Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Rules

SYLLABUS posted here

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 02–403

_________________

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. CHRISTINE BEAUMONT ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 16, 2003]

JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Since 1907, federal law has barred corporations from contributing directly to candidates for federal office. We hold that applying the prohibition to nonprofit advocacy corporations is consistent with the First Amendment.

I The current statute makes it “unlawful . . . for any corporation whatever . . . to make a contribution or expen-diture in connection with” certain federal elections, 90 Stat. 490, as renumbered and amended, 2 U. S. C. §441b(a), “contribution or expenditure” each being defined to include “anything of value,” §441b(b)(2). The prohibi-tion does not, however, forbid “the establishment, admini-stration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate segregated fund to be utilized for political purposes.” §441b(b)(2)(C); see §431(4)(B). Such a PAC (so called after the political action committee that runs it) may be wholly controlled by the sponsoring corporation, whose employees and stockholders or members generally may be solicited for contributions. See §§441b(b)(4)(B)–(C); Federal Elec-tion Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 200, n. 4 (1982). While federal law requires PACs to register and disclose their activities, §§432–434; see Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 253–254 (1986), the law leaves them free to make contributions as well as other expenditures in connection with federal elections, §441b(b)(2)(C).

Respondents are a corporation known as North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., three of its officers, and a North Caro- lina voter (here, together, NCRL), who have sued the Federal Election Commission, the independent agency set up to “administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to” the federal electoral laws. §437c(b)(1). NCRL challenges the constitutionality of §441b and the FEC’s regulations implementing that sec- tion, 11 CFR §§114.2(b), 114.10 (2003), but only so far as they apply to NCRL. The corporation is organized under the laws of North Carolina to provide counseling to preg- nant women and to urge alternatives to abortion, and as a nonprofit advocacy corporation it is exempted from federal taxation by §501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. §501(c)(4).¹ It has no shareholders and, although it receives some donations from traditional business cor- porations, it is “overwhelmingly funded by private contri- butions from individuals.” App. 14. NCRL has made contributions and expenditures in connection with state elections, but not federal, owing to 2 U. S. C. §441b. Instead, it has established a PAC, the North Carolina Right to Life, Inc., Political Action Committee, which has con-tributed to federal candidates. See North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Bartlett, 168 F. 3d 705, 709 (CA4 1999), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 1153 (2000).

The District Court granted summary judgment to NCRL and held §441b unconstitutional as applied to the corpora-tion, both as to direct contributions and independent expenditures. 137 F. Supp. 2d 648 (EDNC 2000). A di-vided Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, 278 F. 3d 261 (2002), relying primarily on Massachusetts Citizens for Life, in which this Court held it unconstitu-tional to apply the statute to independent expenditures by Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., a nonprofit advocacy corporation in some respects like NCRL. The Court of Appeals ruled, first, that the prohibition on independent expenditures may not be applied to NCRL. Although the panel acknowledged that Massachusetts Citizens for Life, unlike NCRL, had a formal policy against accepting corpo-rate donations, see Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 263–264 (describing this feature of the organization as “essential to our holding”), it nevertheless treated NCRL as materially indistinguishable from Massachusetts Citi-zens for Life.

To the point for present purposes, the Court of Appeals went on to hold the ban on direct contributions likewise unconstitutional as applied to NCRL. While the majority of the divided court recognized that regulation of cam-paign contributions has received greater deference under First Amendment cases than regulation of independent expenditures, 278 F. 3d, at 274 (citing Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 386–388 (2000)), it held the ban on direct contributions unjustified as applied to “[Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type corpo-rations,” which it thought “pose[d] no risk of ‘unfair de-ployment of wealth for political purposes.’” 278 F. 3d, at 275 (quoting Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 259). The Court of Appeals reasoned that “[t]he rationale utilized by the Court in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life] to declare prohibitions on independent expenditures uncon- stitutional as applied to [the advocacy corporation in- volved there] is equally applicable in the context of direct contributions.” 278 F. 3d, at 275. Judge Gregory dis- sented from the others on this point, since he saw no way to square their conclusion with this Court’s reasoning in National Right to Work. 278 F. 3d, at 282.

