Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 600

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

439 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

In the 20 years since Austin, we have reafﬁrmed its hold­
ing and rationale a number of times, see, e. g., Beaumont, 539 
U. S.,  at  153–156,  most  importantly  in  McConnell,  540  U. S. 
93,  where  we  upheld  the  provision  challenged  here,  § 203  of 
BCRA.62  Congress  crafted  § 203  in  response  to  a  problem 
created  by  Buckley.  The  Buckley  Court  had  construed 
FECA’s  deﬁnition  of  prohibited  “expenditures”  narrowly  to 
avoid  any  problems  of  constitutional  vagueness,  holding  it 
applicable  only  to  “communications  that  expressly  advocate 
the  election  or  defeat  of  a  clearly  identiﬁed  candidate,”  424 
U. S.,  at  80,  i. e.,  statements  containing  so-called  “magic 
words” like “ ‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’ ‘cast your ballot for,’ 
‘Smith  for  Congress,’  ‘vote  against,’  ‘defeat,’  [or]  ‘reject,’ ” 
id.,  at  43–44,  and  n.  52.  After  Buckley,  corporations  and 
unions  ﬁgured  out  how  to  circumvent  the  limits  on  express 
advocacy  by  using  sham  “issue  ads”  that  “eschewed  the  use 
of magic words” but nonetheless “advocate[d] the election or 
defeat of clearly identiﬁed federal candidates.”  McConnell, 
540 U. S., at 126.  “Corporations and unions spent hundreds 

62 According  to  The  Chief  Justice,  we  are  “erroneou[s]”  in  claiming 
that McConnell and Beaumont “ ‘reafﬁrmed’ ” Austin.  Ante, at 376–377. 
In both cases, the Court explicitly relied on Austin and quoted from it at 
length.  See 540 U. S., at 204–205; 539 U. S., at 153–155, 158, 160, 163; see 
also ante, at 332 (opinion of the Court) (“The holding and validity of Aus­
tin were  essential  to  the  reasoning  of  the  McConnell  majority  opinion”); 
Brief  for  Appellants  National  Riﬂe  Association  et  al.,  O.  T.  2003, 
No.  02–1675,  p.  21  (“Beaumont  reafﬁrmed  .  .  .  the  Austin  rationale  for 
restricting  expenditures”).  The  McConnell  Court  did  so  in  the  teeth  of 
vigorous  protests  by  Justices  in  today’s  majority  that  Austin  should  be 
overruled.  See  ante,  at  332  (citing  relevant  passages);  see  also  Beau­
mont, 539 U. S., at 163–164 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).  Both 
Courts  also  heard  criticisms  of  Austin  from  parties  or  amici.  See  Brief 
for  Appellants  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  et  al.,  O.  T. 
2003, No. 02–1756, p. 35, n. 22; Reply Brief for Appellants/Cross-Appellees 
Senator  Mitch  McConnell  et  al.,  O. T.  2003,  No.  02–1674,  pp.  13–14;  Brief 
for Paciﬁc Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae in FEC v.  Beaumont, O. T. 
2002,  No.  02–403,  passim.  If  this  does  not  qualify  as  reafﬁrmation  of  a 
precedent, then I do not know what would.