Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 621.0

460  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

closure  laws.  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  128;  see  also  id.,  at 
196–197. 

And  it  underscores  that  the  consequences  of  today’s  hold­
ing will not be limited to the legislative or executive context. 
The majority of the States select their judges through popu­
lar elections.  At a time when concerns about the conduct of 
judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, see, e. g., O’Con­
nor, Justice for Sale, Wall St. Journal, Nov. 15, 2007, p. A25; 
Brief for Justice at Stake et al. as Amici Curiae 2, the Court 
today  unleashes  the  ﬂoodgates  of  corporate  and  union  gen­
eral  treasury  spending  in  these  races.  Perhaps  “Caperton 
motions”  will  catch  some  of  the  worst  abuses.  This  will  be 
small comfort to those States that, after today, may no longer 
have the ability to place modest limits on corporate election­
eering even if they believe such limits to be critical to main­
taining the integrity of their judicial systems. 

Deference and Incumbent Self-Protection 

Rather  than  show  any  deference  to  a  coordinate  branch 
of Government, the majority thus rejects the anticorruption 
rationale  without  serious  analysis.67  Today’s  opinion  pro­
vides  no clear  rationale for  being so  dismissive of  Congress, 
but  the  prior  individual  opinions  on  which  it  relies  have 
offered  one:  the  incentives  of  the  legislators  who  passed 
BCRA.  Section 203, our colleagues have suggested, may be 
little  more  than  “an  incumbency  protection  plan,”  McCon­
nell, 540 U. S., at 306  (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment 
in part and dissenting in part); see also id., at 249–250, 260– 
263  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part,  concurring  in  judgment 
in  part,  and  dissenting  in  part),  a  disreputable  attempt  at 
legislative self-dealing rather than an earnest effort to facili­
tate  First  Amendment  values  and  safeguard  the  legitimacy 

67 “We  must  give  weight”  and  “due  deference”  to  Congress’  efforts  to 
dispel  corruption,  the  Court  states  at one  point.  Ante,  at  361.  It  is  un­
clear  to  me  what  these  maxims  mean,  but  as  applied  by  the  Court  they 
clearly do not entail “deference” in any normal sense of that term.