Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 633

472  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

Ibid.  It  is  for  reasons  such  as  these  that  our  campaign  ﬁ­
nance jurisprudence has long appreciated that “the ‘differing 
structures  and  purposes’  of  different  entities  ‘may  require 
different forms of regulation in order to protect the integrity 
of the electoral process.’ ”  NRWC, 459 U. S., at 210 (quoting 
California Medical Assn., 453 U. S., at 201). 

The Court’s facile depiction of corporate electioneering as­
sumes  away  all  of  these  complexities.  Our  colleagues  ridi­
cule  the  idea  of  regulating  expenditures  based  on  “nothing 
more”  than  a  fear  that  corporations  have  a  special  “ability 
to  persuade,”  ante,  at  382  (opinion  of  Roberts,  C.  J.), 
as  if  corporations  were  our  society’s  ablest  debaters  and 
viewpoint-neutral  laws  such  as  § 203  were  created  to  sup­
press  their  best  arguments.  In  their  haste  to  knock  down 
yet another straw man, our colleagues simply ignore the fun­
damental  concerns  of  the  Austin  Court  and  the  legislatures 
that  have  passed  laws  like  § 203:  to  safeguard  the  integrity, 
competitiveness,  and  democratic  responsiveness  of  the  elec­
toral  process.  All  of  the  majority’s  theoretical  arguments 
turn on a proposition with undeniable surface appeal but lit­
tle  grounding  in  evidence  or  experience,  “that  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  too  much  speech,”  Austin,  494  U. S.,  at  695 
(Scalia,  J.,  dissenting).74  If  individuals  in  our  society  had 
inﬁnite  free  time  to  listen  to  and  contemplate  every  last  bit 
of speech uttered by anyone, anywhere; and if broadcast ad­
vertisements  had  no  special  ability  to  inﬂuence  elections 
apart from the merits of their arguments (to the extent they 
make  any);  and  if  legislators  always  operated  with  noth­
ing  less  than  perfect  virtue;  then  I  suppose  the  majority’s 
premise  would  be  sound.  In  the  real  world,  we  have  seen, 
corporate  domination  of  the  airwaves  prior  to  an  election 
may  decrease  the  average  listener’s  exposure  to  relevant 
viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens’ willingness and ca­
pacity to participate in the democratic process. 

74 Of  course,  no  presiding  person  in  a  courtroom,  legislature,  classroom, 

polling place, or family dinner would take this hyperbole literally.