Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
Syllabus
ble to the parents. Absent a more convincing case of the claimed evil, this interest is simply too attenuated for § 318 to withstand heightened scrutiny. See Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 391. Even assuming, arguendo, the Government advances an important interest, the provision is overinclusive, as shown by the States' adoption of more tailored approaches. Pp. 231-232. 4. Because the FEC clearly has standing, the Court need not address whether the intervenor-defendants, whose position here is identical to the FEC's, were properly granted intervention pursuant to, inter alia, BCRA § 403(b). See, e. g., Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U. S. 417, 431-432, n. 19. P. 233.
Justice Breyer delivered the Court's opinion with respect to BCRA Title V—§ 504 of which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require broadcasters to keep publicly available records of politically related broadcasting requests, 47 U. S. C. § 315(e)—concluding that the portion of the judgment below invalidating § 504 as facially violative of the First Amendment must be reversed. Pp. 233-245. 1. Section 504's "candidate request" requirements—which call for broadcasters to keep records of broadcast requests "made by or on behalf of a . . . candidate," 47 U. S. C. § 315(e)(1)(A)—are upheld. They are virtually identical to those contained in a longstanding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation. The McConnell plaintiffs' argument that the requirements are intolerably burdensome and invasive is rejected. The FCC has consistently estimated that its regulation imposes upon a licensee a comparatively small additional administrative burden. Moreover, the § 504 requirement is supported by significant governmental interests in verifying that licensees comply with their obligations to allow political candidates "equal time," 47 U. S. C. § 315(a), and to sell such time at the "lowest unit charge," § 315(b); in evaluating whether they are processing candidate requests in an evenhanded fashion to help assure broadcasting fairness, § 315(a); in making the public aware of how much candidates spend on broadcast messages, 2 U. S. C. § 434; and in providing an independently compiled set of data for verifying candidates' compliance with BCRA's and FECA's disclosure requirements and source limitations, ibid. Because the Court cannot, on the present record, find the longstanding FCC regulation unconstitutional, it cannot strike down BCRA § 504's "candidate request" provision, which simply embodies the regulation in a statute, thereby blocking any agency attempt to repeal it. Pp. 234-238. 2. Because § 504's "candidate request" requirements are constitutional, its "election message" requirements—which serve similar governmental interests and impose only a small incremental burden in requiring broadcasters to keep records of requests (made by anyone) to broadcast
109
Page: Index Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007