58 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of STEVENS, J. corrupting consequences of corporate and union independ­ ent expenditures in the years preceding BCRA’s passage. See McConnell, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 555–560, 622–625; see also id., at 804–805, 813, n. 143 (Leon, J.) (indicating agreement). As summarized in her own words: “The factual findings of the Court illustrate that corporations and labor unions routinely notify Mem­ bers of Congress as soon as they air electioneering communications relevant to the Members’ elections. The record also indicates that Members express ap­ preciation to organizations for the airing of these elec­ tion-related advertisements. Indeed, Members of Congress are particularly grateful when negative is­ sue advertisements are run by these organizations, leaving the candidates free to run positive advertise­ ments and be seen as ‘above the fray.’ Political con­ sultants testify that campaigns are quite aware of who is running advertisements on the candidate’s be­ half, when they are being run, and where they are be­ ing run. Likewise, a prominent lobbyist testifies that these organizations use issue advocacy as a means to influence various Members of Congress. “The Findings also demonstrate that Members of Congress seek to have corporations and unions run these advertisements on their behalf. The Findings show that Members suggest that corporations or indi­ viduals make donations to interest groups with the understanding that the money contributed to these groups will assist the Member in a campaign. After the election, these organizations often seek credit for their support. . . . Finally, a large majority of Ameri­ cans (80%) are of the view that corporations and other organizations that engage in electioneering communi­ cations, which benefit specific elected officials, receive special consideration from those officials when matters