After the Fourth Circuit divided 7 to 4 in denying re- hearing en banc, the FEC petitioned for certiorari solely as to the constitutionality of the ban on direct contributions.² Because on that issue the Fourth Circuit is in conflict with the Sixth, see Kentucky Right to Life, Inc. v. Terry, 108 F. 3d 637, 645–646 (1997) (upholding a provision of Kentucky law analogous to §441b), we granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1027 (2002). We now reverse.

II

A

Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a cen- tury of congressional efforts to curb corporations’ poten- tially “deleterious influences on federal elections,” which we have canvassed a number of times before. United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 585 (1957); see id., at 570–584; see also National Right to Work, supra, at 208–209; Pipefitters v. United States, 407 U. S. 385, 402–412 (1972); United States v. CIO, 335 U. S. 106, 113–115 (1948). The current law grew out of a “popular feeling” in the late 19th century “that aggregated capital unduly influenced politics, an influence not stopping short of corruption.” Automobile Workers, supra, at 570. A demand for congres- sional action gathered force in the campaign of 1904, which made a national issue of the political leverage exerted through corporate contributions, and after the election and new revelations of corporate political overreaching, Presi- dent Theodore Roosevelt made banning corporate political contributions a legislative priority. R. Mutch, Campaigns, Congress, and Courts: The Making of Federal Campaign Finance Law 1–8 (1988); see Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 571–575. Although some congressional proposals would have “prohibited political contributions by [only] certain classes of corporations,” id., at 573, the momentum was “for elections ‘free from the power of money,’” id., at 575 (citation omitted), and Congress acted on the President’s call for an outright ban, not with half measures, but with the Tillman Act, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. This “first federal campaign finance law,” Mutch, supra, at xvii, banned “any corporation whatever” from making “a money contribution in connection with” federal elections, 34 Stat. 864–865.

Since 1907, there has been continual congressional attention to corporate political activity, sometimes result- ing in refinement of the law, sometimes in overhaul.³ One feature, however, has stayed intact throughout this “care- ful legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws,” National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 209, and much of the periodic amendment was meant to strengthen the original, core prohibition on direct corporate contributions. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, for example, broad-ened the ban on contributions to include “anything of value,” and criminalized the act of receiving a contribution to match the criminality of making one. Ch. 368, §§302, 313, 43 Stat. 1070, 1074. So, in another instance, the 1947 Labor Management Relations Act drew labor unions per-manently within the law’s reach and invigorated the earlier prohibition to include “expenditure[s]” as well. Ch. 120, §304, 61 Stat. 159; see Pipefitters, supra, at 402.

Today, as in 1907, the law focuses on the “special char-acteristics of the corporate structure” that threaten the integrity of the political process. National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 209; see id., at 207; see also Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658–659 (1990); Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 257–258; Federal Election Comm’n v. National Conservative Politi-cal Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 500–501 (1985). As we explained it in Austin,

“State law grants corporations special advantages— such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of as-sets—that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders’ investments. These state-created advantages not only allow corporations to play a dominant role in the Nation’s economy, but also permit them to use ‘resources amassed in the economic marketplace’ to obtain ‘an unfair advantage in the political marketplace.’” 494 U. S., at 658–659 (quoting Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 257).

Hence, the public interest in “restrict[ing] the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form.” National Conservative Political Action Comm., supra, at 500–501; see National Right to Work, supra, at 207 (“[S]ubstantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form of organization should not be converted into political ‘war chests’ which could be used to incur political debts from legislators”).

