Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 494.0

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

333 

Opinion of the Court 

Scalia,  J.).  The  controlling  opinion  in  WRTL,  which  re­
frained from holding the statute invalid except as applied to 
the  facts  then  before  the  Court,  was  a  careful  attempt  to 
accept  the  essential  elements  of  the  Court’s  opinion  in  Mc­
Connell, while vindicating the First Amendment arguments 
made  by  the  WRTL  parties.  551  U. S.,  at  482  (opinion  of 
Roberts, C. J.). 

As noted above, Citizens United’s narrower arguments are 
not  sustainable  under  a  fair  reading  of  the  statute.  In  the 
exercise of its judicial responsibility, it is necessary then for 
the Court to consider the facial validity of § 441b.  Any other 
course of decision would prolong the substantial, nationwide 
chilling  effect  caused  by  § 441b’s  prohibitions  on  corporate 
expenditures.  Consideration  of  the  facial  validity  of  § 441b 
is further supported by the following reasons. 

First  is  the  uncertainty  caused  by  the  litigating  position 
of  the  Government.  As  discussed  above,  see  Part  II–D, 
supra,  the  Government  suggests,  as  an  alternative  argu­
ment,  that  an  as-applied  challenge  might  have  merit.  This 
argument proceeds on the premise  that the nonproﬁt corpo­
ration involved here may have received only de minimis do­
nations  from  for-proﬁt  corporations and  that  some  nonproﬁt 
corporations  may  be  exempted  from  the  operation  of  the 
statute.  The  Government  also  suggests  that  an  as-applied 
challenge  to  § 441b’s  ban  on  books  may  be  successful,  al­
though  it  would  defend  § 441b’s  ban  as  applied  to  almost 
every  other  form  of  media  including  pamphlets.  See  Tr.  of 
Oral  Arg.  65–66  (Sept.  9,  2009).  The  Government  thus,  by 
its  own  position,  contributes  to  the  uncertainty  that  § 441b 
causes.  When  the  Government  holds  out  the  possibility  of 
ruling  for  Citizens  United  on  a  narrow  ground  yet  refrains 
from  adopting  that  position,  the  added  uncertainty  demon­
strates  the  necessity  to  address  the  question  of  statutory 
validity. 

Second, substantial time would be required to bring clarity 
to  the  application  of  the  statutory  provision  on  these  points