I can understand why the majority does not place much emphasis on this point. Some members of the majority have ridiculed the practice of relying on subsequent statements by legislators to demonstrate an earlier Congress’s intent in enacting a statute. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 631–632 (1990) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part); United States v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 434–435 (2009) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting).
…
So the majority has no evidence—zero, none—that the objective of the [Arizona Citizens Clean Elections] Act is anything other than the interest that the State asserts, the Act proclaims, and the history of public financing supports: fighting corruption.