Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 529

368  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

Citizens  United  argues  that  the  disclaimer  requirements 
in  § 311  are  unconstitutional  as  applied  to  its  ads.  It  con­
tends  that  the  governmental  interest  in  providing  informa­
tion  to  the  electorate  does  not  justify  requiring  disclaimers 
for  any  commercial  advertisements,  including  the  ones 
at  issue  here.  We  disagree.  The  ads  fall  within  BCRA’s 
deﬁnition  of  an  “electioneering  communication”:  They  re­
ferred to then-Senator Clinton by name shortly before a pri­
mary  and  contained  pejorative  references  to  her  candidacy. 
See  530  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  276,  nn.  2–4.  The  disclaimers  re­
quired  by  § 311  “provid[e]  the  electorate  with  information,” 
McConnell,  supra,  at  196,  and  “insure  that  the  voters  are 
fully  informed”  about  the  person  or  group  who  is  speaking, 
Buckley,  supra,  at  76;  see  also  Bellotti,  435  U. S.,  at  792, 
n. 32 (“Identiﬁcation of the source of advertising may be re­
quired  as  a  means  of  disclosure,  so  that  the  people  will  be 
able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being sub­
jected”).  At  the very  least,  the disclaimers  avoid  confusion 
by  making  clear  that  the  ads  are  not  funded  by  a  candidate 
or political party. 

Citizens  United  argues  that  § 311  is  underinclusive  be­
cause  it  requires  disclaimers  for  broadcast  advertisements 
but  not  for  print  or  Internet  advertising.  It  asserts  that 
§ 311  decreases  both  the  quantity  and  effectiveness  of  the 
group’s  speech  by  forcing  it  to  devote  four  seconds  of  each 
advertisement to the spoken disclaimer.  We rejected these 
arguments  in  McConnell,  supra,  at  230–231.  And  we  now 
adhere  to  that  decision  as  it  pertains  to  the  disclosure 
provisions. 

As a ﬁnal point, Citizens United claims that, in any event, 
the  disclosure  requirements  in  § 201  must  be  conﬁned  to 
speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. 
The principal opinion in WRTL limited 2 U. S. C. § 441b’s re­
strictions  on  independent  expenditures  to  express  advocacy 
and its functional equivalent.  551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion 
of Roberts, C. J.).  Citizens United seeks to import a simi­