As these excerpts from recent opinions show, not only has the original ban on direct corporate contributions endured, but so have the original rationales for the law. In barring corporate earnings from conversion into politi-cal “war chests,” the ban was and is intended to “preven[t] corruption or the appearance of corruption.” National Conservative Political Action Comm., supra, at 496–497; see also First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 788, n. 26 (1978) (“The importance of the governmen-tal interest in preventing [corruption] has never been doubted”). But the ban has always done further duty in protecting “the individuals who have paid money into a corporation or union for purposes other than the support of candidates from having that money used to support political candidates to whom they may be opposed.” Na-tional Right to Work, supra, at 208; see CIO, 335 U. S., at 113; see also Austin, supra, at 673–678 (Brennan, J., concurring).

Quite aside from war-chest corruption and the interests of contributors and owners, however, another reason for regulating corporate electoral involvement has emerged with restrictions on individual contributions, and recent cases have recognized that restricting contributions by various organizations hedges against their use as conduits for “circumvention of [valid] contribution limits.” Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Cam-paign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 456, and n. 18 (2001); see Austin, supra, at 664. To the degree that a corporation could contribute to political candidates, the individuals “who created it, who own it, or whom it employs,” Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U. S. 158, 163 (2001), could exceed the bounds imposed on their own contributions by diverting money through the corporation, cf. Colorado Republican, 533 U. S., at 446–447. As we said on the subject of limiting coordinated expenditures by political parties, experience “demonstrates how candi-dates, donors, and parties test the limits of the current law, and it shows beyond serious doubt how contribution limits would be eroded if inducement to circumvent them were enhanced.” Id., at 457.

In sum, our cases on campaign finance regulation repre-sent respect for the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particu-larly careful regulation.” National Right to Work, supra, at 209–210. And we have understood that such deference to legislative choice is warranted particularly when Con-gress regulates campaign contributions, carrying as they do a plain threat to political integrity and a plain warrant to counter the appearance and reality of corruption and the misuse of corporate advantages. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26–28, 47 (1976) (per curiam). As we said in Colorado Republican, “limits on contributions are more clearly justified by a link to political corruption than limits on other kinds of . . . political spending are (corrup-tion being understood not only as quid pro quo agree-ments, but also as undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment, and the appearance of such influence).” 533 U. S., at 440–441 (citation omitted).

B

That historical prologue would discourage any broadside attack on corporate campaign finance regulation or regu-lation of corporate contributions, and NCRL accordingly questions §441b only to the extent the law places nonprofit advocacy corporations like itself under the general ban on direct contributions. But not even this more focused challenge can claim a blank slate, for Judge Gregory rightly said in his dissent that our explanation in National Right to Work all but decided the issue against NCRL’s position. National Right to Work addressed the provision of §441b restricting a nonstock corporation to its membership when soliciting contributions to its PAC,⁴ and we considered whether a nonprofit advocacy corporation without mem-bers of the usual sort could be held to violate the law by soliciting a donation to its PAC from any individual who had at one time contributed to the corporation. See 459 U. S., at 199–200. We sustained the FEC’s position that a fund drive as broad as this went beyond the solicitation of “members” permitted by §441b, and we invoked the his-tory distilled above in holding that the statutory restric-tion was no infringement on those First Amendment associational rights closely akin to speech. Id., at 206– 209. We concluded that the congressional judgment to regulate corporate political involvement “warrants considerable deference” and “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by [corporations] to the electoral process.” Id., at 207–211 (emphasis added). It would be hard to read our conclusion in National Right to Work, that the PAC solicitation restrictions were constitutional, except on the practical understanding that the corporation’s capacity to make contributions was legitimately limited to indirect donations within the scope allowed to PACs. See, e.g., id., at 208 (reviewing both “the statutory prohibitions and exceptions”). In fact, we spe-cifically rejected the argument made here, that deference to congressional judgments about proper limits on corpo-rate contributions turns on details of corporate form or the affluence of particular corporations. In the same breath, we remarked on the broad applicability of §441b to “corpo-rations and labor unions without great financial resources, as well as those more fortunately situated,” and made a point of refusing to “second-guess a legislative determina-tion as to the need for prophylactic measures where cor-ruption is the evil feared.” Id., at 210.

