Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 527

366  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

the  antidistortion  interest  recognized  in  Austin  to  uphold  a 
greater  restriction  on  speech  than  the  restriction  upheld  in 
Austin, see 540 U. S., at 205, and we have found this interest 
unconvincing  and  insufﬁcient.  This  part  of  McConnell  is 
now overruled. 

IV
 
A
 

Citizens  United  next  challenges  BCRA’s  disclaimer  and 
disclosure provisions as applied to Hillary and the three ad­
vertisements  for  the  movie.  Under  BCRA  § 311,  televised 
electioneering communications funded by anyone other than 
a  candidate  must  include  a  disclaimer  that  “ ‘––––––  is  re­
sponsible  for  the  content  of  this  advertising.’ ”  2  U. S. C. 
§ 441d(d)(2).  The  required  statement  must  be  made  in  a 
“clearly  spoken  manner,”  and  displayed  on  the  screen  in  a 
“clearly  readable  manner”  for  at  least  four  seconds.  Ibid. 
It  must  state  that  the  communication  “is  not  authorized  by 
any candidate or candidate’s committee”; it must also display 
the name and address (or Web site address) of the person or 
group  that  funded  the  advertisement.  § 441d(a)(3).  Under 
BCRA  § 201,  any  person  who  spends  more  than  $10,000 
on  electioneering  communications  within  a  calendar  year 
must  ﬁle  a  disclosure  statement  with  the  FEC.  2  U. S. C. 
§ 434(f)(1).  That statement must identify the person making 
the expenditure, the amount of the expenditure, the election 
to  which  the  communication  was  directed,  and  the  names  of 
certain contributors.  § 434(f)(2). 

Disclaimer  and  disclosure  requirements  may  burden  the 
ability  to  speak,  but  they  “impose  no  ceiling  on  campaign-
related activities,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, and “do not pre­
vent  anyone  from  speaking,”  McConnell,  supra,  at  201  (in­
ternal  quotation  marks  and  brackets  omitted).  The  Court 
has  subjected  these  requirements  to  “exacting  scrutiny,” 
which  requires  a  “substantial  relation”  between  the  disclo­
sure requirement and a “sufﬁciently important” governmen­