Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 493

332  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

considered  the  question  of  its  facial  validity.  The  holding 
and validity of Austin were essential to the reasoning of the 
McConnell  majority  opinion,  which  upheld  BCRA’s  exten­
sion  of  § 441b.  See  540  U. S.,  at  205  (quoting  Austin,  494 
U. S.,  at  660).  McConnell  permitted  federal  felony  punish­
ment for speech by all corporations, including nonproﬁt ones, 
that speak on prohibited subjects shortly before federal elec­
tions.  See 540 U. S., at 203–209.  Four Members of the Mc­
Connell Court would have overruled Austin, including Chief 
Justice  Rehnquist,  who  had  joined  the  Court’s  opinion  in 
Austin  but  reconsidered  that  conclusion.  See  540  U. S.,  at 
256–262  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part,  concurring  in  judg­
ment  in  part,  and  dissenting  in  part);  id.,  at  273–275 
(Thomas, J., concurring in part, concurring in result in part, 
concurring  in  judgment  in  part,  and  dissenting  in  part);  id., 
at  322–338  (opinion  of  Kennedy,  J.,  joined  by  Rehnquist, 
C.  J.,  and  Scalia,  J.).  That  inquiry  into  the  facial  validity 
of the statute was facilitated by the extensive record, which 
was “over 100,000 pages” long, made in the three-judge Dis­
trict  Court.  McConnell  v.  Federal  Election  Comm’n,  251 
F. Supp. 2d 176, 209 (DC 2003) (per curiam) (McConnell I). 
It is not the case, then, that the Court today is premature in 
interpreting  § 441b  “ ‘on  the  basis  of  [a]  factually  barebones 
recor[d].’ ”  Washington  State  Grange  v.  Washington  State 
Republican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 450 (2008) (quoting Sabri v. 
United States, 541 U. S. 600, 609 (2004)). 

The  McConnell  majority  considered  whether  the  statute 
was  facially  invalid.  An  as-applied  challenge  was  brought 
in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 
546  U. S.  410,  411–412  (2006)  (per  curiam),  and  the  Court 
conﬁrmed that the challenge could be maintained.  Then, in 
WRTL,  the  controlling  opinion  of  the  Court  not  only  enter­
tained  an  as-applied  challenge  but  also  sustained  it.  Three 
Justices noted that they would continue to maintain the posi­
tion that the record in McConnell demonstrated the invalid­
ity  of  the  Act  on  its  face.  551  U. S.,  at  485–504  (opinion  of