Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 580.0

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

419 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

In many ways, then, § 203 functions as a source restriction 
or  a  time,  place,  and  manner  restriction.  It  applies  in  a 
viewpoint-neutral  fashion  to  a  narrow  subset  of  advocacy 
messages  about  clearly  identiﬁed  candidates  for  federal  of­
ﬁce,  made  during  discrete  time  periods  through  discrete 
channels.  In the case at hand, all Citizens United needed to 
do to broadcast Hillary right before the primary was to ab­
jure  business  contributions  or  use  the  funds  in  its  PAC, 
which by its own account is “one of the most active conserva­
tive  PACs  in  America,”  Citizens  United  Political  Victory 
Fund, http://www.cupvf.org/.40 

So  let  us  be  clear:  Neither  Austin  nor  McConnell  held  or 
implied that corporations may be silenced; the FEC is not a 
“censor”;  and  in  the  years  since  these  cases  were  decided, 
corporations  have  continued  to  play  a  major  role  in  the  na­
tional dialogue.  Laws such as § 203 target a class of commu­
nications that is especially likely to corrupt the political proc­
ess,  that  is  at  least  one  degree  removed  from  the  views  of 
individual  citizens,  and  that  may  not  even  reﬂect  the  views 
of  those  who  pay  for  it.  Such  laws  burden  political  speech, 
and that is always a serious matter, demanding careful scru­
tiny.  But  the  majority’s  incessant  talk  of  a  “ban”  aims  at 
a straw man. 

Identity-Based Distinctions 

The second pillar of the Court’s opinion is its assertion that 
“the  Government  cannot  restrict  political  speech  based  on 
the  speaker’s  .  .  .  identity.”  Ante,  at  346;  accord,  ante,  at 
319,  340–341,  342–343,  346–347,  347,  348,  349,  350,  364,  365. 

40 Citizens  United  has  administered  this  PAC  for  over  a  decade.  See 
Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff ’s Second Motion 
for Preliminary Injunction in No. 07–2240 (ARR, RCL, RWR) (DC), p. 20. 
Citizens United  also operates multiple  “527” organizations that  engage in 
partisan  political  activity.  See  Defendant  FEC’s  Statement  of  Material 
Facts  as  to  Which  There  Is  No  Genuine  Dispute  in  No.  07–2240  (DC), 
¶¶ 22–24.