Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 489

328  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

only takes effect if the Wellstone Amendment is invalidated. 
See  McConnell,  supra,  at 339  (Kennedy,  J.,  concurring 
in  judgment  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part).  The  Snowe-
Jeffords  Amendment  would  exempt  from  § 441b’s  expendi­
ture ban the political speech of certain nonproﬁt corporations 
if the speech were funded “exclusively” by individual donors 
and  the  funds  were  maintained  in  a  segregated  account. 
§ 441b(c)(2).  Citizens United would not qualify for the 
Snowe-Jeffords  exemption,  under  its  terms  as  written,  be­
cause  Hillary  was  funded  in  part  with  donations  from  for-
proﬁt corporations. 

Consequently,  to  hold  for  Citizens  United  on  this  argu­
ment,  the  Court  would  be  required  to  revise  the  text  of 
MCFL,  sever  BCRA’s  Wellstone  Amendment,  § 441b(c)(6), 
and ignore the plain text of BCRA’s Snowe-Jeffords Amend­
ment, § 441b(c)(2).  If the Court decided to create a de mini-
mis exception to MCFL or the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, 
the  result  would  be  to  allow  for-proﬁt  corporate  general 
treasury funds to be spent for independent expenditures that 
support  candidates.  There  is  no  principled  basis  for  doing 
this without rewriting Austin’s holding that the Government 
can  restrict  corporate  independent  expenditures  for  politi­
cal speech. 

Though  it  is  true  that  the  Court  should  construe  statutes 
as  necessary  to  avoid  constitutional  questions,  the  series  of 
steps suggested would be difﬁcult to take in view of the lan­
guage  of  the  statute.  In  addition  to  those  difﬁculties  the 
Government’s  suggestion  is  troubling  for  still  another  rea­
son.  The  Government  does  not  say  that  it  agrees  with  the 
interpretation  it  wants  us  to  consider.  See  Supp.  Brief  for 
Appellee  3,  n.  1  (“Some  courts”  have  implied  a  de  minimis 
exception,  and  “appellant  would  appear  to  be  covered  by 
these  decisions”).  Presumably  it  would  ﬁnd  textual  difﬁ­
culties  in  this  approach  too.  The  Government,  like  any 
party,  can  make  arguments  in  the  alternative;  but  it  ought 
to  say  if  there  is  merit  to  an  alternative  proposal  instead  of