Later cases have repeatedly acknowledged, without questioning, the reading of National Right to Work as generally approving the §441b prohibition on direct con-tributions, even by nonprofit corporations “without great financial resources.” Ibid. In National Conservative Political Action Committee, for example, we not only spoke of National Right to Work as consistent with “the well-established constitutional validity of legislative regulation of corporate contributions to candidates for public office,” but went on to reaffirm that the Court in that case had “rightly concluded that Congress might include, along with labor unions and corporations traditionally prohib-ited from making contributions to political candidates, membership corporations, though contributions by the latter might not exhibit all of the evil that contributions by traditional economically organized corporations exhibit.” 470 U. S., at 495, 500; see id., at 500 (describing National Right to Work as giving “proper deference to a congres-sional determination of the need for a prophylactic rule”). Relying again on National Right to Work, we made a similar point in Austin when we sustained Michigan’s ban on direct corporate contributions, even though the ban “include[d] within its scope closely held corporations that do not possess vast reservoirs of capital.” 494 U. S., at 661. “Although some closely held corporations, just as some publicly held ones, may not have accumulated sig-nificant amounts of wealth, they receive from the State the special benefits conferred by the corporate structure and present the potential for distorting the political proc-ess. This potential for distortion justifies [the state law’s] general applicability to all corporations.” Ibid.

But National Right to Work does not stand alone in its bearing on the issue here, and equal significance must be accorded to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, the very case upon which NCRL and the Court of Appeals have placed principal reliance. There, we held the prohibition on independent expenditures under §441b unconstitutional as applied to a nonprofit advocacy corporation. While the majority explained generally that the “potential for unfair deployment of wealth for political purposes” fell short of justifying a ban on expenditures by groups like Massachu-setts Citizens for Life that “do not pose that danger of corruption,” the majority’s response to the dissent pointed to a different resolution of the present case. 479 U. S., at 259. THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissenting opinion noted that Massachusetts Citizens for Life “was not unlike” the cor-poration at issue in National Right to Work, which he read as supporting the ban on independent expenditures. 479 U. S., at 269. Without disagreeing about the similarity of the two organizations, the majority nonetheless distin-guished National Right to Work on the ground of its ad-dressing regulation of contributions, not expenditures. See 479 U. S., at 259–260 (“[R]estrictions on contributions require less compelling justification than restrictions on independent spending”). “In light of the historical role of contributions in the corruption of the electoral process, the need for a broad prophylactic rule [against contributions] was thus sufficient in [National Right to Work].” Id., at 260.

C

The upshot is that, although we have never squarely held against NCRL’s position here, we could not hold for it without recasting our understanding of the risks of harm posed by corporate political contributions, of the expres- sive significance of contributions, and of the consequent deference owed to legislative judgments on what to do about them. NCRL’s efforts, however, fail to unsettle existing law on any of these points.

First, NCRL argues that on a class-wide basis “[Massa- chusetts Citizens for Life]-type corporations pose no poten- tial of threat to the political system,” so that the govern- mental interest in combating corruption is as weak as the Court held it to be in relation to the particular corporation considered in Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Brief for Respondents 19. But this generalization does not hold up. For present purposes, we will assume advocacy corpora- tions are generally different from traditional business corporations in the improbability that contributions they might make would end up supporting causes that some of their members would not approve. See Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 260–262.⁵ But concern about the corrupting potential underlying the corporate ban may indeed be implicated by advocacy corporations. They, like their for-profit counterparts, benefit from significant “state-created advantages,” Austin, supra, at 659, and may well be able to amass substantial “political ‘war chests,’” National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 207. Not all corpora-tions that qualify for favorable tax treatment under §501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code lack substantial resources, and the category covers some of the Nation’s most politically powerful organizations, including the AARP, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club.⁶ Nonprofit advocacy corporations are, moreover, no less susceptible than traditional business companies to misuse as conduits for circumventing the contribution limits imposed on individuals. Cf. Austin, supra, at 664 (noting that a nonprofit corporation is capable of “serv[ing] as a conduit for corporate political spending”).⁷

