78 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of STEVENS, J. the governmental interests explained above, and in recog­ nition of the fact that such restrictions are not direct restraints on speech but rather on its financing. See, e.g., Randall, 548 U. S., at 273 (dissenting opinion). But those restrictions concededly present a tougher case, because the primary conduct of actual, flesh-and-blood persons is involved. Some of those individuals might feel that they need to spend large sums of money on behalf of a particu­ lar candidate to vindicate the intensity of their electoral preferences. This is obviously not the situation with busi­ ness corporations, as their routine practice of giving “sub­ stantial sums to both major national parties” makes pellu­ cidly clear. McConnell, 540 U. S., at 148. “[C]orporate participation” in elections, any business executive will tell you, “is more transactional than ideological.” Supp. Brief for Committee for Economic Development as Amicus Curiae 10. In this transactional spirit, some corporations have affirmatively urged Congress to place limits on their elec­ tioneering communications. These corporations fear that officeholders will shake them down for supportive ads, that they will have to spend increasing sums on elections in an ever-escalating arms race with their competitors, and that public trust in business will be eroded. See id., at 10–19. A system that effectively forces corporations to use their shareholders’ money both to maintain access to, and to avoid retribution from, elected officials may ulti­ mately prove more harmful than beneficial to many corpo­ rations. It can impose a kind of implicit tax.73 —————— 73 Not all corporations support BCRA §203, of course, and not all cor­ porations are large business entities or their tax-exempt adjuncts. Some nonprofit corporations are created for an ideological purpose. Some closely held corporations are strongly identified with a particular owner or founder. The fact that §203, like the statute at issue in Austin, regulates some of these corporations’ expenditures does not disturb the analysis above. See 494 U. S., at 661–665. Small-business