Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 573

412  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

bating  BCRA.  The  total  record  it  compiled  was  100,000 
pages  long.21  Pulling  out  the  rug  beneath  Congress  after 
afﬁrming  the  constitutionality  of  § 203  six  years  ago  shows 
great disrespect for a coequal branch. 

By removing one of its central components, today’s ruling 
makes  a  hash  out  of  BCRA’s  “delicate  and  interconnected 
regulatory  scheme.”  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  172.  Con­
sider  just  one  example  of  the  distortions  that  will  follow: 
Political  parties  are  barred  under  BCRA  from  soliciting  or 
spending “soft money,” funds that are not subject to the stat­
ute’s  disclosure  requirements  or  its  source  and  amount  limi­
tations.  2  U. S. C.  § 441i;  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  122–126. 
Going forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend 
as  much  general  treasury  money  as  they  wish  on  ads  that 
support  or  attack  speciﬁc  candidates,  whereas  national  par­
ties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of 
any  kind.  The  Court’s  ruling  thus  dramatically  enhances 
the  role  of  corporations  and  unions—and  the  narrow  inter­
ests  they  represent—vis-a` -vis  the  role  of  political  parties— 
and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who 
will hold public ofﬁce.22 

Beyond the reliance interests at stake, the other stare de­
cisis  factors  also  cut  against  the  Court.  Considerations  of 
antiquity  are  signiﬁcant  for  similar  reasons.  McConnell  is 
only six years old, but Austin has been on the books for two 
decades,  and  many  of  the  statutes  called  into  question  by 
today’s opinion have been on the books for a half century or 
more.  The Court points to no intervening change in circum­
stances that warrants revisiting Austin.  Certainly nothing 

21 Magleby, The Importance of the Record in McConnell v. FEC, 3 Elec­

tion L. J. 285 (2004). 

22 To  be  sure,  the  majority  may  respond  that  Congress  can  correct  the 
imbalance  by  removing  BCRA’s  soft-money  limits.  Cf.  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg. 
24 (Sept. 9, 2009) (query of Kennedy, J.).  But this is no response to any 
legislature  that  takes  campaign  ﬁnance  regulation  seriously.  It  merely 
illustrates the breadth of the majority’s deregulatory vision.