Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce/Dissent Scalia

Justice SCALIA, dissenting.

"Attention all citizens. To assure the fairness of elections by preventing disproportionate expression of the views of any single powerful group, your Government has decided that the following associations of persons shall be prohibited from speaking or writing in support of any candidate:  _____." In permitting Michigan to make private corporations the first object of this Orwellian announcement, the Court today endorses the principle that too much speech is an evil that the democratic majority can proscribe. I dissent because that principle is contrary to our case law and incompatible with the absolutely central truth of the First Amendment: that government cannot be trusted to assure, through censorship, the "fairness" of political debate.

* A.

The Court's opinion says that political speech of corporations can be regulated because "[s]tate law grants [them] special advantages," ante, at 658, and because this "unique state-conferred corporate structure . . . facilitates the amassing of large treasuries," ante, at 660. This analysis seeks to create one good argument by combining two bad ones. Those individuals who form that type of voluntary association known as a corporation are, to be sure, given special advantages-notably, the immunization of their personal fortunes from liability for the actions of the association-that the State is under no obligation to confer. But so are other associations and private individuals given all sorts of special advantages that the State need not confer, ranging from tax breaks to contract awards to public employment to outright cash subsidies. It is rudimentary that the State cannot exact as the price of those special advantages the forfeiture of First Amendment rights. See Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School Dist. No. 205, Will County, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958). The categorical suspension of the right of any person, or of any association of persons, to speak out on political matters must be justified by a compelling state need. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 44-45, 96 S.Ct. 612, 646-647, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam ). That is why the Court puts forward its second bad argument, the fact that corporations "amas[s] large treasuries." But that alone is also not sufficient justification for the suppression of political speech, unless one thinks it would be lawful to prohibit men and women whose net worth is above a certain figure from endorsing political candidates. Neither of these two flawed arguments is improved by combining them and saying, as the Court in effect does, that "since the State gives special advantages to these voluntary associations, and since they thereby amass vast wealth, they may be required to abandon their right of political speech." #fn-s-1

The Court's extensive reliance upon the fact that the objects of this speech restriction, corporations, receive "special advantages" is in stark contrast to our opinion issued just six years ago in FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278 (1984). In that decision, striking down a congressionally imposed ban upon editorializing by noncommercial broadcasting stations that receive federal funds, the only respect in which we considered the receipt of that "special advantage" relevant was in determining whether the speech limitation could be justified under Congress' spending power, as a means of assuring that the subsidy was devoted only to the purposes Congress intended, which did not include political editorializing. We held it could not be justified on that basis, since "a noncommercial educational station that receives only 1% of its overall income from [federal] grants is barred absolutely from all editorializing. . . . The station has no way of limiting the use of its federal funds to all noneditorializing activities, and, more importantly, it is barred from using even wholly private funds to finance its editorial activity." Id., at 400, 104 S.Ct., at 3127. Of course the same is true here, even assuming that tax exemptions and other benefits accorded to incorporated associations constitute an exercise of the spending power. It is not just that portion of the corporation's assets attributable to the gratuitously conferred "special advantages" that is prohibited from being used for political endorsements, but all of the corporation's assets. I am at a loss to explain the vast difference between the treatment of the present case and League of Women Voters. Commercial corporations may not have a public persona as sympathetic as that of public broadcasters, but they are no less entitled to this Court's concern.

As for the second part of the Court's argumentation, the fact that corporations (or at least some of them) possess "massive wealth": Certain uses of "massive wealth" in the electoral process-whether or not the wealth is the result of "special advantages" conferred by the State-pose a substantial risk of corruption which constitutes a compelling need for the regulation of speech. Such a risk plainly exists when the wealth is given directly to the political candidate, to be used under his direction and control. We held in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, however, that independent expenditures to express the political views of individuals and associations do not raise a sufficient threat of corruption to justify prohibition. Id., at 45, 96 S.Ct., at 647. Neither the Court's opinion nor either of the concurrences makes any effort to distinguish that case-except, perhaps, by misdescribing the case as involving "federal laws regulating individual donors," ante, at 659, or as involving "individual expenditures," ante, at 678 (STEVENS, J., concurring). Section 608(e)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 18 U.S.C. § 608(e)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. V), which we found unconstitutional in Buckley, was directed, like the Michigan law before us here, to expenditures made for the purpose of advocating the election or defeat of a particular candidate, see 424 U.S., at 42, 96 S.Ct., at 645. It limited to $1,000 (a lesser restriction than the absolute prohibition at issue here) such expenditures not merely by "individuals," but by "persons," specifically defined to include corporations. See id., at 187, 96 S.Ct., at 712 (setting forth § 591(g) of the statute). The plaintiffs in the case included corporations, see id., at 8, 96 S.Ct., at 629, and we specifically discussed § 608(e)(1) as a restriction addressed not just to individuals but to "individuals and groups," id., at 39, 48, 96 S.Ct., at 648, "persons and groups," id., at 45, 96 S.Ct., at 647, "persons and organizations," ibid., "person[s] [and] association[s]," id., at 50, 96 S.Ct., at 650. In support of our determination that the restriction was "wholly at odds with the guarantees of the First Amendment" we cited Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974), which involved limitations upon a corporation. 424 U.S., at 50, 96 S.Ct., at 650. Of course, if § 608(e)(1) had been unconstitutional only as applied to individuals and not as applied to corporations, we might nonetheless have invalidated it in toto for substantial overbreadth, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 611-613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915-2916, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), but there is not a hint of that doctrine in our opinion. Our First Amendment law is much less certain than I had thought it to be if we are free to recharacterize each clear holding as a disguised "overbreadth" determination.