Second, NCRL argues that application of the ban on its contributions should be subject to a strict level of scrutiny, on the ground that §441b does not merely limit contribu-tions, but bans them on the basis of their source. Brief for Respondents 14–16. This argument, however, overlooks the basic premise we have followed in setting First Amendment standards for reviewing political financial restrictions: the level of scrutiny is based on the impor-tance of the “political activity at issue” to effective speech or political association. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 259; see Colorado Republican, 533 U. S., at 440–442, and nn. 6–7; Nixon, 528 U. S., at 386–388. Going back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), restric-tions on political contributions have been treated as merely “marginal” speech restrictions subject to relatively complaisant review under the First Amendment, because contributions lie closer to the edges than to the core of political expression. See Colorado Republican, supra, at 440.⁸ “While contributions may result in political expres-sion if spent by a candidate or an association . . . , the trans-formation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor.” Buckley, supra, at 20–21. This is the reason that instead of requiring contribution regulations to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, “a contribution limit involving ‘significant interference’ with associational rights” passes muster if it satisfies the lesser demand of being “‘closely drawn’ to match a ‘sufficiently important interest.’” Nixon, supra, at 387–388 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 25); cf. Austin, 494 U. S., at 657; Buckley, supra, at 44–45.⁹

Indeed, this recognition that degree of scrutiny turns on the nature of the activity regulated is the only practical way to square two leading cases: National Right to Work approved strict solicitation limits on a PAC organized to make contributions, see 459 U. S., at 201–202, whereas Massachusetts Citizens for Life applied a compelling inter-est test to invalidate the ban on an advocacy corporation’s expenditures in light of PAC regulatory burdens, see 479 U. S., at 252–255; see also id., at 265–266 (opinion of O’CONNOR, J.). Each case involved §441b, after all, and the same “ban” on the same corporate “sources” of political activity applied in both cases.

It is not that the difference between a ban and a limit is to be ignored; it is just that the time to consider it is when applying scrutiny at the level selected, not in selecting the standard of review itself. But even when NCRL urges precisely that, and asserts that §441b is not sufficiently “closely drawn,” the claim still rests on a false premise, for NCRL is simply wrong in characterizing §441b as a com-plete ban. As we have said before, the section “permits some participation of unions and corporations in the federal electoral process by allowing them to establish and pay the administrative expenses of [PACs].” National Right to Work, supra, at 201; see also Austin, supra, at 660; Massa-chusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 252. The PAC option allows corporate political participation without the tempta-tion to use corporate funds for political influence, quite possibly at odds with the sentiments of some shareholders or members, and it lets the government regulate campaign activity through registration and disclosure, see §§432–434, without jeopardizing the associational rights of advocacy organizations’ members, see NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 462 (1958) (holding that “[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs” may violate the First Amendment).

NCRL cannot prevail, then, simply by arguing that a ban on an advocacy corporation’s direct contributions is bad tailoring. NCRL would have to demonstrate that the law violated the First Amendment in allowing contribu-tions to be made only through its PAC and subject to a PAC’s administrative burdens. But a unanimous Court in National Right to Work did not think the regulatory bur-dens on PACs, including restrictions on their ability to solicit funds, rendered a PAC unconstitutional as an advo-cacy corporation’s sole avenue for making political contri-butions. See 459 U. S., at 201–202. There is no reason to think the burden on advocacy corporations is any greater today, or to reach a different conclusion here.

III

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Footnotes.

¹ Section 501(c)(4)(A) grants exemption to “[c]ivic leagues or organiza-tions not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, . . . the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.” An organization “may carry on lawful political activities and remain exempt under section 501(c)(4) as long as it is primarily engaged in activities that promote social welfare.” Rev. Rul. 81–95, 1981–1 Cum. Bull. 332. Unlike contributions to §501(c)(3) organizations, donations to those recognized under §501(c)(4) are not tax deductible. See Regan v. Taxa-tion With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540, 543 (1983).

