), also added in 1976, found throughout these provisions. See, e. g., §§437d(a)(6), (8); §437f(c)(2); §§437g(a)(1), (2), (5), (6). The conspicuous absence of any reference to the Fund Act in §437d(e) indicates that Congress intentionally made the FEC’s litigating authority exclusive only as to the FECA. This section makes it quite clear that actions under § 437g(a)(8) are the only permissible suits a private party may bring to implement or construe the FECA, but, by negative implication, it also suggests that private suits are not so limited under the Fund Act.
B
The majority places no reliance on the legislative history of § 9011. Admittedly, little is to be found. But what there is suggests that the DNC has standing to bring this action. Section 9011 was part of the Revenue Act of 1971. Pub. L. 92-178, § 801, 85 Stat. 570. It was in neither the House nor the Senate bill. In their joint explanatory statement, the conferees wrote that they had added “a provision to allow the Comptroller General or other interested parties to bring court actions in order to implement or construe the new provisions.” S. Conf. Rep. No. 92-553, p. 58 (1971). This description provides no basis for distinguishing the Comptroller General (in the amended statute, the FEC) from the “other interested parties.” Rather, it implies equal and independent authority to go to court.
The Conference Report goes on to note that “[bjecause the provisions of this title will have a direct and immediate effect on the actions of individuals, organizations, and political parties . . . [who] must know” what candidates and parties will receive what funding, the bill provides for “expeditious disposition of legal proceedings brought with respect to these *507provisions.” Id., at 58-59. This desire for speedy determinations explains why Congress provided the private right of action today’s holding eliminates. It also undermines the majority’s conclusion that it is “appropriate” to require those other than the FEC to file a complaint with the FEC and wait for it to act, or not act, sue to compel it to do so, and only then, if the FEC ignores a court order, bring suit themselves. That is a prescription for delay. The conferees’ concern for the expeditious resolution of suits brought by “other interested parties” indicates that they did not want to restrict implementation of the Fund Act to a Government agency.
C
“Appropriate” is not an ideal statutory term. But its vagueness should not be taken advantage of in order to read the provision in which it appears out of the United States Code. It is not an invitation to judicial legislation. A more restrained reading, consistent with congressional intent, the surrounding provisions, and, most important, the terms of the statute itself, is strongly indicated.
hH hH
Section 9012(f) of the Internal Revenue Code limits to $1,000 the annual independent expenditures a PAC can make to further the election of a candidate receiving public funds. Because these expenditures “produce speech at the core of the First Amendment,” ante, at 493, the majority concludes that they can only be regulated in order to avoid real or apparent corruption. Perceiving no such danger, since the money does not go directly to political candidates or their committees, it strikes down § 9012(f).
My disagreements with this analysis, which continues this Court’s dismemberment of congressional efforts to regulate campaign financing, are many. First, I continue to believe that Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), was wrongly decided. Congressional regulation of the amassing and spend*508ing of money in political campaigns without doubt involves First Amendment concerns, but restrictions such as the one at issue here are supported by governmental interests— including, but not limited to, the néed to avoid real or apparent corruption — sufficiently compelling to withstand scrutiny. Second, even were Buckley correct, I consider today’s holding a mistaken application of that precedent. The provision challenged here more closely resembles the contribution limitations that were upheld in Buckley, and later cases, than the limitations on uncoordinated individual expenditures that were struck down. Finally, even if Buckley requires that in general PACs be allowed to make independent expenditures, I do not think that that proposition applies to § 9012(f). As part of an integrated and complex system of public funding for Presidential campaigns, § 9012(f) is supported by governmental interests that were absent in Buckley, which was premised on a system of private campaign financing.
A
In Buckley, I explained at some length why I am quite sure that regulations of campaign spending similar to that at issue here are constitutional. See 424 U. S., at 257-266. I adhere to those views. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, not the right to spend, and limitations on the amount of money that can be spent are not the same as restrictions on speaking. I agree with the majority that the expenditures in this case “produce” core First Amendment speech. See ante, at 493. But that is precisely the point: they produce such speech; they are not speech itself. At least in these circumstances, I cannot accept the identification of speech with its antecedents. Such a house-that-Jack-built approach could equally be used to find a First Amendment right to a job or to a minimum wage to “produce” the money to “produce” the speech.
