Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 519.0

358  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

comparable  right  in  the  quite  different  context  of  participa­
tion  in  a  political  campaign  for  election  to  public  ofﬁce.” 
Ibid.  Citing the portion of Buckley that invalidated the fed­
eral independent expenditure ban, 424 U. S., at 46, and a law 
review  student  comment,  Bellotti  surmised  that  “Congress 
might well be able to demonstrate the existence of a danger 
of  real  or  apparent  corruption  in  independent  expenditures 
by corporations to inﬂuence candidate elections.”  435 U. S., 
at 788, n. 26.  Buckley, however, struck down a ban on inde­
pendent  expenditures  to  support  candidates  that  covered 
corporations,  424  U. S.,  at  23,  39,  n.  45,  and  explained  that 
“the distinction  between discussion  of issues  and candidates 
and  advocacy  of  election  or  defeat  of  candidates  may  often 
dissolve  in  practical  application,”  id.,  at  42.  Bellotti’s  dic­
tum  is  thus  supported  only  by  a  law  review  student  com­
ment,  which  misinterpreted  Buckley.  See  Comment,  The 
Regulation  of  Union  Political  Activity:  Majority  and  Minor­
ity  Rights  and  Remedies,  126  U.  Pa.  L.  Rev.  386,  408  (1977) 
(suggesting  that  “corporations  and  labor  unions  should  be 
held to different and more stringent standards than an indi­
vidual  or  other  associations  under  a  regulatory  scheme  for 
campaign ﬁnancing”). 

Seizing  on  this  aside  in  Bellotti’s  footnote,  the  Court  in 
NRWC  did  say  there  is  a  “sufﬁcient”  governmental  inter­
est  in  “ensur[ing]  that  substantial  aggregations  of  wealth 
amassed” by corporations would not “be used to incur politi­
cal  debts  from  legislators  who  are  aided  by  the  contribu­
tions.”  459  U. S.,  at  207–208  (citing  Automobile  Workers, 
352  U. S.,  at  579);  see  459  U. S.,  at  210,  and  n.  7;  NCPAC, 
supra,  at  500–501  (NRWC  suggested  a  governmental  inter­
est  in  restricting  “the  inﬂuence  of  political  war  chests  fun­
neled  through  the  corporate  form”).  NRWC,  however,  has 
little  relevance  here.  NRWC  decided  no  more  than  that  a 
restriction  on  a  corporation’s  ability  to  solicit  funds  for  its 
segregated  PAC,  which  made  direct  contributions  to  candi­
dates,  did  not  violate  the  First  Amendment.  459  U. S.,  at