Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 525.0

364  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of the Court 

and  labor  unions  is  set  forth  in  great  detail  in  [Automobile 
Workers],  supra,  at  570–584,  and  we  need  only  summarize 
the development here”). 

Austin  is  undermined  by  experience  since  its  announce­
ment.  Political  speech  is  so  ingrained  in  our  culture  that 
speakers  ﬁnd  ways  to  circumvent  campaign  ﬁnance  laws. 
See,  e. g.,  McConnell,  540  U. S.,  at  176–177  (“Given  BCRA’s 
tighter  restrictions  on  the  raising  and  spending  of  soft 
money, the incentives . . .  to  exploit [26 U. S. C. § 527] organi­
zations will only increase”).  Our Nation’s speech dynamic is 
changing, and informative voices should not have to circum­
vent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment 
rights.  Speakers  have  become  adept  at  presenting  citizens 
with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that 
dominate  the  24-hour  news  cycle.  Corporations,  like  indi­
viduals,  do  not  have  monolithic  views.  On  certain  topics 
corporations  may  possess  valuable  expertise,  leaving  them 
the  best  equipped  to  point  out  errors  or  fallacies  in  speech 
of  all  sorts,  including  the  speech  of  candidates  and  elected 
ofﬁcials. 

Rapid  changes  in  technology—and  the  creative  dynamic 
inherent  in  the  concept  of  free  expression—counsel  against 
upholding  a  law  that  restricts  political  speech  in  certain 
media  or  by  certain  speakers.  See  Part  II–C,  supra. 
Today,  30-second  television  ads  may  be  the  most  effective 
way  to  convey  a  political  message.  See  McConnell,  supra, 
at 261 (opinion of Scalia, J.).  Soon, however, it may be that 
Internet  sources,  such  as  blogs  and  social  networking  Web 
sites, will provide citizens with signiﬁcant information about 
political  candidates  and  issues.  Yet,  § 441b  would  seem  to 
ban  a  blog  post  expressly  advocating  the  election  or  defeat 
of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. 
See  2  U. S. C.  § 441b(a);  MCFL,  supra,  at  249.  The  First 
Amendment  does  not  permit  Congress  to  make  these  cate­
gorical  distinctions  based  on  the  corporate  identity  of  the 
speaker and the content of the political speech.