Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 608

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

447 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

IV 

Having  explained  why  this  is  not  an  appropriate  case  in 
which to  revisit Austin  and McConnell  and why  these deci­
sions  sit  perfectly  well  with  “First  Amendment  principles,” 
ante,  at  319,  363,  I  come  at  last  to  the  interests  that  are  at 
stake.  The majority recognizes that Austin and McConnell 
may  be  defended  on  anticorruption,  antidistortion,  and 
shareholder  protection  rationales.  Ante,  at  348–362.  It 
badly  errs  both  in  explaining the  nature  of  these  rationales, 
which  overlap  and  complement  each  other,  and  in  applying 
them to the case at hand. 

The Anticorruption Interest 

Undergirding the majority’s approach to the merits is the 
claim  that  the  only “sufﬁciently  important  governmental  in­
terest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corrup­
tion”  is  one  that  is  “limited  to  quid  pro  quo  corruption.” 
Ante, at 359.  This is the same “crabbed view of corruption” 
that  was  espoused  by  Justice  Kennedy  in McConnell  and 
squarely  rejected  by  the  Court  in  that  case.  540  U. S.,  at 
152.  While it is true that we have not always spoken about 
corruption in a clear or consistent voice, the approach taken 
by the  majority cannot  be right,  in my  judgment.  It disre­
gards  our  constitutional  history  and  the  fundamental  de­
mands of a democratic society. 

On  numerous  occasions  we  have  recognized  Congress’  le­
gitimate  interest  in  preventing  the  money  that  is  spent  on 
elections  from  exerting  an  “ ‘undue  inﬂuence  on  an  ofﬁce­
holder’s  judgment’ ”  and  from  creating  “ ‘the  appearance  of 
such inﬂuence,’ ” beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relation­
ships.  Id.,  at  150;  see  also,  e. g.,  id.,  at  143–144,  152–154; 
Colorado II, 533 U. S., at 441; Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 
389.  Corruption can take many forms.  Bribery may be the 
paradigm  case.  But  the  difference  between  selling  a  vote 
and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind.  And sell­