46 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of STEVENS, J. sessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process.” NRWC, 459 U. S., at 209 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The governmen­ tal interest in preventing both actual corruption and the appearance of corruption of elected representatives has long been recognized,” the unanimous Court observed, “and there is no reason why it may not . . . be accom­ plished by treating . . . corporations . . . differently from individuals.” Id., at 210–211. The corporate/individual distinction was not questioned by the Court’s disposition, in 1986, of a challenge to the expenditure restriction as applied to a distinctive type of nonprofit corporation. In MCFL, 479 U. S. 238, we stated again “that ‘the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,’ ” id., at 256 (quoting NRWC, 459 U. S., at 209–210), and again we acknowledged that the Government has a legitimate interest in “regulat[ing] the substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form,” 479 U. S., at 257 (internal quotation marks omitted). Those aggregations can distort the “free trade in ideas” crucial to candidate elections, ibid., at the expense of members or shareholders who may disagree with the object of the expenditures, id., at 260 (internal quotation marks omitted). What the Court held by a 5-to­ 4 vote was that a limited class of corporations must be allowed to use their general treasury funds for independ­ ent expenditures, because Congress’ interests in protect­ ing shareholders and “restrict[ing] ‘the influence of politi­ cal war chests funneled through the corporate form,’ ” id., at 257 (quoting FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 U. S. 480, 501 (1985) (NCPAC)), did not apply to corporations that were structurally insulated from those concerns.61 —————— 61 Specifically, these corporations had to meet three conditions. First,