Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 531.0

370  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

Last, Citizens United argues that disclosure requirements 
can chill donations to an organization by exposing donors to 
retaliation.  Some amici point to recent events in which do­
nors to certain causes were blacklisted, threatened, or other­
wise  targeted  for  retaliation.  See  Brief  for  Institute  for 
Justice  as  Amicus  Curiae  13–16;  Brief  for  Alliance  Defense 
Fund  as  Amicus  Curiae  16–22.  In  McConnell,  the  Court 
recognized that § 201 would be unconstitutional as applied to 
an  organization  if  there  were  a  reasonable  probability  that 
the  group’s  members  would  face  threats,  harassment,  or  re­
prisals  if  their  names  were  disclosed.  540  U. S.,  at  198. 
The  examples  cited  by  amici  are  cause  for  concern.  Citi­
zens United, however, has offered no evidence that its mem­
bers may face similar threats or reprisals.  To the contrary, 
Citizens  United has  been  disclosing its  donors  for years  and 
has identiﬁed no instance of harassment or retaliation. 

Shareholder  objections  raised  through  the  procedures  of 
corporate  democracy,  see  Bellotti,  supra,  at  794,  and  n.  34, 
can  be  more  effective  today  because  modern  technology 
makes  disclosures  rapid  and  informative.  A  campaign  ﬁ­
nance system that pairs corporate independent expenditures 
with  effective  disclosure  has  not  existed  before  today.  It 
must be noted, furthermore, that many of Congress’ ﬁndings 
in  passing  BCRA  were  premised  on  a  system  without  ade­
quate  disclosure.  See  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  128  (“[T]he 
public  may  not  have  been  fully  informed  about  the  sponsor­
ship of so-called issue ads”); id., at 196–197 (citing McConnell 
I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 237).  With the advent of the Internet, 
prompt  disclosure  of  expenditures  can  provide  shareholders 
and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations 
and  elected  ofﬁcials  accountable  for  their  positions  and  sup­
porters.  Shareholders  can  determine  whether  their  corpo­
ration’s  political  speech  advances  the  corporation’s  interest 
in  making  proﬁts,  and  citizens  can  see  whether  elected  ofﬁ­
cials  are  “ ‘in  the  pocket’  of  so-called  moneyed  interests.” 
540 U. S., at 259 (opinion of Scalia, J.); see MCFL, supra, at