Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-10_21p3.pdf
Page Number: 12

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

organizations seeking tax-exempt status under 26 U. S. C. 
§501(c)(3)  not  engage  in  substantial  efforts  to  influence
legislation.    The  tax-exempt  status,  we  explained,  “ha[d] 
much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization.”
461  U. S.,  at  544.    And  by  limiting  §501(c)(3)  status  to 
organizations that did not attempt to influence legislation,
Congress had merely “chose[n] not to subsidize lobbying.” 
Ibid.  In rejecting the nonprofit’s First Amendment claim,
the  Court  highlighted—in  the  text  of  its  opinion,  but  see 
post, at 5—the fact that the condition did not prohibit that 
organization  from  lobbying  Congress  altogether.    By  re-
turning  to  a  “dual  structure”  it  had  used  in  the  past—
separately  incorporating  as  a  §501(c)(3)  organization  and 
§501(c)(4)  organization—the  nonprofit  could  continue  to
claim §501(c)(3) status for its nonlobbying activities, while 
attempting  to influence legislation in its §501(c)(4) capac-
ity with separate funds.  Ibid.  Maintaining such a struc-
ture, the Court noted, was not “unduly burdensome.”  Id., 
at 545, n. 6.  The condition thus did not deny the organiza-
tion  a  government  benefit  “on  account  of  its  intention  to
lobby.”  Id., at 545.   

In  FCC  v.  League  of  Women  Voters  of  California,  by
contrast,  the  Court  struck  down  a  condition  on  federal 
financial assistance to noncommercial broadcast television 
and  radio  stations  that  prohibited  all  editorializing,  in-
cluding with private funds.  468 U. S. 364, 399–401 (1984).
Even  a  station  receiving  only  one  percent  of  its  overall 
budget  from  the  Federal  Government,  the  Court  ex-
plained,  was  “barred  absolutely  from  all  editorializing.” 
Id., at 400.  Unlike the situation in Regan, the law provid-
ed no way for a station to limit its use of federal funds to 
noneditorializing  activities,  while  using  private  funds  “to 
make  known  its  views  on  matters  of  public  importance.” 
468  U. S.,  at  400.    The  prohibition  thus  went  beyond  en-
suring  that  federal  funds  not  be  used  to  subsidize  “public 
broadcasting station editorials,” and instead leveraged the