Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010)
27
Opinion of STEVENS, J.
with general treasury funds;37 and (6) “susceptible of no
reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote
for or against a specific candidate.”38 The category of
communications meeting all of these criteria is not trivial,
but the notion that corporate political speech has been
“suppress[ed] . . . altogether,” ante, at 2, that corporations
have been “exclu[ded] . . . from the general public dia
logue,” ante, at 25, or that a work of fiction such as Mr.
Smith Goes to Washington might be covered, ante, at 56–
57, is nonsense.39 Even the plaintiffs in McConnell, who
had every incentive to depict BCRA as negatively as pos
sible, declined to argue that §203’s prohibition on certain
uses of general treasury funds amounts to a complete ban.
See 540 U. S., at 204.
In many ways, then, §203 functions as a source restric
tion or a time, place, and manner restriction. It applies in
a viewpoint-neutral fashion to a narrow subset of advocacy
messages about clearly identified candidates for federal
office, made during discrete time periods through discrete
channels. In the case at hand, all Citizens United needed
to do to broadcast Hillary right before the primary was to
abjure business contributions or use the funds in its PAC,
which by its own account is “one of the most active conser
vative PACs in America,” Citizens United Political Victory
——————
37 §441b(b)(2)(C).
38 WRTL,
551 U. S. 449, 470 (2007) (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.).
is likewise nonsense to suggest that the FEC’s “ ‘business is to
censor.’ ” Ante, at 18 (quoting Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 57
(1965)). The FEC’s business is to administer and enforce the campaign
finance laws. The regulatory body at issue in Freedman was a state
Board of Censors that had virtually unfettered discretion to bar distri
bution of motion picture films it deemed not to be “moral and proper.”
See id., at 52–53, and n. 2. No movie could be shown in the State of
Maryland that was not first approved and licensed by the Board of
Censors. Id., at 52, n. 1. It is an understatement to say that Freedman
is not on point, and the majority’s characterization of the FEC is deeply
disconcerting.
39 It