McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 227 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  Next

326

McCONNELL v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N

Opinion of Kennedy, J.

organizations adopting the corporate form is a grave insult to nonprofit and for-profit corporations alike, entities that have long enriched our civic dialogue.

Austin was the first and, until now, the only time our Court had allowed the Government to exercise the power to censor political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. The majority's contrary contention is simply incorrect. Contra, ante, at 203 ("Since our decision in Buckley, Congress' power to prohibit corporations and unions from using funds in their treasuries to finance advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates in federal elections has been firmly embedded in our law"). I dissented in Austin, 494 U. S., at 695, and continue to believe that the case represents an indefensible departure from our tradition of free and robust debate. Two of my colleagues joined the dissent, including a Member of today's majority. Ibid. (O'Connor and Scalia, JJ.). See also id., at 679 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

To be sure, Bellotti concerns issue advocacy, whereas Austin is about express advocacy. This distinction appears to have accounted for the position of at least two Members of the Court. See 494 U. S., at 675-676 (Brennan, J., concurring) ("The Michigan law . . . prohibits corporations from using treasury funds only for making independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in state elections. A corporation remains free . . . to use general treasury funds to support an initiative proposal in a state referendum" (citations omitted)); id., at 678 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("[T]here is a vast difference between lobbying and debating public issues on the one hand, and political campaigns for election to public office on the other"). The distinction, however, between independent expenditures for commenting on issues, on the one hand, and supporting or opposing a candidate, on the other, has no First Amendment significance apart from Austin's arbitrary line.

Page:   Index   Previous  220  221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228  229  230  231  232  233  234  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007