Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 631.0

470  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

corporation’s economic interests and the political preferences 
of the individuals associated with the corporation; the corpo­
ration  must  engage  the  electoral  process  with  the  aim  “to 
enhance the proﬁtability of the company, no matter how per­
suasive the arguments for a broader or conﬂicting set of pri­
orities,”  Brief  for  American  Independent  Business  Alliance 
as Amicus Curiae 11; see also ALI, Principles of Corporate 
Governance:  Analysis  and  Recommendations  § 2.01(a),  p.  55 
(1992)  (“[A]  corporation . . .  should  have  as  its  objective  the 
conduct  of  business  activities  with  a  view  to  enhancing  cor­
porate  proﬁt  and  shareholder  gain”).  In  a  state  election 
such  as  the  one  at  issue  in  Austin,  the  interests  of  nonresi­
dent  corporations  may  be  fundamentally  adverse  to  the  in­
terests  of  local  voters.  Consequently,  when  corporations 
grab  up  the  prime  broadcasting  slots  on  the  eve  of  an  elec­
tion, they can ﬂood the market with advocacy that bears “lit­
tle  or  no  correlation”  to  the  ideas  of  natural  persons  or  to 
any broader notion of the public good, 494 U. S., at 660.  The 
opinions of real people may be marginalized.  “The expendi­
ture  restrictions  of  [2  U. S. C.]  § 441b  are  thus  meant  to  en­
sure  that  competition  among  actors  in  the  political  arena  is 
truly  competition  among  ideas.”  MCFL,  479  U. S.,  at  259. 
In  addition  to  this  immediate  drowning  out  of  noncorpor­
ate voices, there may be deleterious effects that follow soon 
thereafter.  Corporate  “domination” of  electioneering, Aus­
tin, 494 U. S., at 659, can generate the impression that corpo­
rations  dominate  our  democracy.  When  citizens  turn  on 
their televisions and radios before  an election and hear only 
corporate  electioneering,  they  may  lose  faith  in  their  capac­
ity,  as  citizens,  to  inﬂuence  public  policy.  A  Government 
captured  by  corporate  interests,  they  may  come  to  believe, 
will  be neither  responsive to  their  needs nor  willing to give 
their  views  a  fair  hearing.  The  predictable  result  is  cyni­
cism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large 
spenders “ ‘call the tune’ ” and a reduced “ ‘willingness of vot­
ers  to  take  part  in  democratic  governance.’ ”  McConnell,