68
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
Opinion of STEVENS, J.
tures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct
contributions is bolstered by our decision last year in
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U. S. ___ (2009). In
that case, Don Blankenship, the chief executive officer of a
corporation with a lawsuit pending before the West Vir
ginia high court, spent large sums on behalf of a particular
candidate, Brent Benjamin, running for a seat on that
court. “In addition to contributing the $1,000 statutory
maximum
to
Benjamin’s
campaign
committee,
Blankenship donated almost $2.5 million to ‘And For The
Sake Of The Kids,’ ” a §527 corporation that ran ads tar
geting Benjamin’s opponent. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2).
“This was not all. Blankenship spent, in addition, just
over $500,000 on independent expenditures . . . ‘ “to sup
port . . . Brent Benjamin.” ’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2–3)
(second alteration in original). Applying its common
sense, this Court accepted petitioners’ argument that
Blankenship’s “pivotal role in getting Justice Benjamin
elected created a constitutionally intolerable probability of
actual bias” when Benjamin later declined to recuse him
self from the appeal by Blankenship’s corporation. Id., at
___ (slip op., at 11). “Though n[o] . . . bribe or criminal
influence” was involved, we recognized that “Justice Ben
jamin would nevertheless feel a debt of gratitude to
Blankenship for his extraordinary efforts to get him
elected.” Ibid. “The difficulties of inquiring into actual
bias,” we further noted, “simply underscore the need for
objective rules,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 13)—rules which
will perforce turn on the appearance of bias rather than its
actual existence.
In Caperton, then, we accepted the premise that, at
least in some circumstances, independent expenditures on
candidate elections will raise an intolerable specter of quid
pro quo corruption. Indeed, this premise struck the Court
as so intuitive that it repeatedly referred to Blankenship’s
spending on behalf of Benjamin—spending that consisted