Immediately after the BCRA became law, its constitutionality was Supreme Court of the United States upheld all of the Act\u27s major provisions. This Article will examine four main empirical claims the Court makes in McConnell: (1) wealthy campaign donors are able to buy greater access to politicians with campaign contributions, (2) limits on freedom to associate within party committees are necessary in order to prevent campaign finance abuses, (3) reductions in campaign funding will not inhibit political campaigns, and (4) those who purchase campaign advertisements must be identified so voters are not misled by the advertisements\u27 messages. The first two claims are diagnostic; they identify problems with the pre-BCRA political system. The final two claims are predictive; they examine the BCRA\u27s potential to reform campaign finance. Analyzing these four claims will provide insight into the Court\u27s beliefs about money\u27s corruptive effect on politics and the BCRA\u27s role in remedying that corruption. challenged in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, in which th
