Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 630

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

469 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

the speech of natural persons.  Recognizing the weakness of 
a speaker-based critique of Austin, the Court places primary 
emphasis  not  on  the  corporation’s  right  to  electioneer,  but 
rather on the listener’s interest in hearing what every possi­
ble speaker may have to say.  The Court’s central argument 
is that laws such as § 203 have “ ‘deprived [the electorate] of 
information,  knowledge  and  opinion  vital  to  its  function,’ ” 
ante, at 354 (quoting CIO, 335 U. S., at 144 (Rutledge, J., con­
curring  in  result)),  and  this,  in  turn,  “interferes  with  the 
‘open  marketplace’  of  ideas  protected  by  the  First  Amend­
ment,” ante, at 354 (quoting New York State Bd. of Elections 
v.  Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. 196, 208 (2008)). 

There are many ﬂaws in this argument.  If the overriding 
concern depends on the interests of the audience, surely the 
public’s  perception  of  the  value  of  corporate  speech  should 
be  given  important  weight.  That  perception  today  is  the 
same as it was a century ago when Theodore Roosevelt deliv­
ered the speeches to Congress that, in time, led to the limited 
prohibition on corporate campaign expenditures that is over­
ruled  today.  See  WRTL,  551  U. S.,  at  509–510  (Souter,  J., 
dissenting)  (summarizing  President  Roosevelt’s  remarks). 
The  distinctive  threat  to  democratic  integrity  posed  by  cor­
porate  domination  of  politics  was  recognized  at  “the  incep­
tion  of  the  republic”  and  “has  been  a  persistent  theme  in 
American  political  life”  ever  since.  Regan  302.  It  is  only 
certain Members of this Court, not the listeners themselves, 
who have agitated for more corporate electioneering. 

Austin recognized that there are substantial reasons why 
a legislature might conclude that unregulated general treas­
ury  expenditures  will  give  corporations  “unfai[r]  inﬂuence” 
in  the  electoral  process,  494  U. S.,  at  660,  and  distort  public 
debate  in  ways  that  undermine  rather  than  advance  the  in­
terests  of  listeners.  The  legal  structure  of  corporations 
allows  them  to  amass  and  deploy  ﬁnancial  resources  on  a 
scale  few  natural  persons  can  match.  The  structure  of  a 
business corporation, furthermore, draws a line between the