Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 615

454  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

arrangements as do large contributions.’ ”  WRTL, 551 U. S., 
at 478 (opinion of Roberts, C. J.) (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., 
at  45).  Certainly  Buckley  did  not  foreclose  this  possibility 
with  respect  to  electioneering  communications  made  with 
corporate general treasury funds, an issue the Court had no 
occasion to consider. 

The Austin Court did not rest its holding on quid pro quo 
corruption, as it found the broader corruption implicated by 
the  antidistortion  and  shareholder  protection  rationales  a 
sufﬁcient  basis  for  Michigan’s  restriction  on  corporate  elec­
tioneering.  494 U. S., at 658–660.  Concurring in that opin­
ion,  I  took  the  position  that  “the  danger  of  either  the  fact, 
or  the  appearance,  of  quid  pro  quo  relationships  [also]  pro­
vides an adequate justiﬁcation for state regulation” of these 
independent  expenditures.  Id.,  at  678.  I  did  not  see  this 
position as inconsistent with Buckley’s analysis of individual 
expenditures.  Corporations,  as a  class, tend  to be  more at­
tuned to the complexities of the legislative process and more 
directly  affected  by  tax  and  appropriations  measures  that 
receive  little  public  scrutiny;  they  also  have  vastly  more 
money with which to try to buy access and votes.  See Supp. 
Brief  for  Appellee  17  (stating  that  the  Fortune  100  compa­
nies  earned  revenues  of  $13.1  trillion  during  the  last  elec­
tion cycle).  Business corporations must engage the political 
process in instrumental terms if they are to maximize share­
holder  value.  The  unparalleled  resources,  professional  lob­
byists,  and  single-minded  focus  they  bring  to  this  effort, 
I believed, make quid pro quo corruption and its appearance 
inherently more likely when they (or their conduits or trade 
groups) spend unrestricted sums on elections. 

It  is  with  regret  rather  than  satisfaction  that  I  can  now 
say  that  time  has  borne  out  my  concerns.  The  legislative 
and judicial proceedings relating to BCRA generated a sub­
stantial  body  of  evidence  suggesting  that,  as  corporations 
grew  more  and  more  adept  at  crafting  “issue  ads”  to  help