Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 528.0

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

367 

Opinion of the Court 

tal  interest.  Buckley,  supra,  at  64,  66  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted); see McConnell, supra, at 231–232. 

In  Buckley,  the  Court  explained  that  disclosure  could  be 
justiﬁed based on a governmental interest in “provid[ing] the 
electorate  with  information”  about  the  sources  of  election-
related  spending.  424  U. S.,  at  66.  The  McConnell  Court 
applied  this  interest  in  rejecting  facial  challenges  to  BCRA 
§§ 201  and  311.  540  U. S.,  at  196.  There  was  evidence  in 
the  record  that  independent  groups  were  running  election-
related  advertisements  “ ‘while  hiding  behind  dubious  and 
misleading  names.’ ”  Id.,  at  197  (quoting  McConnell  I,  251 
F.  Supp.  2d,  at  237).  The  Court  therefore  upheld  BCRA 
§§ 201  and  311  on  the  ground  that  they  would  help  citizens 
“ ‘make informed choices in the political marketplace.’ ”  540 
U. S.,  at  197  (quoting  McConnell  I,  supra,  at  237);  see  540 
U. S., at 231. 

Although  both  provisions  were  facially  upheld,  the  Court 
acknowledged  that  as-applied  challenges  would  be  available 
if a group could show a “ ‘reasonable probability’ ” that disclo­
sure of its contributors’ names “ ‘will subject them to threats, 
harassment,  or  reprisals  from  either  Government  ofﬁcials 
or  private  parties.’ ”  Id.,  at  198  (quoting  Buckley,  supra, 
at 74). 

For  the reasons  stated  below, we  ﬁnd  the  statute valid  as 

applied to the ads for the movie and to the movie itself. 

B 

Citizens United sought to broadcast one 30-second and two 
10-second ads to promote Hillary.  Under FEC regulations, 
a  communication  that  “[p]roposes  a  commercial  transaction” 
was not subject to 2 U. S. C. § 441b’s restrictions on corporate 
or union funding of electioneering communications.  11 CFR 
§ 114.15(b)(3)(ii).  The  regulations,  however,  do  not  exempt 
those communications from the disclaimer and disclosure re­
quirements  in  BCRA  §§ 201  and  311.  See  72  Fed.  Reg. 
72901 (2007).