Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 567

406  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

799 (CADC 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concur­
ring in judgment). 

Consider  just  three  of  the  narrower  grounds  of  decision 
that the majority has bypassed.  First, the Court could have 
ruled,  on  statutory  grounds,  that  a  feature-length  ﬁlm 
distributed  through  video-on-demand  does  not  qualify  as 
an  “electioneering  communication”  under  § 203  of  BCRA, 
2  U. S. C.  § 441b.  BCRA  deﬁnes  that  term  to  encompass 
certain communications transmitted by “broadcast, cable, or 
satellite.”  § 434(f)(3)(A).  When  Congress  was  developing 
BCRA, the video-on-demand medium was still in its infancy, 
and legislators were focused on a  very different sort of pro­
gramming:  short  advertisements  run  on  television  or  radio. 
See  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  207.  The  sponsors  of  BCRA 
acknowledge  that  the  FEC’s  implementing  regulations  do 
not  clearly  apply  to  video-on-demand  transmissions.  See 
Brief for Senator John McCain et al. as Amici Curiae 17–18. 
In  light  of  this  ambiguity,  the  distinctive  characteristics  of 
video-on-demand,  and  “[t]he  elementary  rule  .  .  .  that  every 
reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save 
a  statute  from  unconstitutionality,”  Hooper  v.  California, 
155  U. S.  648,  657  (1895),  the  Court  could  have  reasonably 
ruled that § 203 does not apply to Hillary.13 

Second, the Court could have expanded the MCFL exemp­
tion to cover § 501(c)(4) nonproﬁts that accept only a de mini-
mis amount of money from for-proﬁt corporations.  Citizens 
United  professes  to  be  such  a  group:  Its  brief  says  it  “is 
funded  predominantly  by  donations  from  individuals  who 
support  [its]  ideological  message.”  Brief  for  Appellant  5. 
Numerous  Courts  of  Appeals  have  held  that  de  minimis 
business  support  does  not,  in  itself,  remove  an  otherwise 

13 The  Court  entirely  ignores  this  statutory  argument.  It  concludes 
that  § 203  applies  to  Hillary  on  the  basis  of  the  ﬁlm’s  content,  ante,  at 
324–326,  without  considering  the  possibility  that  § 203  does  not  apply  to 
video-on-demand transmissions generally.