Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 501

340  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v.  Roy, 401 
U. S. 265, 272 (1971)); see Buckley, supra, at 14 (“Discussion 
of public issues and debate on the qualiﬁcations of candidates 
are  integral  to  the  operation  of  the  system  of  government 
established by our Constitution”). 

For  these  reasons,  political  speech  must  prevail  against 
laws  that  would  suppress  it,  whether  by  design  or  inadver­
tence.  Laws  that  burden  political  speech  are  “subject  to 
strict  scrutiny,”  which  requires  the  Government  to  prove 
that  the  restriction  “furthers  a  compelling  interest  and  is 
narrowly  tailored  to  achieve  that  interest.”  WRTL,  551 
U. S.,  at 464  (opinion of  Roberts,  C. J.).  While  it might  be 
maintained that political speech simply cannot be banned or 
restricted as a categorical matter, see Simon & Schuster, 502 
U. S.,  at  124  (Kennedy,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment),  the 
quoted  language  from  WRTL  provides  a  sufﬁcient  frame­
work for protecting the relevant First Amendment interests 
in this case.  We shall employ it here. 

Premised  on  mistrust  of  governmental  power,  the  First 
Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain sub­
jects or viewpoints.  See, e. g., United States v.  Playboy En­
tertainment  Group,  Inc.,  529  U. S.  803,  813  (2000)  (striking 
down  content-based  restriction).  Prohibited,  too,  are  re­
strictions  distinguishing  among  different  speakers,  allowing 
speech by some but not others.  See First Nat. Bank of Bos­
ton v.  Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 784 (1978).  As instruments to 
censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions 
based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply 
a means to control content. 

Quite  apart  from  the  purpose  or  effect  of  regulating  con­
tent, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional 
wrong  when  by  law  it  identiﬁes  certain  preferred  speakers. 
By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to oth­
ers,  the  Government  deprives  the  disadvantaged  person  or 
class  of  the  right  to  use  speech  to  strive  to  establish  worth,