Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 488

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

327 

Opinion of the Court 

law  that  beyond  doubt  discloses  serious  First  Amendment 
ﬂaws.  The interpretive process itself would create an inevi­
table, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech 
pending  the  drawing  of  ﬁne  distinctions  that,  in  the  end, 
would themselves be questionable.  First Amendment 
standards,  however,  “must  give  the  beneﬁt  of  any  doubt  to 
protecting rather than stiﬂing speech.”  WRTL, 551 U. S., at 
469  (opinion  of  Roberts,  C.  J.)  (citing  New  York  Times  Co. 
v.  Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 269–270 (1964)). 

D 

Citizens  United  also  asks  us  to  carve  out  an  exception  to 
§ 441b’s  expenditure  ban  for  nonproﬁt  corporate  political 
speech funded overwhelmingly by individuals.  As an alter­
native  to  reconsidering  Austin,  the  Government  also  seems 
to  prefer  this  approach.  This  line  of  analysis,  however, 
would be unavailing. 

In  MCFL,  the  Court  found  unconstitutional  § 441b’s  re­
strictions  on  corporate  expenditures  as  applied  to  nonproﬁt 
corporations  that  were  formed  for  the  sole  purpose  of  pro­
moting  political  ideas,  did  not  engage  in  business  activities, 
and did not accept contributions from for-proﬁt corporations 
or  labor  unions.  479  U. S.,  at  263–264;  see  also  11  CFR 
§ 114.10.  BCRA’s  so-called  Wellstone  Amendment  applied 
§ 441b’s  expenditure  ban  to  all  nonproﬁt  corporations.  See 
2 U. S. C. § 441b(c)(6); McConnell, 540 U. S., at 209.  McCon­
nell  then  interpreted  the  Wellstone  Amendment  to  retain 
the  MCFL  exemption  to  § 441b’s  expenditure  prohibition. 
540  U. S.,  at  211.  Citizens  United  does  not  qualify  for  the 
MCFL  exemption,  however,  since  some  funds  used  to  make 
the movie were donations from for-proﬁt corporations. 

The Government suggests we could ﬁnd BCRA’s Wellstone 
Amendment  unconstitutional,  sever  it  from  the  statute,  and 
hold  that  Citizens  United’s  speech  is  exempt  from  § 441b’s 
ban under BCRA’s  Snowe-Jeffords Amendment, § 441b(c)(2). 
See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  37–38  (Sept.  9,  2009).  The  Snowe-
Jeffords  Amendment  operates  as  a  backup  provision  that