²We thus have no occasion to say whether the Court of Appeals cor-rectly held NCRL entitled to the so-called “Massachusetts Citizens for Life exception” to the statute’s ban on independent expenditures.

³ See, e.g., Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 392, 36 Stat. 822; Act of Aug. 19, 1911, ch. 33, 37 Stat. 25; Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 1925, ch. 368, 43 Stat. 1070; Act of July 19, 1940 (Hatch Act), 54 Stat. 767; War Labor Disputes Act, ch. 144, §9, 57 Stat. 167; Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, §304, 61 Stat. 159; Act of Oct. 31, 1951, Pub. L. 82–248, §21, 65 Stat. 718; Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), 86 Stat. 3; FECA Amendments of 1974, 88 Stat. 1263; FECA Amendments of 1976, 90 Stat. 475; FECA Amendments of 1979, 93 Stat. 1339; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–155, 116 Stat. 81.——————

⁴ Section 441b(b)(4)(A) bars a corporation from soliciting contributions to a PAC established by the corporation, except from stockholders or other specified categories of persons. Section 441b(b)(4)(C), the specific provision at issue in National Right to Work, provides, in relevant part, that §441b(b)(4)(A) “shall not prevent a . . . corporation without capital stock . . . from soliciting contributions to [a PAC established by the corporation] from members of such . . . corporation.”

⁵ That said, this concern is not wholly inapplicable to advocacy corpo-rations, as “persons may desire that an organization use their contribu-tions to further a certain cause, but may not want the organization to use their money to urge support for or opposition to political candidates solely on the basis of that cause.” Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U. S., at 261. In any event, we have never intimated that the risk of corruption alone is insufficient to support regulation of political contri-butions. See, e.g., Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 658–659 (1990); Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 208 (1982); cf. Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 388–389 (2000).

⁶ See http://www.aarp.org/press/disclosure.html (as visited June 12, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (AARP); http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp (as visited June 12, 2003) (avail-able in Clerk of Court’s case file) (National Rifle Association and Sierra Club). These examples answer NCRL’s argument that the Massachu-setts Citizens for Life exception is “self-limiting.” See Brief for Respon-dents 27 (“If [a Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type corporation begins generating or receiving substantial business income or business corpo-ration contributions, by definition, it automatically is no longer [a Massachusetts Citizens for Life]-type corporation” (citing Massachusetts Citizens for Life, supra, at 263–264)). The nonprofit advocacy corpora-tions mentioned (one of which has, in fact, been granted “[Massachu-setts Citizens for Life]-type” status by a Court of Appeals, see, e.g., FEC v. National Rifle Assn., 254 F. 3d 173, 192 (CADC 2001)) show that “political ‘war chests’ ” may be amassed simply from members’ contribu-tions. 459 U. S., at 207.

⁷ NCRL suggests that the Government’s interest in combating cir-cumvention of the campaign finance laws would be sufficiently met by allowing limited contributions subject to the earmarking rule of §441a(a)(8), which provides that “contributions which are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediate or conduit to [a] candidate” are treated as contributions to the candidate (thus triggering the disclosure requirements of §434(b)(3)(A)). Brief for Respondents 31. We rejected this precise argument, however, in Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431 (2001), where we concluded that it “ignores the practical difficulty of identifying and directly combating circumvention under actual political conditions.” Id., at 462. “The earmarking provi-sion . . . would reach only the most clumsy attempts to pass contribu-tions through to candidates. To treat the earmarking provision as the outer limit of acceptable tailoring would disarm any serious effort to limit [circumvention].” Ibid.

⁸ Within the realm of contributions generally, corporate contributions are furthest from the core of political expression, since corporations’ First Amendment speech and association interests are derived largely from those of their members, see, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patter-son, 357 U. S. 449, 458–459 (1958), and of the public in receiving informa-tion, see, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 777 (1978). A ban on direct corporate contributions leaves individual members of corporations free to make their own contributions, and deprives the public of little or no material information.

