Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 316

529US1

Unit: $U39

[09-26-01 13:21:31] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 217 (2000)

241

Souter, J., concurring in judgment

ernment program that aims to broaden public discourse. As
I noted in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va.,
515 U. S. 819, 873–874, and n. 3, 889–891 (1995) (dissenting
opinion), the university fee at issue is a tax.7 The state uni-
versity compels it; it is paid into state accounts; and it is
disbursed under the ultimate authority of the State. Wis.
Stat. § 36.09(5) (1993–1994); App. 9, 18–19. Although the
facts here may not ﬁt neatly under our holdings on govern-
ment speech (and the University has expressly renounced
any such claim),8 ante, at 229, our cases do suggest that
under the First Amendment the government may properly
use its tax revenue to promote general discourse.9
In Buck-
ley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), we rejected
a challenge to a congressional program providing viewpoint
neutral subsidies to all Presidential candidates based in part
on this reasoning:

“[The program] is a congressional effort, not to abridge,
restrict, or censor speech, but rather to use public
money to facilitate and enlarge public discussion and
participation in the electoral process, goals vital to a
self-governing people. Thus, [the program] furthers,
not abridges, pertinent First Amendment values.”
Id.,
at 92–93 (footnotes omitted).

7 True, one does not have to go to college, but one does not have to own

real estate or receive a dividend.

8 Unlike the majority, I would not hold that the mere fact that the Uni-
versity disclaims speech as its own expression takes it out of the scope of
our jurisprudence on government directed speech. We have never gener-
ally questioned a university’s “spacious discretion” to allocate public funds.
See Rosenberger, supra, at 892 (Souter, J., dissenting) (citing Rust v.
Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991), and Regan v. Taxation With Representa-
tion of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983)).

9 Of course, I believe that even a government program that promotes a
broad range of expression is subject to the speciﬁc prohibition on govern-
ment funding to promote religion, imposed by the Establishment Clause.
See Rosenberger, supra, at 882 (Souter, J., dissenting).