Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 516.0

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

355 

Opinion of the Court 

some  factions  is  “worse  than  the  disease.”  The  Federalist 
No.  10,  p.  130  (B.  Wright  ed.  1961)  (J.  Madison).  Factions 
should be checked by permitting them all to speak, see ibid., 
and by entrusting the people to judge what is true and what 
is false. 

The  purpose  and  effect  of  this  law  is  to  prevent  corpora­
tions,  including  small  and  nonproﬁt  corporations,  from  pre­
senting  both  facts  and  opinions  to  the  public.  This  makes 
Austin’s  antidistortion  rationale  all  the  more  an  aberration. 
“[T]he  First  Amendment  protects  the  right  of  corporations 
to  petition  legislative  and  administrative  bodies.”  Bellotti, 
435  U. S.,  at  792,  n.  31  (citing  California  Motor  Transport 
Co.  v.  Trucking  Unlimited,  404  U. S.  508,  510–511  (1972); 
Eastern  Railroad  Presidents  Conference  v.  Noerr  Motor 
Freight,  Inc.,  365  U. S.  127,  137–138  (1961)).  Corporate  ex­
ecutives  and  employees  counsel  Members  of  Congress  and 
Presidential  administrations  on  many  issues,  as  a  matter  of 
routine and often in private.  An amici brief ﬁled on behalf 
of Montana and 25 other States notes that lobbying and cor­
porate communications with elected ofﬁcials occur on a regu­
lar  basis.  Brief  for  State  of  Montana  et  al.  19.  When  that 
phenomenon is coupled with § 441b, the result is that smaller 
or nonproﬁt corporations cannot raise a voice to object when 
other corporations, including those with vast wealth, are co­
operating  with  the  Government.  That  cooperation  may 
sometimes  be  voluntary,  or  it  may  be  at  the  demand  of  a 
Government ofﬁcial who uses his or her authority, inﬂuence, 
and  power  to  threaten  corporations  to  support  the  Govern­
ment’s  policies.  Those  kinds  of  interactions  are  often  un­
known and unseen.  The speech that § 441b forbids, though, 
is  public,  and  all  can  judge  its  content  and  purpose.  Ref­
erences  to  massive  corporate  treasuries  should  not  mask 
the  real  operation  of  this  law.  Rhetoric  ought  not  obscure 
reality. 

Even if § 441b’s expenditure ban were constitutional, 
wealthy  corporations  could  still  lobby  elected  ofﬁcials,  al­