McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 260 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  262  263  264  265  266  267  Next

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

Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting

plicable First Amendment standard, including that of heightened scrutiny." Ante, at 285 (opinion of Breyer, J.). I disagree.

This section is deficient because of the absence of a sufficient governmental interest to justify disclosure of mere requests to purchase broadcast time, as well as purchases themselves. The Court approaches § 504 almost exclusively from the perspective of the broadcast licensees, ignoring the interests of candidates and other purchasers, whose speech and association rights are affected by § 504. See, e. g., ante, at 236 (noting that broadcasters are subject to numerous recordkeeping requirements); ante, at 237 (opining that this Court has recognized "broad governmental authority for agency information demands from regulated entities"); ante, at 239 ("[W]e cannot say that these requirements will impose disproportionate administrative burdens"). An approach that simply focuses on whether the administrative burden is justifiable is untenable. Because § 504 impinges on core First Amendment rights, it is subject to a more demanding test than mere rational-basis review. The Court applies the latter by asking essentially whether there is any conceivable reason to support § 504. See ibid. (discussing the ways in which the disclosure "can help" the FCC and the public); ante, at 240 (noting that the "recordkeeping requirements seem likely to help the FCC" enforce the fairness doctrine).

Required disclosure provisions that deter constitutionally protected association and speech rights are subject to heightened scrutiny. See Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64. When applying heightened scrutiny, we first ask whether the Government has asserted an interest sufficient to justify the disclosure of requests to purchase broadcast time. Ibid.; see ante, at 196 ( joint opinion of Stevens and O'Connor, JJ.) (concluding that the important state interests the Buckley Court held justified FECA's disclosure requirements apply to BCRA § 201's disclosure requirement). But the Govern-

359

Page:   Index   Previous  253  254  255  256  257  258  259  260  261  262  263  264  265  266  267  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007