Aggregate limits violate the First Amendment because they are not “closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms.” Buckley, 424 U.S., at 25, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659. In the First Amendment context, fit matters. Even when the Court is not applying strict scrutiny, it still requires “a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is ‘in proportion to the interest served,’ . . . that employs not necessarily the least restrictive means but . . . a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480, 109 S. Ct. 3028, 106 L. Ed. 2d 388 (1989) (quoting In re R. M. J., 455 U.S. 191, 203, 102 S. Ct. 929, 71 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1982)).
The indiscriminate ban on all contributions above the aggregate limits is disproportionate to the Government’s interest in preventing circumvention. “Restrictions on direct contributions are preventative, because few if any contributions to candidates will involve quid pro quo arrangements.” Citizens United, 558 U.S., at 357, 130 ...