Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 503.0

342  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

A 
1 

The  Court  has  recognized  that  First  Amendment  protec­
tion  extends  to  corporations.  Bellotti,  supra,  at  778,  n.  14 
(citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v.  Willingboro, 431 U. S. 85 
(1977); Time, Inc. v.  Firestone, 424 U. S. 448 (1976); Doran v. 
Salem  Inn,  Inc.,  422  U. S.  922  (1975);  Southeastern  Promo­
tions, Ltd. v.  Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Cox Broadcasting 
Corp.  v.  Cohn,  420  U. S.  469  (1975);  Miami  Herald  Publish­
ing Co. v.  Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241 (1974); New York Times Co. 
v.  United  States,  403  U. S.  713  (1971)  (per  curiam);  Time, 
Inc. v.  Hill, 385 U. S. 374 (1967); New York Times Co. v.  Sul­
livan, 376 U. S. 254; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v.  Regents 
of Univ. of N.  Y.,  360 U. S. 684 (1959); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. 
Wilson, 343 U. S. 495 (1952)); see, e. g., Turner Broadcasting 
System,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  520  U. S.  180  (1997);  Denver  Area  Ed. 
Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v.  FCC, 518 U. S. 727 
(1996);  Turner,  512  U. S.  622;  Simon  &  Schuster,  502  U. S. 
105;  Sable  Communications  of  Cal.,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  492  U. S. 
115 (1989); Florida Star v.  B.  J.  F.,  491 U. S. 524 (1989); Phil­
adelphia  Newspapers,  Inc.  v.  Hepps,  475  U. S.  767  (1986); 
Landmark  Communications,  Inc.  v.  Virginia,  435  U. S.  829 
(1978); Young v.  American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50 
(1976);  Gertz  v.  Robert  Welch,  Inc.,  418  U. S.  323  (1974); 
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v.  Bresler, 398 
U. S. 6 (1970). 

This  protection  has  been  extended  by  explicit  holdings  to 
the context  of political speech.  See, e. g., Button, 371 U. S., 
at  428–429;  Grosjean  v.  American  Press  Co.,  297  U. S.  233, 
244  (1936).  Under  the  rationale  of  these  precedents,  politi­
cal speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply 
because its source is a corporation.”  Bellotti, supra, at 784; 
see  Paciﬁc  Gas  &  Elec.  Co.  v.  Public  Util.  Comm’n  of  Cal., 
475  U. S.  1,  8  (1986)  (plurality  opinion)  (“The  identity  of  the 
speaker is not decisive in determining whether speech is pro­