Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 640

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

479 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

over  narrow  statutory  grounds,  individual  dissenting  opin­
ions  over  precedential  holdings,  assertion  over  tradition, 
absolutism  over  empiricism,  rhetoric  over  reality.  Our 
colleagues  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  Austin  must 
be  overruled  and  that  § 203  is  facially  unconstitutional  only 
after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those 
authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial 
restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power.  Their 
conclusion  that  the  societal  interest  in  avoiding  corruption 
and  the  appearance  of  corruption  does  not  provide  an  ade­
quate  justiﬁcation  for  regulating  corporate  expenditures  on 
candidate elections  relies on an incorrect  description of that 
interest,  along  with  a  failure  to  acknowledge  the  relevance 
of  established  facts  and  the  considered  judgments  of  state 
and federal legislatures over many decades. 

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the 
need  to  limit  corporate  campaign  spending  should  outweigh 
the wooden application of judge-made rules.  The majority’s 
rejection  of  this  principle  “elevate[s]  corporations  to  a  level 
of deference which has not been seen at least since the days 
when  substantive  due  process  was  regularly  used  to  invali­
date regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon 
established  economic  interests.”  Bellotti,  435  U. S.,  at  817, 
n. 13 (White, J., dissenting).  At bottom, the Court’s opinion 
is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American peo­
ple,  who  have  recognized  a  need  to  prevent  corporations 
from  undermining  self-government  since  the  founding,  and 
who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential 
of  corporate  electioneering  since  the  days  of  Theodore  Roo­
sevelt.  It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. 
While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the ma­
jority  of  this  Court  would  have  thought  its  ﬂaws  included  a 
dearth of corporate money in politics. 

I would afﬁrm the judgment of the District Court.