Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 643.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

598

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

tutional, as is the congressional determination to favor de-
cency and respect for beliefs and values over the opposite
because such favoritism does not “abridge” anyone’s freedom
of speech.

Ibid.

Respondents, relying on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visi-
tors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 833 (1995), argue that
viewpoint-based discrimination is impermissible unless the
government is the speaker or the government is “disburs-
[ing] public funds to private entities to convey a governmen-
tal message.”
It is impossible to imagine why that
should be so; one would think that directly involving the gov-
ernment itself in the viewpoint discrimination (if it is uncon-
stitutional) would make the situation even worse. Respond-
ents are mistaken.
It is the very business of government to
favor and disfavor points of view on (in modern times, at
least) innumerable subjects—which is the main reason we
have decided to elect those who run the government, rather
than save money by making their posts hereditary. And it
makes not a bit of difference, insofar as either common sense
or the Constitution is concerned, whether these ofﬁcials fur-
ther their (and, in a democracy, our) favored point of view
by achieving it directly (having government-employed art-
ists paint pictures, for example, or government-employed
doctors perform abortions); or by advocating it ofﬁcially (es-
tablishing an Ofﬁce of Art Appreciation, for example, or an
Ofﬁce of Voluntary Population Control); or by giving money
to others who achieve or advocate it (funding private art
classes, for example, or Planned Parenthood).3 None of this
has anything to do with abridging anyone’s speech. Rosen-
berger, as the Court explains, ante, at 586, found the view-

3 I suppose it would be unconstitutional for the government to give
money to an organization devoted to the promotion of candidates nomi-
nated by the Republican Party—but it would be just as unconstitutional
for the government itself to promote candidates nominated by the Repub-
lican Party, and I do not think that that unconstitutionality has anything
to do with the First Amendment.