Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 512.0

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

351 

Opinion of the Court 

guish  wealthy  individuals  from  corporations  on  the  ground 
that  “[s]tate  law  grants  corporations  special  advantages— 
such  as  limited  liability,  perpetual  life,  and  favorable  treat­
ment  of  the  accumulation  and  distribution  of  assets.”  494 
U. S.,  at  658–659.  This  does  not  sufﬁce,  however,  to  allow 
laws  prohibiting  speech.  “It  is  rudimentary  that  the  State 
cannot exact as the price of those special advantages the for­
feiture  of  First  Amendment  rights.”  Id.,  at 680  (Scalia, 
J., dissenting). 

It is irrelevant for purposes  of the First Amendment that 
corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the pub­
lic’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.”  Id., at 660 
(majority  opinion).  All  speakers,  including  individuals  and 
the  media,  use  money  amassed  from  the  economic  market­
place  to  fund  their  speech.  The  First  Amendment  protects 
the  resulting  speech,  even  if  it  was  enabled  by  economic 
transactions  with  persons  or  entities  who  disagree  with  the 
speaker’s  ideas.  See  id.,  at  707  (Kennedy,  J.,  dissenting) 
(“Many  persons  can  trace  their  funds  to  corporations,  if  not 
in the form of donations, then in the form of dividends, inter­
est, or salary”). 

Austin’s  antidistortion  rationale  would  produce  the  dan­
gerous,  and  unacceptable,  consequence  that  Congress  could 
ban political speech of media corporations.  See McConnell, 
540  U. S.,  at  283  (opinion  of  Thomas,  J.)  (“The  chilling  end­
point of the Court’s reasoning is not difﬁcult to foresee: out­
right  regulation  of  the  press”).  Cf.  Tornillo,  418  U. S.,  at 
250  (alleging  the  existence  of  “vast  accumulations  of  unre­
viewable power in the modern media empires”).  Media cor­
porations  are  now  exempt  from  § 441b’s  ban  on  corporate 
expenditures.  See  2  U. S. C.  §§ 431(9)(B)(i),  434(f)(3)(B)(i). 
Yet  media  corporations  accumulate  wealth  with  the  help  of 
the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “im­
mense aggregations  of wealth,” and the  views expressed by 
media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the 
public’s support” for those views.  Austin, 494 U. S., at 660.