72 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of STEVENS, J. v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399, 447 (2006) (STEVENS, J., concur­ ring in part and dissenting in part); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 317 (2004) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Along with our duty to balance competing constitutional con­ cerns, we have a vital role to play in ensuring that elec­ tions remain at least minimally open, fair, and competi­ tive. But it is the height of recklessness to dismiss Congress’ years of bipartisan deliberation and its reasoned judgment on this basis, without first confirming that the statute in question was intended to be, or will function as, a restraint on electoral competition. “Absent record evi­ dence of invidious discrimination against challengers as a class, a court should generally be hesitant to invalidate legislation which on its face imposes evenhanded restric­ tions.” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 31. We have no record evidence from which to conclude that BCRA §203, or any of the dozens of state laws that the Court today calls into question, reflects or fosters such invidious discrimination. Our colleagues have opined that “ ‘any restriction upon a type of campaign speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents tends to favor incumbents.’ ” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 249 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). This kind of airy speculation could easily be turned on its head. The electioneering prohibited by §203 might well tend to favor incumbents, because incumbents have pre-existing relationships with corporations and unions, and groups that wish to procure legislative bene­ fits may tend to support the candidate who, as a sitting officeholder, is already in a position to dispense benefits and is statistically likely to retain office. If a corporation’s goal is to induce officeholders to do its bidding, the corpo­ —————— lows: “We should defer to [the legislature’s] political judgment that unlimited spending threatens the integrity of the electoral process. But we should not defer in respect to whether its solution . . . insulates legislators from effective electoral challenge.” Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 403–404 (concurring opinion).