Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 578.0

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

417 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

telephone, and print advocacy.31  Like numerous statutes, it 
exempts  media  companies’  news  stories,  commentaries,  and 
editorials  from its  electioneering  restrictions, in  recognition 
of  the  unique  role  played  by  the  institutional  press  in  sus­
taining  public  debate.32  See  2  U. S. C.  § 434(f)(3)(B)(i);  Mc­
Connell,  540  U. S.,  at  208–209;  see  also  Austin,  494  U. S.,  at 
666–668.  It  also  allows  corporations  to  spend  unlimited 
sums  on  political  communications  with  their  executives  and 
shareholders,  § 441b(b)(2)(A);  11  CFR  § 114.3(a)(1),  to  fund 
additional PAC activity through trade associations, 2 U. S. C. 
§ 441b(b)(4)(D),  to  distribute  voting  guides  and  voting  rec­
ords, 11 CFR §§ 114.4(c)(4)–(5), to underwrite voter registra­
tion and voter turnout activities, § 114.3(c)(4); § 114.4(c)(2), to 
host  fundraising  events  for  candidates  within  certain  limits, 

31 Roaming  far  aﬁeld  from  the  case  at  hand,  the  majority  worries  that 
the Government will use § 203 to ban books, pamphlets, and blogs.  Ante, 
at  333,  337,  349,  364.  Yet  by  its  plain  terms,  § 203  does  not  apply  to 
printed  material.  See  2  U. S. C.  § 434(f)(3)(A)(i);  see  also  11  CFR 
§ 100.29(c)(1) (“[E]lectioneering communication does not include communi­
cations  appearing  in  print  media”).  And  in  light  of  the  ordinary  under­
standing  of  the  terms  “broadcast,  cable,  [and]  satellite,”  2  U. S. C. 
§ 434(f)(3)(A)(i),  coupled  with  Congress’  clear  aim  of  targeting  “a  virtual 
torrent of televised election-related ads,” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 207, we 
highly doubt that § 203 could be interpreted to apply to a Web site or book 
that happens to be transmitted at some stage over airwaves or cable lines, 
or that the FEC would ever try to do so.  See 11 CFR § 100.26 (exempting 
most  Internet  communications  from  regulation  as  advertising);  § 100.155 
(exempting  uncompensated  Internet  activity  from  regulation  as  an  ex­
penditure);  Supp. Brief  for Center  for Independent  Media et  al.  as Amici 
Curiae 14 (explaining that “the FEC has consistently construed [BCRA’s] 
media  exemption  to  apply  to  a  variety  of  non-traditional  media”).  If  it 
should,  the  Government  acknowledges  “there  would  be  quite  [a]  good  as-
applied challenge.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). 

32 As the Government points out, with a media corporation there is also 
a  lesser  risk  that  investors  will  not  understand,  learn  about,  or  support 
the  advocacy  messages  that  the  corporation  disseminates.  Supp.  Reply 
Brief  for  Appellee  10.  Everyone  knows  and  expects  that  media  outlets 
may seek to inﬂuence elections in this way.