Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 500.0

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

339 

Opinion of the Court 

come Tax Returns 2 (2009) (hereinafter Statistics of Income) 
(5.8  million  for-proﬁt  corporations  ﬁled  2006  tax  returns). 
PACs, furthermore, must exist before they can speak. 
Given the onerous restrictions, a corporation may not be able 
to establish a PAC in time to make its views known regard­
ing candidates and issues in a current campaign. 

Section  441b’s  prohibition  on  corporate  independent  ex­
penditures is thus a ban on speech.  As a “restriction on the 
amount  of  money  a  person  or  group  can  spend  on  political 
communication during a campaign,” that statute “necessarily 
reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number 
of  issues  discussed,  the  depth  of  their  exploration,  and  the 
size  of  the  audience  reached.”  Buckley  v.  Valeo,  424  U. S. 
1,  19  (1976)  (per  curiam).  Were  the  Court  to  uphold  these 
restrictions,  the  Government  could  repress  speech  by  si­
lencing  certain  voices  at  any  of  the  various  points  in  the 
speech  process.  See  McConnell,  supra,  at  251  (opinion  of 
Scalia, J.) (Government could repress speech by “attacking 
all  levels  of  the  production  and  dissemination  of  ideas,”  for 
“effective  public  communication  requires  the  speaker  to 
make  use  of  the  services  of  others”).  If  § 441b  applied  to 
individuals,  no  one  would  believe  that  it  is  merely  a  time, 
place, or manner restriction on speech.  Its purpose and ef­
fect  are  to  silence  entities  whose  voices  the  Government 
deems to be suspect. 

Speech  is  an  essential  mechanism  of  democracy,  for  it  is 
the  means  to  hold  ofﬁcials  accountable  to  the  people.  See 
Buckley,  supra,  at  14–15  (“In  a  republic  where  the  people 
are  sovereign,  the  ability  of  the  citizenry  to  make  informed 
choices among candidates for ofﬁce is essential”).  The right 
of  citizens  to  inquire,  to  hear,  to  speak,  and  to  use  informa­
tion to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-
government and a necessary means to protect it.  The First 
Amendment “ ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to 
speech  uttered  during  a  campaign  for  political  ofﬁce.”  Eu 
v.  San  Francisco  County  Democratic  Central  Comm.,  489