McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 222 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  Next

Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)

Opinion of Kennedy, J.

II. TITLE II PROVISIONS A. Disclosure Provisions

BCRA § 201, which requires disclosure of electioneering communications, including those coordinated with the party but independent of the candidate, does not substantially relate to a valid interest in gathering data about compliance with contribution limits or in deterring corruption. Contra, ante, at 196. As the above analysis of Title I demonstrates, Congress has no valid interest in regulating soft-money contributions that do not pose quid pro quo corruption potential. In the absence of a valid basis for imposing such limits the effort here to ensure compliance with them and to deter their allegedly corrupting effects cannot justify disclosure. The regulation does substantially relate to the other interest the majority details, however. See ibid. This assures its constitutionality. For that reason, I agree with the Court's judgment upholding the disclosure provisions contained in § 201 of Title II, with one exception.

Section 201's advance disclosure requirement—the aspect of the provision requiring those who have contracted to speak to disclose their speech in advance—is, in my view, unconstitutional. Advance disclosure imposes real burdens on political speech that post hoc disclosure does not. It forces disclosure of political strategy by revealing where ads are to be run and what their content is likely to be (based on who is running the ad). It also provides an opportunity for the ad buyer's opponents to dissuade broadcasters from running ads. See Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee National Right to Life Committee, Inc., et al. in No. 02-1733 et al., pp. 44-46, and nn. 42-43. Against those tangible additional burdens, the Government identifies no additional interest uniquely served by advance disclosure. If Congress intended to ensure that advertisers could not flout these disclosure laws by running an ad before the elec-

321

Page:   Index   Previous  215  216  217  218  219  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007