Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 533

372  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Roberts, C. J., concurring 

the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, 
or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in 
political  speech.  2  U. S. C.  § 431(9)(A)(i).  Speech  would  be 
suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: 
in  the  public  dialogue  preceding  a  real  election.  Govern­
ments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our 
tradition  it  seems  stranger  than  ﬁction  for  our  Government 
to  make  this  political  speech  a  crime.  Yet  this  is  the  stat­
ute’s purpose and design. 

Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be 
insightful  and  instructive;  some  might  ﬁnd  it  to  be  neither 
high  art  nor  a  fair  discussion  on  how  to  set  the  Nation’s 
course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these 
points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. 
Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Gov­
ernment to make.  “The First Amendment underwrites the 
freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought 
and  speech.  Citizens  must  be  free  to  use  new  forms,  and 
new forums, for the expression of ideas.  The civic discourse 
belongs  to  the  people,  and  the  Government  may  not  pre­
scribe the means used to conduct it.”  McConnell, supra, at 
341 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). 

The  judgment  of  the  District  Court  is  reversed  with  re­
spect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. § 441b’s restrictions 
on  corporate  independent  expenditures.  The  judgment  is 
afﬁrmed  with  respect  to  BCRA’s  disclaimer  and  disclosure 
requirements.  The  case  is  remanded  for  further  proceed­
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

Chief  Justice  Roberts,  with  whom  Justice  Alito 

joins, concurring. 

The  Government  urges  us  in  this  case  to  uphold  a  direct 
prohibition on political speech.  It asks us to embrace a the­
ory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not 
only  of  television  and  radio  broadcasts,  but  of  pamphlets,