Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 496

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

335 

Opinion of the Court 

WRTL  adopted  an  objective  “appeal  to  vote”  test  for  deter­
mining whether a communication was the functional equiva­
lent  of  express  advocacy,  551  U. S.,  at  470  (opinion  of  Rob­
erts, C. J.), the FEC adopted a two-part, 11-factor balancing 
test  to  implement  WRTL’s  ruling.  See  11  CFR  § 114.15; 
Brief  for  Wyoming  Liberty  Group  et  al.  as  Amici  Curiae 
17–27 (ﬁled Jan. 15, 2009). 

This  regulatory  scheme  may  not  be  a  prior  restraint  on 
speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speak­
ers  are  not  compelled  by  law  to  seek  an  advisory  opinion 
from  the  FEC  before  the  speech  takes  place.  Cf.  Near  v. 
Minnesota  ex  rel.  Olson,  283  U. S.  697,  712–713  (1931).  As 
a practical matter, however, given the complexity of the reg­
ulations and the deference courts show to administrative de­
terminations, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of crimi­
nal  liability  and  the  heavy  costs  of  defending  against  FEC 
enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior per­
mission  to  speak.  See  2  U. S. C.  § 437f;  11  CFR  § 112.1. 
These onerous restrictions thus function as the equivalent of 
prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licens­
ing  laws  implemented  in  16th- and  17th-century  England, 
laws  and  governmental  practices  of  the  sort  that  the  First 
Amendment was drawn to prohibit.  See Thomas v.  Chicago 
Park Dist., 534 U. S. 316, 320 (2002); Lovell v.  City of Grifﬁn, 
303  U. S.  444,  451–452  (1938);  Near,  supra,  at  713–714.  Be­
cause  the  FEC’s  “business  is  to  censor,  there  inheres  the 
danger  that  [it]  may  well  be  less  responsive  than  a  court— 
part of an independent branch of government—to the consti­
tutionally  protected  interests  in  free  expression.”  Freed­
man  v.  Maryland,  380  U. S.  51,  57–58  (1965).  When  the 
FEC  issues  advisory  opinions  that  prohibit  speech,  “[m]any 
persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and 
sometimes  risk)  of  vindicating  their  rights  through  case-by­
case  litigation,  will  choose  simply  to  abstain  from  protected 
speech—harming not only themselves but society as a whole, 
which  is  deprived  of  an  uninhibited  marketplace  of  ideas.”