Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 554

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

393 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

for  excluding  any  category  of  speaker,  from  single  individu­
als to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associa­
tions of individuals, to incorporated associations of individu­
als—and  the  dissent  offers  no  evidence  about  the  original 
meaning of the  text to support any  such exclusion.  We are 
therefore  simply  left  with  the  question  whether  the  speech 
at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amend­
ment.  No one says otherwise.  A documentary ﬁlm critical 
of  a  potential  Presidential  candidate  is  core  political  speech, 
and  its  nature  as  such  does  not  change  simply  because  it 
was funded by a corporation.  Nor does the character of that 
funding  produce  any  reduction  whatever  in  the  “inherent 
worth of the speech” and “its capacity for informing the pub­
lic,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v.  Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 
(1978).  Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to 
muzzle  the  principal  agents  of  the  modern  free  economy. 
We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this 
speech to the public debate. 

Justice  Stevens,  with  whom  Justice  Ginsburg,  Jus­
tice  Breyer,  and  Justice  Sotomayor  join,  concurring  in 
part and dissenting in part. 

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appel­
lant  may  ﬁnance  its  electioneering.  Citizens  United  is  a 
wealthy  nonproﬁt  corporation  that  runs  a  political  action 
committee  (PAC)  with  millions  of  dollars  in  assets.  Under 
the  Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act  of  2002  (BCRA),  it 
could  have  used  those  assets  to  televise  and  promote  Hil­
lary:  The  Movie  wherever  and  whenever  it  wanted  to.  It 
also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary 
at  any  time  other  than  the  30  days  before  the  last  primary 
election.  Neither  Citizens  United’s  nor  any  other  corpora­
tion’s  speech  has  been  “banned,”  ante,  at  319.  All  that  the 
parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use 
the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during 
the  30-day  period.  The  notion  that  the  First  Amendment