Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 477.0

316  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Syllabus 

least, they avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded 
by  a  candidate  or  political  party.  Citizens  United’s  arguments  that 
§ 311 is underinclusive because it requires disclaimers for broadcast ad­
vertisements  but  not  for  print  or  Internet  advertising  and  that  § 311 
decreases the quantity and effectiveness of the group’s speech were re­
jected  in  McConnell.  This  Court  also  rejects  their  contention  that 
§ 201’s  disclosure  requirements  must  be  conﬁned  to  speech  that  is  the 
functional equivalent of express advocacy under WRTL’s test for restric­
tions  on  independent  expenditures,  551  U. S.,  at  469–476  (opinion  of 
Roberts,  C.  J.).  Disclosure  is  the  less  restrictive  alternative  to  more 
comprehensive  speech  regulations.  Such  requirements  have  been  up­
held  in  Buckley  and  McConnell.  Citizens  United’s  argument  that  no 
informational  interest  justiﬁes  applying  § 201  to  its  ads  is  similar  to 
the argument this Court rejected with regard to disclaimers.  Citizens 
United ﬁnally claims that disclosure requirements can chill donations by 
exposing donors  to retaliation, but offers  no evidence that  its members 
face the type of threats, harassment, or reprisals that might make § 201 
unconstitutional as applied.  Pp. 367–371. 

(c)  For  these  same  reasons,  this  Court  afﬁrms  the  application  of 
the  §§ 201  and  311  disclaimer  and  disclosure  requirements  to  Hillary. 
Pp. 371–372. 

Reversed in part, afﬁrmed in part, and remanded. 

Kennedy,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  Roberts, 
C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to 
all  but  Part  IV,  and  in  which  Stevens,  Ginsburg,  Breyer,  and  Soto-
mayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV.  Roberts, C. J., ﬁled a concurring opin­
ion, in which Alito, J., joined, post, p. 372.  Scalia, J., ﬁled a concurring 
opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part, 
post, p. 385.  Stevens, J., ﬁled an opinion concurring in part and dissent­
ing  in  part,  in  which  Ginsburg,  Breyer,  and  Sotomayor,  JJ.,  joined, 
post, p. 393.  Thomas, J., ﬁled an opinion concurring in part and dissenting 
in part, post, p. 480. 

Theodore B. Olson argued and reargued the cause for ap­
pellant.  With  him  on  the  briefs  were  Matthew  D.  McGill, 
Amir C. Tayrani, and Michael Boos. 

Floyd Abrams argued the cause for Senator Mitch McCon­
nell  as  amicus  curiae.  With  him  on  the  brief  was  Susan 
Buckley. 

Solicitor  General  Kagan  reargued the  cause  for  appellee. 
Deputy  Solicitor  General  Stewart  argued  the  cause  for  ap­