Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 566

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

405 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

types  of  corporations,  or  unions.  It  certainly  would  not  in­
validate  the  statute  as  applied  to  a  large  for-proﬁt  corpora­
tion.  See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  8,  4  (Mar.  24,  2009)  (counsel  for 
Citizens  United  emphasizing  that  appellant is  “a  small,  non­
proﬁt organization, which is very much like [an MCFL corpo­
ration],”  and  afﬁrming  that  its  argument  “deﬁnitely  would 
not be the same” if Hillary were distributed by General Mo­
tors).12  There is no legitimate basis for resurrecting a facial 
challenge that dropped out of this case 20 months ago. 
Narrower Grounds 

It is all the more distressing that our colleagues have man­
ufactured  a  facial  challenge,  because  the  parties  have  ad­
vanced numerous ways to resolve the case that would facili­
tate  electioneering  by  nonproﬁt  advocacy  corporations  such 
as Citizens United, without toppling statutes and precedents. 
Which  is  to  say,  the  majority  has  transgressed  yet  another 
“cardinal” principle of the judicial process: “[I]f it is not nec­
essary  to  decide  more,  it  is  necessary  not  to  decide  more,” 
PDK Labs. Inc. v.  Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F. 3d 786, 

12 The  Chief  Justice  is  therefore  much  too  quick  when  he  suggests 
that,  “[e]ven  if  considered  in  as-applied  terms,  a  holding  in  this  case  that 
the  Act  may  not  be  applied  to  Citizens  United—because  corporations  as 
well  as  individuals  enjoy  the  pertinent  First  Amendment  rights—would 
mean  that  any  other  corporation  raising  the  same  challenge  would  also 
win.”  Ante, at 376 (concurring opinion).  That conclusion would only fol­
low if the Court were to ignore Citizens United’s plausible as-applied argu­
ments and instead take the implausible position that all corporations and 
all  types  of  expenditures  enjoy  the  same  First  Amendment  protections, 
which  always  trump  the  interests  in  regulation.  At  times,  the  majority 
appears  to  endorse  this  extreme  view.  At  other  times,  however,  it  ap­
pears  to  suggest  that  nonproﬁt  corporations  have  a  better  claim  to  First 
Amendment  protection  than  for-proﬁt  corporations,  see  ante,  at  337,  355, 
“advocacy”  organizations  have  a  better  claim  than  other  nonproﬁts,  ante, 
at  337,  domestic  corporations  have  a  better  claim  than  foreign  corpora­
tions, ante, at 362, small corporations have a better claim than large corpo­
rations,  ante,  at  354–356,  and  printed  matter  has  a  better  claim  than 
broadcast communications, ante, at 349.  The majority never uses a multi­
national business corporation in its hypotheticals.