Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 609.0

448  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

ing  access  is  not  qualitatively  different  from  giving  special 
preference to  those who spent  money on  one’s behalf.  Cor­
ruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s appar­
ent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly de­
marcated  from  other  improper  inﬂuences  does  not  accord 
with  the  theory  or  reality  of  politics.  It  certainly  does  not 
accord  with  the  record  Congress  developed  in  passing 
BCRA,  a  record  that  stands  as  a  remarkable  testament  to 
the  energy  and  ingenuity  with  which  corporations,  unions, 
lobbyists,  and  politicians  may  go  about  scratching  each 
other’s backs—and  which amply supported  Congress’ deter­
mination  to  target  a  limited  set  of  especially  destructive 
practices. 

The District Court that adjudicated the initial challenge to 
BCRA  pored over  this  record.  In  a careful  analysis,  Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly made numerous ﬁndings about the corrupting 
consequences  of  corporate  and  union  independent  expendi­
tures in the years preceding BCRA’s passage.  See McCon­
nell,  251  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  555–560,  622–625;  see  also  id.,  at 
804–805,  813,  n.  143  (Leon,  J.)  (indicating  agreement).  As 
summarized in her own words: 

“The  factual  ﬁndings  of  the  Court  illustrate  that  cor­
porations  and  labor  unions  routinely  notify  Members  of 
Congress as soon as they air electioneering communica­
tions  relevant  to  the  Members’  elections.  The  record 
also indicates that Members express appreciation to or­
ganizations  for  the  airing  of  these  election-related  ad­
vertisements.  Indeed,  Members  of  Congress  are  par­
ticularly  grateful  when  negative  issue  advertisements 
are  run  by  these  organizations,  leaving  the  candidates 
free  to  run  positive  advertisements  and  be  seen  as 
‘above  the fray.’  Political  consultants  testify that  cam­
paigns are quite aware of who is running advertisements 
on the candidate’s  behalf, when they are  being run, and 
where  they  are  being  run.  Likewise,  a  prominent  lob­