Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 577.0

416  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

corporate  and  union  PACs  raised  nearly  a  billion  dollars.30 
Administering  a  PAC  entails  some  administrative  burden, 
but  so  does  complying  with  the  disclaimer,  disclosure,  and 
reporting  requirements  that  the  Court  today  upholds,  see 
ante,  at  366–367,  and  no  one  has  suggested  that  the  burden 
is  severe  for  a  sophisticated  for-proﬁt  corporation.  To  the 
extent  the  majority  is  worried  about  this  issue,  it  is  impor­
tant  to  keep  in  mind  that  we  have  no  record  to  show  how 
substantial  the  burden  really  is,  just  the  majority’s  own  un­
supported  factﬁnding,  see  ante,  at  337–339.  Like  all  other 
natural  persons,  every  shareholder  of  every  corporation 
remains  entirely  free  under  Austin  and  McConnell  to  do 
however much electioneering she pleases outside of the cor­
porate  form.  The  owners  of  a  “mom  &  pop”  store  can  sim­
ply  place  ads  in  their  own  names,  rather  than  the  store’s. 
If  ideologically  aligned  individuals  wish  to  make  unlimited 
expenditures  through  the  corporate  form,  they  may  utilize 
an  MCFL  organization  that  has  policies  in  place  to  avoid 
becoming  a  conduit  for  business  or  union  interests.  See 
MCFL, 479 U. S., at 263–264. 

The  laws  upheld  in  Austin  and  McConnell  leave  open 
many  additional  avenues  for  corporations’  political  speech. 
Consider  the  statutory  provision  we  are  ostensibly  evaluat­
ing in this case, BCRA § 203.  It has no application to genu­
ine  issue  advertising—a  category  of  corporate  speech  Con­
gress  found  to  be  far  more  substantial  than  election-related 
advertising, see McConnell, 540 U. S., at 207—or to Internet, 

30 See  Supp.  Brief  for  Appellee  16  (citing  FEC  statistics  placing  this 
ﬁgure at $840 million).  The majority ﬁnds the PAC option inadequate in 
part  because  “[a]  PAC  is  a  separate  association  from  the  corporation.” 
Ante, at 337.  The formal “separateness” of PACs from their host corpora-
tions—which  administer  and  control  the  PACs  but  which  cannot  funnel 
general  treasury  funds  into  them  or  force  members  to  support  them—is, 
of course, the whole point of the PAC mechanism.