Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 484.0

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

323 

Opinion of the Court 

does not qualify as an “electioneering communication.” 
§ 441b(b)(2).  Citizens  United  raises  this  issue  for  the  ﬁrst 
time  before  us,  but  we  consider  the  issue  because  “it  was 
addressed  by  the  court  below.”  Lebron  v.  National  Rail­
road  Passenger  Corporation,  513  U. S.  374,  379  (1995);  see 
530  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  277,  n.  6.  Under  the  deﬁnition  of  elec­
tioneering  communication,  the  video-on-demand  showing  of 
Hillary  on  cable  television  would  have  been  a  “cable  .  .  . 
communication” that “refer[red] to a clearly identiﬁed candi­
date  for  Federal  ofﬁce”  and  that  was  made  within  30  days 
of  a  primary  election.  2  U. S. C.  § 434(f)(3)(A)(i).  Citizens 
United,  however,  argues  that  Hillary  was  not  “publicly 
distributed,” because a single video-on-demand transmission 
is  sent  only  to  a  requesting  cable  converter  box  and  each 
separate  transmission,  in  most  instances,  will  be  seen  by 
just  one  household—not  50,000  or  more  persons.  11  CFR 
§ 100.29(a)(2); see § 100.29(b)(3)(ii). 

This argument ignores the regulation’s instruction on how 
to determine whether a cable transmission “[c]an be received 
by  50,000  or  more  persons.”  § 100.29(b)(3)(ii).  The  regu­
lation  provides  that  the  number  of  people  who  can  receive 
a  cable  transmission  is  determined  by  the  number  of  cable 
subscribers  in  the  relevant  area.  §§ 100.29(b)(7)(i)(G),  (ii). 
Here,  Citizens  United  wanted  to  use  a  cable  video-on­
demand system that had 34.5 million subscribers nationwide. 
App.  256a.  Thus,  Hillary  could  have  been  received  by 
50,000 persons or more. 

One amici brief asks us, alternatively, to construe the con­
dition  that  the  communication  “[c]an  be  received  by  50,000 
or more persons,” § 100.29(b)(3)(ii)(A), to require “a plausible 
likelihood  that  the  communication  will  be  viewed  by  50,000 
or more potential voters”—as opposed to requiring only that 
the communication is “technologically capable” of being seen 
by that many people, Brief for Former Ofﬁcials of the Ameri­
can  Civil  Liberties  Union  5.  Whether  the  population  and 
demographic  statistics  in  a proposed  viewing  area  consisted