Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
Opinion of Thomas, J.
sions address quid pro quo corruption.8 And the shareholder protection rationale is equally unavailing. The "shareholder invests in a corporation of his own volition and is free to withdraw his investment at any time and for any reason," Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 794, n. 34. Hence, no compelling interest can be found in protecting minority shareholders from the corporation's use of its general treasury, especially where, in other contexts, "equally important and controversial corporate decisions are made by management or by a predetermined percentage of the shareholders." Ibid.
C
I must now address an issue on which I differ from all of my colleagues: the disclosure provisions in BCRA § 201, now contained in new FECA § 304(f). The "historical evidence indicates that Founding-era Americans opposed attempts to require that anonymous authors reveal their identities on the ground that forced disclosure violated the 'freedom of the press.' " McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U. S. 334, 361 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment).9 Indeed, this Court has explicitly recognized that "the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclo-8 The National Rifle Association (NRA) plaintiffs compellingly state that "[a]s a measure designed to prevent official corruption, of either the quid pro quo or the 'gratitude' variety, Title II . . . makes no more sense than a bribery statute requiring corporations to pay for their bribes using funds from PACs." Brief for Appellant NRA et al. in No. 02-1675, pp. 24-25. And, regarding the appearance of corruption: "Defendants' own witnesses concede that the public's perceptions of ads is not affected in the slightest by whether they are purchased with general treasury funds or with PAC money." Id., at 25.
9 The fact that the Founders located the right to anonymous speech in the "freedom of the press" is of no moment, as "it makes little difference in terms of our analysis, which seeks to determine only whether the First Amendment, as originally understood, protects anonymous writing." Mc-Intyre, 514 U. S., at 360 (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment).
275
Page: Index Previous 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007