⁹Judicial deference is particularly warranted where, as here, we deal with a congressional judgment that has remained essentially unchanged throughout a century of “careful legislative adjustment.” National Right to Work, 459 U. S., at 209; cf. Nixon, 528 U. S., at 391 (“The quantum of empirical evidence needed to satisfy heightened judicial scrutiny of legislative judgments will vary up or down with the novelty and plausibil-ity of the justification raised”).

---(hyphenated words in this post are due to formatting of the court's ruling) - CD

Thanks, SUSSA.

The fact is that men of moral character do not need the ego satisfaction of politics. Politicians have a need for love and admiration beyond anything normal folks can concieve of. They are flawed people by definition, no matter how well thought of they may be.

I see Bush as a smart, savior of the Republican Party, not a savior of America, or the world at large. In that I support Republicans, I support Bush's actions, regardless of the mendacity level required for victory. People hate to talk in these terms, they would rather hide behind a false (or sometimes true) nobility.

As Al Davis once said to the once great Oakland Raiders; JUST WIN, BABY! That sums up my politics in a nutshell.

It's been tough. I'll tell you about it next time I see you.

Any day is a good day to get on FR.

Syllabus
Opinion of the Court (Souter)

KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 02–403

_________________

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. CHRISTINE BEAUMONT ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 16, 2003]

JUSTICE KENNEDY, concurring in the judgment.

My position, expressed in dissenting opinions in previ-ous cases, has been that the Court erred in sustaining certain state and federal restrictions on political speech in the campaign finance context and misapprehended basic First Amendment principles in doing so. See Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 409 (2000) (KENNEDY, J., dissenting); Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652, 699 (1990) (KENNEDY, J., dissenting); Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 518 U. S. 604, 626 (1996) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part). I adhere to this view, and so can give no weight to those authorities in the instant case.

That said, it must be acknowledged that Federal Elec-tion Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), contains language supporting the Court’s holding here that corporate contributions can be regulated more closely than corporate expenditures. The language upon which the Court relies tends to recon-cile the tension between the approach in MCFL and the Court’s earlier decision in Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197 (1982).

Were we presented with a case in which the distinction between contributions and expenditures under the whole scheme of campaign finance regulation were under review, I might join JUSTICE THOMAS’ opinion. The Court does not undertake that comprehensive examination here, how-ever. And since there is language in MCFL that supports today’s holding, I concur in the judgment.

---(hyphenated words in this post are due to formatting of the court's ruling) - CD

The SCOTUS cannot always be correct on what is constitutional.

So, is it your premise that all laws are unconstitutional if you say so ?

That being said I will go with the plain language that is crystal clear that this is unconstitutional. GW basically admitted as much when he signed it.

No he didn't.

Would you not agree that unless we raise a stink when our guy does what we don’t like we will never gain any ground?

I can see supporting Bush with our vote. I can’t see keeping quiet when he does something I don’t like. And if he does too much that we don’t like not supporting him in a future election.

A thank you for your posting services, BTW.

Syllabus
Opinion of the Court (Souter)
Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgement

THOMAS, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 02–403

_________________

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. CHRISTINE BEAUMONT ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 16, 2003]

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting.

I continue to believe that campaign finance laws are subject to strict scrutiny. Federal Election Comm’n v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm., 533 U. S. 431, 465–466 (2001) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (Colorado II); Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 518 U. S. 604, 640 (1996) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment and dissenting in part) (Colorado I). See also Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 427 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As in Colorado II, the Government does not argue here that 2 U. S. C. §441b survives review under that rigorous standard. Indeed, it could not. “[U]nder traditional strict scrutiny, broad prophylactic caps on . . . giving in the political process . . . are unconstitutional,” Colorado I, 518 U. S., at 640–641, because, as I have explained before, they are not narrowly tailored to meet any relevant compelling state interest, id., at 641–644; Nixon, supra, at 427–430. See also Colorado II, supra, at 465–466. Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and respectfully dissent from the Court’s contrary disposition.

