Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 628.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

467 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

spending  is  “furthest  from  the  core  of  political  expression.” 
Beaumont, 539 U. S., at 161, n. 8. 

It is an interesting question “who” is even speaking when 
a business corporation places an advertisement that endorses 
or  attacks  a  particular  candidate.  Presumably  it  is  not  the 
customers  or  employees,  who  typically  have  no  say  in  such 
matters.  It cannot realistically be said to be the sharehold­
ers,  who  tend  to  be  far  removed  from  the  day-to-day  deci­
sions  of  the  ﬁrm  and  whose  political  preferences  may  be 
opaque to management.  Perhaps the ofﬁcers or directors of 
the corporation have the best claim to be the ones speaking, 
except  their  ﬁduciary  duties  generally  prohibit  them  from 
using  corporate  funds  for  personal  ends.  Some  individuals 
associated  with  the  corporation  must  make  the  decision  to 
place the ad, but the idea that these individuals are thereby 
fostering  their  self-expression  or  cultivating  their  critical 
faculties is fanciful.  It is entirely possible that the corpora­
tion’s electoral message will conﬂict with their personal con­
victions.  Take  away  the  ability  to  use  general  treasury 
funds  for  some  of  those  ads,  and  no  one’s  autonomy,  dignity, 
or political equality has been impinged upon in the least. 

Corporate  expenditures  are  distinguishable  from  individ­
ual expenditures in this respect.  I have taken the view that 
a  legislature  may  place  reasonable  restrictions  on  individu­
als’ electioneering expenditures in the service of the govern­
mental  interests  explained  above,  and  in  recognition  of  the 
fact that such restrictions are not direct restraints on speech 
but rather on its ﬁnancing.  See, e. g., Randall, 548 U. S., at 
273  (dissenting  opinion).  But  those  restrictions  concededly 
present  a  tougher  case,  because  the  primary  conduct  of  ac­
tual,  ﬂesh-and-blood  persons  is  involved.  Some  of  those  in­
dividuals  might  feel  that  they  need  to  spend  large  sums  of 
money  on  behalf  of  a  particular  candidate  to  vindicate  the 
intensity  of  their  electoral  preferences.  This  is  obviously 
not the situation with business corporations, as their routine 
practice  of  giving  “substantial  sums  to  both  major  national