The burden on actual speech imposed by limitations on the spending of money is minimal and indirect. All rights of *509direct political expression and advocacy are retained. Even under the campaign laws as originally enacted, everyone was free to spend as much as they chose to amplify their views on general political issues, just not specific candidates. The restrictions, to the extent they do affect speech, are viewpoint-neutral and indicate no hostility to the speech itself or its effects.6
If the elected Members of the Legislature, who are surely in the best position to know, conclude that large-scale expenditures are a significant threat to the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, we should not second-guess that judgment. FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S. 197, 210 (1982). Like the expenditure limitations struck down in Buckley, § 9012(f) serves to back up the limitations on direct campaign contributions, eliminate the danger of corruption, maintain public confidence in the integrity of federal elections, equalize the resources available to the candidates, and hold the overall amount of money devoted to political campaigning down to a reasonable level. I consider these purposes both legitimate and substantial, and more than sufficient to support the challenged provision’s incidental and minor burden on actual speech.
In short, as I said in Buckley, 424 U. S., at 262, I cannot accept the cynic’s “money talks” as a proposition of constitutional law. Today’s holding also rests on a second aspect of the Buckley holding with which I disagree, viz., its distinction between “independent” and “coordinated” expenditures. The Court was willing to accept that expenditures undertaken in consultation with a candidate or his committee should be viewed as contributions. Id., at 46. But it rejected Congress’ judgment that independent expenditures were matters of equal concern, concluding that they did not *510pose the danger of real or apparent corruption that supported limits on contributions.7 The distinction is not tenable. “Independent” PAC expenditures function as contributions. Indeed, a significant portion of them no doubt would be direct contributions to campaigns had the FECA not limited such contributions to $5,000. See 2 U. S. C. § 441a(a)(2)(A). The growth of independent PAC spending has been a direct and openly acknowledged response to the contribution limits in the FECA. See, e. g., Brief for Appellees 3-4. In general, then, the reasons underlying limits on contributions equally underly limits on such “independent” expenditures.
The credulous acceptance of the formal distinction between coordinated and independent expenditures blinks political reality. That the PACs’ expenditures are not formally “coordinated” is too slender a reed on which to distinguish them from actual contributions to the campaign. The candidate cannot help but know of the extensive efforts “independently” undertaken on his behalf. In this realm of possible tacit understandings and implied agreements, I see no reason *511not to accept the congressional judgment that so-called independent expenditures must be closely regulated.8
The PACs do not operate in an anonymous vacuum. There are significant contacts between an organization like NCPAC and candidates for, and holders of, public office. In addition, personnel may move between the staffs of candidates or officeholders and those of PACs. See generally App. 30-40, Joint Stipulations of Fact Nos. 40-103. This is not to say that there has in the past been any improper coordination or political favors. We need not evaluate the accuracy of reports of such activities, or of the perception that large-scale independent PAC expenditures mean “the return of the big spenders whose money talks and whose gifts are not forgotten.” See N. Y. Times, June 15, 1980, section 4, p. 20E, col. 1. It is enough to note that there is ample support for the congressional determination that the corrosive effects of large campaign contributions — not least among these a public perception of business as usual — are not eliminated solely because the “contribution” takes the form of an “independent expenditure.” “Preserving the integrity of the electoral process [and] the individual citizen’s confidence in government” “are interests of the highest importance.” First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 788-789 (1978).
As in Buckley, I am convinced that it is pointless to limit the amount that can be contributed to a candidate or spent with his approval without also limiting the amounts that can be spent on his behalf.9 In the Fund Act, Congress limited *512contributions, direct or coordinated, to zero. It is nonsensical to allow the purposes of this limitation to be entirely-defeated by allowing the sort of “independent” expenditures at issue here, and the First Amendment does not require us to do so.
B
Even if I accepted Buckley as binding precedent, I nonetheless would uphold § 9012(f). Buckley distinguished “direct political expression,” which could not be curtailed, from financial contributions, which could. 424 U. S., at 21-22. Limitations on expenditures were considered direct restraints on the right to speak one’s mind on public issues and to engage in advocacy protected by the First Amendment. Id., at 48. The majority views the challenged provision as being in that category. I disagree.
The majority never explicitly identifies whose First Amendment interests it believes it is protecting. However, its concern for rights of association and the effective political speech of those of modest means, ante, at 494-495, indicates that it is concerned with the interests of the PACs’ contributors. But the “contributors” are exactly that — contributors, rather than speakers. Every reason the majority gives for treating § 9012(f) as a restraint on speech relates to the effectiveness with which the donors can make their voices heard. In other *513words, what the majority purports to protect is the right of the contributors to make contributions.
But the contributors are not engaging in speech; at least, they are not engaging in speech to any greater extent than are those who contribute directly to political campaigns. Buckley explicitly distinguished between, on the one hand, using one’s own money to express one’s views, and, on the other, giving money to someone else in the expectation that that person will use the money to express views with which one is in agreement. This case falls within the latter category. As the Buckley Court stated with regard to contributions to campaigns, “the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.” 424 U. S., at 21. The majority does not explain the metamorphosis of donated dollars from money into speech by virtue of the identity of the donee.
