Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Id.,  at  400–401.  That  condition,  as  we  put  it  in  AOSI I, 
“went beyond” ensuring that federal funds did not subsidize 
the broadcasters’ editorial content and therefore distorted 
their “speech outside the scope of the program.”  570 U. S., 
at 216. 

Just  the  opposite  was  true  in  Regan  v.  Taxation  With 
Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983), the case we 
cited in AOSI I as an example of what the Government may
do.  In Regan, a nonprofit group received tax-exempt status
as a §501(c)(3) organization on the condition that the organ-
ization  not  engage  in  lobbying.  AOSI I,  570  U. S.,  at  215 
(citing Regan, 461 U. S., at 544).  Even though this condi-
tion on federal financial assistance affected the nonprofit’s 
exercise of First Amendment rights, the condition was con-
stitutional because it “did not prohibit [the nonprofit] from
lobbying Congress altogether.”  570 U. S., at 215. 

Specifically,  the  nonprofit  in  Regan—unlike  the  broad-
casters  in  League  of  Women  Voters—was  permitted  to  es-
tablish  an  affiliate  to  carry  on  its  lobbying  activities  as  a 
§501(c)(4)  organization.  AOSI I,  570  U. S.,  at  215  (citing 
Regan,  461  U. S.,  at  544).    The  nonprofit  could  thus  act
(and speak) through two corporate entities: The §501(c)(3) 
organization  could  get  the  tax  exemption  (but  not  lobby),
while  the  §501(c)(4)  organization  could  lobby  (but  not  get 
the tax exemption).  570 U. S., at 215.  Since requiring the 
nonprofit to adopt this “ ‘dual structure’ ” was not “ ‘unduly 
burdensome,’ ”  the  condition  in  Regan  “did  not  deny  the
[nonprofit] a government benefit ‘on account of its intention 
to lobby.’ ”  570 U. S., at 215 (quoting Regan, 461 U. S., at 
545, and n. 6).  The condition was thus constitutional, even 
though  it  essentially  compelled  the  nonprofit  to  affiliate 
with other organizations.  See 570 U. S., at 215.
  In AOSI I, we held “that the Policy Requirement falls on 
the unconstitutional side of the line” separating League of 
Women  Voters  (unconstitutional)  and  Regan  (constitu-
tional).  570  U. S.,  at  217.  Like  the  funding  condition  in