Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 607

446  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

discrimination,  targeted  one  class  of  corporations,  and  pro­
vided no PAC option; and the State has a greater interest in 
regulating independent corporate expenditures on candidate 
elections than on referenda, because in a functioning democ­
racy the public must have faith that its representatives owe 
their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the 
deepest pockets. 

*

*

* 

.

In  sum,  over  the  course  of  the  past  century  Congress  has 
demonstrated a recurrent need to regulate corporate partici­
pation  in  candidate  elections  to  “ ‘[p]reserv[e]  the  integrity 
of  the  electoral  process,  preven[t]  corruption, . . .  sustai[n] 
the  active,  alert  responsibility  of  the  individual  citizen,’ ” 
protect the expressive interests of shareholders, and “ ‘[p]re­
serv[e] .
. the individual  citizen’s  conﬁdence  in  govern­
ment.’ ”  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  206–207,  n.  88  (quoting 
Bellotti,  435  U. S.,  at  788–789;  ﬁrst  alteration  in  original). 
These  understandings  provided  the  combined  impetus  be­
hind  the  Tillman  Act  in  1907,  see  Automobile  Workers,  352 
U. S.,  at  570–575,  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  in  1947,  see  WRTL, 
551  U. S.,  at  511  (Souter,  J.,  dissenting),  FECA  in  1971,  see 
NRWC, 459 U. S., at 209–210, and BCRA in 2002, see McCon­
nell, 540 U. S., at 126–132.  Continuously for over 100 years, 
this  line  of  “[c]ampaign  ﬁnance  reform  has  been  a  series  of 
reactions  to  documented  threats  to  electoral  integrity  obvi­
ous to any voter, posed by large sums of money from corpo­
rate or union treasuries.”  WRTL, 551 U. S., at 522 (Souter, 
J.,  dissenting).  Time  and  again,  we  have  recognized  these 
realities in approving measures that Congress and the States 
have  taken.  None  of  the  cases  the  majority  cites  is  to  the 
contrary.  The only thing new about Austin was the dissent, 
with its stunning failure to appreciate the legitimacy of inter­
ests recognized in the name of democratic integrity since the 
days of the Progressives.