07–2240 (DC), ¶¶ 22–24. Even under the majority’s “crabbed view of corruption,” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 152, the Government should not lose this case. It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Brief for Appellee 3, n. 1 (“Some courts” have implied a Historical evidence relating to the textually similar clause “the freedom of .
The Court has explained that disclosure is a less restrictive alternative to more comprehensive regulations of speech. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. The Court proclaims that “
The exemption applies to media corporations owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. The purpose and effect of this law is to prevent corporations, including small and nonprofit corporations, from presenting both facts and opinions to the public.
on appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Alito joins, and with whom Justice Thomas joins in part, concurring.
Unlike natural persons, corporations have “limited liability” for their owners and managers, “perpetual life,” separation of ownership and control, “and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets … that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments.” 494 U. S., at 658–659. W. diGiacomantonio, “For the Gratification of a Volunteering Society”: Antislavery and Pressure Group Politics in the First Federal Congress, 15 J. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion. For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. The injury to the shareholders’ expressive rights has already occurred; they might have preferred to keep that corporation’s stock in their portfolio for any number of economic reasons; and they may incur a capital gains tax or other penalty from selling their shares, changing their pension plan, or the like. ed. See Finally and most importantly, the Government’s own effort to defend This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of the millions of corporations in this country have PACs. In a careful analysis, Judge Kollar-Kotelly made numerous findings about the corrupting consequences of corporate and union independent expenditures in the years preceding BCRA’s passage. And that is just the beginning. See,
Now more than ever, §§201 and 311 will chill protected speech because—as California voters can attest—“the advent of the Internet” enables “prompt disclosure of expenditures,” which “provide[s]” political opponents “with the information needed” to intimidate and retaliate against their foes. Corporate “domination” of electioneering, Accessed 13 Jun.
Fearing the possibility of retaliation, according to Thomas, could chill speech before it occurred, as had been the case in the California initiative process. As a matter of original expectations, then, it seems absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of a sponsor of electoral advocacy.
Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.
Nor does the legislative history give reason for concern.
For the most part relinquishing the antidistortion rationale, the Government falls back on the argument that corporate political speech can be banned in order to prevent corruption or its appearance.