Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 641.0

480  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Thomas, J. 

Justice  Thomas,  concurring in part and dissenting in 

part. 

I join all but Part IV of the Court’s opinion. 
Political  speech  is  entitled  to  robust  protection  under  the 
First Amendment.  Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has never been reconcilable with 
that  protection.  By  striking  down  § 203,  the  Court  takes 
an  important  ﬁrst  step  toward  restoring  full  constitutional 
protection  to  speech  that  is  “indispensable  to  the  effective 
and intelligent use of the processes of popular government.” 
McConnell  v.  Federal  Election  Comm’n,  540  U. S.  93,  265 
(2003)  (Thomas,  J.,  concurring  in  part,  concurring  in  judg­
ment  in  part,  and  dissenting  in  part)  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).  I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s opin­
ion,  however,  because  the  Court’s  constitutional  analysis 
does  not  go  far  enough.  The  disclosure,  disclaimer,  and  re­
porting  requirements  in  BCRA  §§ 201  and  311  are  also  un­
constitutional.  See id., at 275–277, and n. 10. 

Congress  may  not  abridge  the  “right  to  anonymous 
speech”  based  on  the  “ ‘simple  interest  in  providing  voters 
with  additional  relevant  information,’ ”  id.,  at  276  (quoting 
McIntyre  v.  Ohio  Elections  Comm’n,  514  U. S.  334,  348 
(1995)).  In  continuing  to  hold  otherwise,  the  Court  misap­
prehends the import of “recent events” that some amici de­
scribe  “in  which  donors  to  certain  causes  were  blacklisted, 
threatened,  or  otherwise  targeted  for  retaliation.”  Ante, 
at  370.  The  Court  properly  recognizes  these  events  as 
“cause for concern,” ibid., but fails to acknowledge their con­
stitutional  signiﬁcance.  In  my  view,  amici’s  submissions 
show why the Court’s insistence on upholding §§ 201 and 311 
will  ultimately  prove  as  misguided  (and  ill  fated)  as  was  its 
prior approval of § 203. 

Amici’s  examples  relate  principally  to  Proposition  8,  a 
state  ballot  proposition  that  California  voters  narrowly 
passed in the 2008 general election.  Proposition 8 amended