It is true that regulating PACs may not advance the Government’s interest in combating corruption as directly as limiting contributions to a candidate’s campaign. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 46. But this concern relates to the governmental interest supporting the regulation, not to the nature of the conduct regulated. Even if spending money is to be considered speech, I fail to see how giving money to an independent organization to use as it wishes is also speech. I had thought the holding in Buckley was exactly the opposite. Certainly later cases would so indicate. See FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S. 197 (1982); California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).
The Court strikes down § 9012(f) because it prevents PAC donors from effectively speaking by proxy. But appellees are not simply mouthpieces for their individual contributors. The PAC operates independently of its contributors. See App. 26, Joint Stipulation No. 13. Donations go into the committee’s general accounts. See App. 28-29, Joint Stipulations Nos. 27-30. It can safely be assumed that each contributor does not fully support every one of the variety of *514activities undertaken and candidates supported by the PAC to which he contributes. It is true, as the majority points out, that in general the contributors presumably like what they hear. However, “this sympathy of interests alone does not convert” the PACs’ speech into that of its contributors. California Medical Assn. v. FEC, supra, at 196.10
Finally, the burden imposed by § 9012(f) is slight. Exactly like the contributions limits upheld in Buckley, § 9012(f) “does not in any way infringe the contributor’s freedom to discuss candidates and issues.” 424 U. S., at 21. And because it does not limit personal expenditures, it does not “reduce the total amount of money potentially available to promote political expression.” Id., at 22. Accordingly, Buckley indicates that the decision below should be reversed.
C
These cases are in any event different enough from Buckley that that decision is not dispositive. The challenged provision is not part of the FECA, whose expenditure limitations were struck down in Buckley. Rather, it is part of the Fund Act, which was, to the extent it was before the Court, upheld.
The Fund Act provides major party candidates the option of accepting public financing, drawn from a fund composed of voluntary checkoffs from federal income tax payments, and forgoing all private contributions. In upholding this system *515in Buckley, we accepted Congress’ judgment that it would go far “to reduce the deleterious influence of large contributions on our political process, to facilitate communication by candidates with the electorate, and to free candidates from the rigors of fundraising.” 424 U. S., at 91. Indeed, we were of the view that the Fund Act “furthers, not abridges, pertinent First Amendment values” by using “public money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral process.” Id., at 92-93.
It is quite clear from the statutory scheme and the legislative history that the public financing alternative was to be comprehensive and exclusive — a total substitution for private financing. If the public funding merely supplements rather than supplants the private, its benefits are nil. Indeed, early proposals for public financing came to grief on exactly this problem. For example, Congress passed a public funding scheme in 1966, Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-809, 80 Stat. 1539, only to repeal it a year later. One of the reasons for abandoning that effort was, in the words of the sponsor of the repealing legislation, that it failed to limit the “raising and spending of private funds on behalf of presidential candidates or any other candidates” and would permit fundraising and spending to proceed as it had. 113 Cong. Rec. 8062-8063 (1967) (remarks of Sen. Gore). The same objection was voiced with regard to other proposals. See id., at 30772-30773; Political Campaign Financing Proposals, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Finance, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 169, 364, 389-390 (1967) (statements of Sens. Williams and Cannon). It is precisely this defect that § 9012(f) is designed to avoid.
Because it is an indispensable component of the public funding scheme, § 9012(f) is supported by governmental interests absent in Buckley. Rather than forcing Congress to abandon public financing because it is unworkable without constitutionally prohibited restrictions on independent spending, I would hold that § 9012(f) is permissible precisely *516because it is a necessary, narrowly drawn11 means to a constitutional end. The need to make public financing, with its attendant benefits, workable is a constitutionally sufficient additional justification for the burden on First Amendment rights.
The existence of the public financing scheme changes the picture in other ways as well. First, it heightens the danger of corruption discounted by the majority. If a candidate accepts public financing, private contributions are limited to zero. 26 U. S. C. §§ 9003(b)(2), 9012(b). Where there are no contributions being made directly to the candidate or his committee, and no expenditures of private funds subject to his direct control, “independent” expenditures are thrown into much starker relief. If those are the only private expenditures, their independence is little assurance that they will not be noticed, appreciated, and, perhaps, repaid.