You're very welcome.

So, is it your premise that all laws are unconstitutional if you say so ?

No actually it is my premise that the constitutionality is determined by examining the plain meanings of the words. If we cannot agree what those words mean than no constitutional provision has any meaning whatsoever. Based on the word "abridge" these provisions are objectively in violation of the meaning. That sure as hell beats defining constitutionality by the current whims of the supreme court.

As far as GW I will paraphrase "Despite my concerns about the constitutionality about some of the provisions of this law I am signing it because I think it is a good thing"

That is a politicians admission if there ever was one however in this case I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.

As Al Davis once said to the once great Oakland Raiders; JUST WIN, BABY! That sums up my politics in a nutshell.

The Communists, in Russia, JUST WON BABY.

I'm assuming they do not fall into the tally that sums up your politics.

Would you not agree that unless we raise a stink when our guy does what we don’t like we will never gain any ground?

No.

Democrats have proven that with united support, they can win elections against the worst odds. There is no logical argument to suggest that Clinton or Carter were worthy of the office.

Republicans and Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot in search of a voice. Our side needs to learn that once we win, to shutup until the next election. We can always choose another candidate down the road. Once you come to the table, you play the cards you are dealt, until the next round.

We have to come to grips with the fact that whoever we elect is going to do as they please until the next election. They do not hear you until then.

You are welcome to vote your concience. As am I.

Winning clean is not as important as WINNING period. Losers accomplish nothing

And gain nothing.

Democrats are very vocal when they don’t like something. They still vote for their guy but they blast him when he goes astray. Look at the abuse Clinton got for signing welfare reform.

The welfare queens and poverty pimps got Democrats in Congress to start pushing to overturn welfare reform the day it was signed. Clinton had to give that speech in Detroit about trying to fix it where it was wrong. (He gave no specifics.)

Democrats raise hell when they don’t like something, but tell pollsters they love their guy and mostly vote Democrat no matter what. That’s how they keep pushing the country to the left.

No actually it is my premise that the constitutionality is determined by examining the plain meanings of the words

Where does it say Exxon has the same constitutional right to free speech as I do ? Where is the constitutional amendment that extends our bill of rights to a state created/protected entity ?

I agree that we take the menaing of the words at face value but there application are not always so clear. If they were the founding fathers would not have created a SC to intepret them.

I am applying interpretation which is much more justified when deciphering political speak than it is in determining the meaning of the first amendment.

You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?

"What we now know, is that once the courts decide the matter, it is OVER, regardless of how it turns out."

BULL

In the last 40 years, SCOTUS has overturned itself 127 times.

How can anything be considered over?

What I read in THIS ruling is that the court is saying that money does not always equal speech in terms of politics. All this ruling does is confirm that congress has the authority to restrict some forms of donations. This has nothing to do with the advertising limitations within McCain Feingold.

McCain Feingold has crossed the line from the theoretic argument that $$ = speech into the clear territory of speech itself. I expect SCOTUS to rule appropriately on that issue. What remains in question from where I see it is the action they will require ...

Will they send the entire law back for a re-write claiming that the unconstitutional provisions are so central to the bill as to taint the entire law, or will they simply strike down those clauses they find unacceptable?

Lazamataz, you remind me of something a woman once said to me, decades ago, when I was describing the capabilities of the Phoenix missile to her. At the point where I told her that a single Tomcat was capable of tracking 24 targets shooting down 6 enemy aircraft before they would ever see the Tomcat on their radar, she remarked; "That's not a fair fight!" I asked her if it mattered more if it was a fair fight, or that America wins it's air battles.

Now, I'm asking you essentially the same thing regarding the Democrats. What is more important? Winning, or fighting fair?

Thanks. I'm surprised that Rehnquist didn't join Thomas and Scalia in this dissent.