Why did the district court believe party committees could be used to direct money toward one candidate?

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the district court argued that aggregate contribution limits were necessary to prevent individuals from evading base limits on contributions to single candidates. The court outlined a hypothetical, multi-step process through which party committees could function as conduits to funnel large sums to a specific candidate:1

• Step 1: An individual makes a single large contribution to a joint fundraising committee.1
• Step 2: The committee distributes the funds among several party committees in accordance with base limits.1
• Step 3: Because there are no limits on transfers between party committees of the same party, these committees transfer the received money to a single party committee.1
• Step 4: That final committee uses the total transferred amount to cover the expenditures of a single candidate.1

While the court acknowledged that it might seem unlikely for multiple entities to serve as conduits, it reasoned that parties could implicitly agree to such a system, noting that the potential for a quid pro quo exchange does not depend on the number of steps involved in the transaction.1