The majority argues that there is no danger here of direct political favors — the paradigmatic ambassadorship in ex*517change for a large contribution. Accepting, arguendo, this assertion, I still do not share the majority’s equanimity about the infusion of massive PAC expenditures into the political process. The candidate may be forced to please the spenders rather than the voters, and the two groups are not identical. The majority concedes that aggregations of wealth influence the candidate for political office.12 It is exactly this influence that Congress sought to escape in providing for public financing of Presidential elections, and that supports the limitations it imposed.
The provision for exclusive public funding not only enhances the danger of real or perceived corruption posed by independent expenditures, it also gives more weight to the interest in holding down the overall cost of political campaigns. In Buckley, this concern was partly ignored and partly rejected as not achieved by the means chosen. See 424 U. S., at 25-26, and n. 27, 48-49. Neither course is possible here. The Fund Act was a response not merely to “the influence of excessive private political contributions,” but also to the “dangers of spiraling campaign expenditures.” H. R. Rep. No. 93-1239, p. 13 (1974). I am unwilling to discount the latter concern, particularly in the context of a scheme where public financing is supposed to replace private financing and cap total expenditures. Certainly there can be no concern that communication will suffer for want of money spent on the campaigns.13 Finally, in the context of the pub-*518lie financing scheme, the apparent congressional desire that elections should be between equally well financed candidates and not turn on the amount, of money spent for one or the other is all the more compelling, and the danger of funding disparities more serious.
D
By striking down one portion of an integrated and comprehensive statute, the Court has once again transformed a coherent regulatory scheme into a nonsensical, loophole-ridden patchwork. As The Chief Justice pointed out with regard to the similar outcome in Buckley, “[b]y dissecting the Act bit by bit, and casting off vital parts, the Court fails to recognize that the whole of this Act is greater than the sum of its parts.” 424 U. S., at 235. Without § 9012(f), Presidential candidates enjoy extensive public financing while those who would otherwise have worked for or contributed to a campaign had there been no such funding will pursue the same ends through “independent” expenditures. The result is that the old system remains essentially intact, but that much more money is being spent. In overzealous protection of attenuated First Amendment values, the Court has once again managed to assure us the worst of both worlds. I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the majority that, under the plain terms of § 9011(b)(1), the Democratic Party has no cause of action.
Section 9011(b)(1) mirrors 2 U. S. C. § 437h(a), which allows the same plaintiffs to “institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment, as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision of” the FECA. That section provides for certification of the constitutional question to the en banc court of appeals, and expedited review in this Court. I would read the word “appropriate” in both provisions identically, that is, as referring to the sort of controversy as to which the court’s jurisdiction may be invoked.
I also note that individuals are unquestionably able to invoke the rather drastic provisions for expedited review provided by § 437h. See Bread Political Action Committee v. FEC, 455 U. S. 577 (1982); 120 Cong. Rec. 35140 (1974) (statement of Rep. Frenzel). In light of the clear intent behind § 437h, I have less difficulty than does the majority in believing that Congress similarly “intended every one of the millions of eligible voters in this country to have the power to invoke expedited review by a three-judge district court with direct appeal to this Court in actions brought” under § 9011(b)(1). See ante, at 487-488.
The majority points to § 9010(a), which authorizes the FEC to “appear in and defend against any action filed under section 9011,” as evidence that § 9011 suits “would be directed at the FEC.” Ante, at 487. At most, this provision indicates that § 9011 suits could be directed against the Commis-. sion. In any event, the “defend against” language is fully explained by § 9011(a), which authorizes suits by “any interested person” to review “[a]ny certification, determination, or other action by the Commission.” It is likely that § 9010(a) was designed merely to give the FEC authority to defend itself in these actions. Cf. 26 U. S. C. § 9040(a). It is also worth noting that if Congress really intended that private parties be able to sue only the FEC, it essentially accomplished that purpose in § 9011(a).
Prior to 1976, the FECA included criminal proscriptions, found in Title 18 of the United States Code, whose enforcement was left to the Attorney General. In addition, civil enforcement authority was granted to both the FEC and the Attorney General. “The result was that enforcement responsibility was fragmented, and the line between improper conduct remediable in civil proceedings and conduct punishable as a crime blurred.” H. R. Rep. No. 94-917, p. 8 (1976). The 1976 Amendments were designed to centralize enforcement authority in the Commission. Id., at 3-4; S. Rep. No. 94-677, p. 7 (1976).
The majority states that § 9011(b)(1) has nothing to do with “enforcement.” Ante, at 489. If true, this assertion undermines the majority’s reliance on § 437c(b)(l) in the first place. That section grants the FEC “exclusive jurisdiction with respect to . . . civil enforcement”; it says nothing about “exclusive jurisdiction” to bring suits to implement or construe.
