Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 574

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

413 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

relevant  has  changed  since  we  decided  WRTL  two  Terms 
ago.  And  the  Court  gives  no  reason  to  think  that  Austin 
and McConnell are unworkable. 

In  fact,  no  one  has  argued  to  us  that  Austin’s  rule  has 
proved impracticable, and not a single for-proﬁt corporation, 
union,  or  State  has  asked  us  to  overrule  it.  Quite  to  the 
contrary,  leading  groups  representing  the  business  commu­
nity,23  organized  labor,24  and  the  nonproﬁt  sector,25  together 
with  more  than  half  of  the  States,26  urge  that  we  preserve 
Austin.  As for McConnell, the portions of BCRA it upheld 
may  be  prolix,  but  all  three  branches  of  Government  have 
worked  to  make  § 203  as  user-friendly  as  possible.  For  in­
stance,  Congress  established  a  special  mechanism  for  expe­
dited  review  of  constitutional  challenges,  see  note  following 
2  U. S. C.  § 437h;  the  FEC  has  established  a  standardized 
process,  with  clearly  deﬁned  safe  harbors,  for  corporations 
to  claim  that  a  particular  electioneering  communication  is 
permissible under WRTL, see 11 CFR § 114.15 (2009); 27  and, 
as  noted  above,  The  Chief  Justice  crafted  his  controlling 
opinion in WRTL with the express goal of maximizing clarity 
and  administrability,  551  U. S.,  at  469–470,  473–474.  The 
case  for  stare  decisis  may  be  bolstered,  we  have  said,  when 

23 See  Brief  for  Committee  for  Economic  Development  as  Amicus  Cu­
riae;  Brief  for  American  Independent  Business  Alliance  as  Amicus  Cu­
riae.  But see Supp. Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States 
of America as Amicus Curiae. 

24 See  Brief  for  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  Congress  of  Indus­

trial Organizations as Amicus Curiae 3, 9. 

25 See Brief for Independent Sector as Amicus Curiae 16–20. 
26 See Brief for State of Montana et al. as Amici Curiae. 
27 The FEC established this process following the Court’s June 2007 de­
cision in that case, 551 U. S. 449.  In the brief interval between the estab­
lishment  of  this  process  and  the  2008  election,  corporations  and  unions 
used  it  to  make  $108.5  million  in  electioneering  communications.  Supp. 
Brief for Appellee 22–23;  FEC, Electioneering Communication Summary, 
online  at  http://fec.gov/ﬁnance/disclosure/ECSummary.shtml  (all  Internet 
materials  as  visited  Jan.  18,  2010,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s  case 
ﬁle).