The situation might be different if the regulation significantly favored incumbents; for example, if Congress had imposed unreasonably low spending limits that placed a particular burden on challengers. There is no indication that is the case.
I note that the actual rationale of the Buckley Court was that “independent advocacy . . . does not presently appear to pose dangers of real or apparent corruption comparable to those identified with large campaign contributions.” 424 U. S., at 46 (emphasis added). The possibility was thus left open, and remains open, that unforeseen developments in the financing of campaigns might make the need for restrictions on “independent” expenditures more compelling. See also First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 789-790 (1978). The exponential growth in PAC expenditures, accompanied by an equivalent growth in public and congressional concern, suggests that independent expenditures may well prove to be more serious threats than they appeared in 1976. See generally Hearings on S. 85 et al. before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983) (hereinafter 1983 Hearings); Contribution Limitations and Independent Expenditures, Hearings before the Task Force on Elections of the House Committee on House Administration, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 151-437 (1982). The time may come when the governmental interests in restricting such expenditures will be sufficiently compelling to satisfy not only Congress but a majority of this Court as well.
In opposing an early version of campaign spending legislation, Senator Gore objected to the bill because “expenditures would be outside the so-called restriction as long as the candidate had no ‘control’ over the organization, and lack of ‘control’ is very easy to manage.” 113 Cong. Ree. 10201 (1967). See also 1983 Hearings, at 56 (statement of Sen. Bentsen).
In a discussion with which I entirely agree, the Senate Committee supported the 1974 limits on “independent expenditures” as follows:
“[S]ueh controls are imperative if Congress is to enact meaningful limits on direct contributions. Otherwise, wealthy individuals limited to a $3,000 *512direct contribution could also purchase one hundred thousand dollars’ worth of advertisements for a favored candidate. Such a loophole would render direct contribution limits virtually meaningless.
“Admittedly, expenditures made directly by an individual to urge support of a candidate pose First Amendment issues more vividly than do financial contributions to a campaign fund. Nevertheless, to prohibit a $60,000 direct contribution to be used for a TV spot commercial but then to permit the would-be contributor to purchase the time himself, and place a commercial endorsing the candidate, would exalt constitutional form over substance. Your Committee does not believe the First Amendment requires such a wooden construction.” S. Rep. No. 93-689, pp. 18-19 (1974).
It is unclear whether the majority views § 9012(f) as an unconstitutional restriction on the First Amendment rights of appellees themselves. To the extent it does, I would have thought that such a conclusion was foreclosed by the Court’s unanimous holding in FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U. S. 197 (1982). That decision cannot be explained away as merely a corporations case. Ante, at 495-496. The respondent in that case resembled appellees here far more closely than it resembled the traditional business corporation. In any event, the opinion referred broadly to “unions, corporations, and similar organizations,” citing to a case involving a PAC, 459 U. S., at 210-211, and its reasoning applies equally here.
Congress debated proposals to extend § 9012(f) to other organized groups or even individuals. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-708, p. 58 (1971); 117 Cong. Rec. 42397-42402,42626-42627 (1971). It rejected such proposals in part out of concern for the constitutionality of any more sweeping restriction. See id., at 42626. In light of Congress’ careful balancing of First Amendment concerns against the integrity and effectiveness of public funding, I would be especially cautious before striking down its compromise.
Despite the restricted reach of § 9012(f), the majority announces that it is overbroad. I do not think these are appropriate cases for the “strong medicine” of overbreadth analysis, which “has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973), and which assumes a chilling effect that, frankly, does not seem to be a problem here. In any event, the statute withstands scrutiny. It is carefully limited to those organizations, spending that amount of money, that Congress believed threatened the integrity of the electoral process. I fully share the majority’s inability to “distinguish in principle between a PAC that has solicited 1,000 $25 contributions and one that has solicited 100,000 $25 contributions.” Ante, at 499. But that is exactly why the statute is not overbroad. See Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 801-802 (1984).
One Senator has stated with regard to congressional campaigning: “[T]he current system of financing congressional elections . . . virtually forces Members of Congress to go around hat in hand, begging for money from Washington-based special interest groups, political action committees whose sole purpose for existing is to seek a quid pro quo. . . . We see the degrading spectacle of elected representatives completing detailed questionnaires on their positions on special interest issues, knowing that the monetary reward of PAC support depends on the correct answers.” 1988 Hearings, at 49 (statement of Sen. Eagleton).
During the 1984 general election campaign, each major party candidate received $40.4 million in public funds, and each national committee was *518permitted to spend another $6.9 million on its candidate’s behalf. N. Y. Times, Aug. 29, 1984, p. A20, col. 1.