Buckley v. Valeo should not be overruled, because it is entirely correct. The contention that prohibiting overt advocacy for or against a political candidate satisfies a "compelling need" to avoid "corruption" is easily dismissed. As we said in Buckley, "[i]t would naively underestimate the ingenuity and resourcefulness of persons and groups desiring to buy influence to believe that they would have much difficulty devising expenditures that skirted the restriction on express advocacy of election or defeat but nevertheless benefited the candidate's campaign." 424 U.S., at 45, 96 S.Ct., at 647. Independent advocacy, moreover, unlike contributions, "may well provide little assistance to the candidate's campaign and indeed may prove counterproductive," thus reducing the danger that it will be exchanged "as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate." Id., at 47, 96 S.Ct., at 648. The latter point seems even more plainly true with respect to corporate advocates than it is with respect to individuals. I expect I could count on the fingers of one hand the candidates who would generally welcome, much less negotiate for, a formal endorsement by AT & T or General Motors. The advocacy of such entities that have "amassed great wealth" will be effective only to the extent that it brings to the people's attention ideas which despite the invariably self-interested and probably uncongenial source-strike them as true.

The Court does not try to defend the proposition that independent advocacy poses a substantial risk of political "corruption," as English speakers understand that term. Rather, it asserts that that concept (which it defines as " 'financial quid pro quo ' corruption," ante, at 659) is really just a narrow subspecies of a hitherto unrecognized genus of political corruption. "Michigan's regulation," we are told, "aims at a different type of corruption in the political arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporations's political ideas." Ibid. Under this mode of analysis, virtually anything the Court deems politically undesirable can be turned into political corruption-by simply describing its effects as politically "corrosive," which is close enough to "corruptive" to qualify. It is sad to think that the First Amendment will ultimately be brought down not by brute force but by poetic metaphor.

The Court's opinion ultimately rests upon that proposition whose violation constitutes the "New Corruption": Expenditures must "reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused." Ibid. This illiberal free-speech principle of "one man, one minute" was proposed and soundly rejected in Buckley:

"It is argued, however, that the ancillary governmental     interest in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections      serves to justify the limitation on express advocacy of the      election or defeat of candidates imposed by § 608(e)(1)'s      expenditure ceiling.  But the concept that government may      restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order      to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to      the First Amendment, which was designed 'to secure "the      widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and      antagonistic sources," ' and ' "to assure unfettered      interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and      social changes desired by the people." ' "  424 U.S., at      48-49, 96 S.Ct., at 648-649 (citations omitted).

But it can be said that I have not accurately quoted today's decision. It does not endorse the proposition that government may ensure that expenditures "reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused," but only the more limited proposition that government may ensure that expenditures "reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused by corporations." Ante, at 660 (emphasis added). The limitation is of course entirely irrational. Why is it perfectly all right if advocacy by an individual billionaire is out of proportion with "actual public support" for his positions? There is no explanation, except the effort I described at the outset of this discussion to make one valid proposition out of two invalid ones: When the vessel labeled "corruption" begins to founder under weight too great to be logically sustained, the argumentation jumps to the good ship "special privilege";  and when that in turn begins to go down, it returns to "corruption." Thus hopping back and forth between the two, the argumentation may survive but makes no headway towards port, where its conclusion waits in vain.

Justice BRENNAN's concurrence would have us believe that the prohibition adopted by Michigan and approved by the Court is a paternalistic measure to protect the corporate shareholders of America. It is designed, we are told, "to avert [the] danger" that "corporate funds drawn from the general treasury-which represents, after all, [the shareholder's] money," might be used on behalf of a political candidate he opposes. Ante, at 670 (BRENNAN, J., concurring). But such solicitude is a most implausible explanation for the Michigan statute, inasmuch as it permits corporations to take as many ideological and political positions as they please, so long as they are not "in assistance of, or in opposition to, the nomination or election of a candidate." Mich.Comp. Laws § 169.206(1) (1979). That is indeed the Court's sole basis for distinguishing First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978), which invalidated restriction of a corporation's general political speech. The Michigan law appears to be designed, in other words, neither to protect shareholders, nor even (impermissibly) to "balance" general political debate, but to protect political candidates. Given the degree of political sophistication that ought to attend the exercise of our constitutional responsibilities, it is regrettable that this should come as a surprise.

But even if the object of the prohibition could plausibly be portrayed as the protection of shareholders (which the Court's opinion, at least, does not even assert), that would not suffice as a "compelling need" to support this blatant restriction upon core political speech. A person becomes a member of that form of association known as a for-profit corporation in order to pursue economic objectives, i.e., to make money. Some corporate charters may specify the line of commerce to which the company is limited, but even that can be amended by shareholder vote. Thus, in joining such an association, the shareholder knows that management may take any action that is ultimately in accord with what the majority (or a specified supermajority) of the shareholders wishes, so long as that action is designed to make a profit. That is the deal. The corporate actions to which the shareholder exposes himself, therefore, include many things that he may find politically or ideologically uncongenial: investment in South Africa, operation of an abortion clinic, publication of a pornographic magazine, or even publication of a newspaper that adopts absurd political views and makes catastrophic political endorsements. His only protections against such assaults upon his ideological commitments are (1) his ability to persuade a majority (or the requisite minority) of his fellow shareholders that the action should not be taken, and ultimately (2) his ability to sell his stock. (The latter course, by the way, does not ordinarily involve the severe psychic trauma or economic disaster that Justice BRENNAN's opinion suggests.) It seems to me entirely fanciful, in other words, to suggest that the Michigan statute makes any significant contribution toward insulating the exclusively profit-motivated shareholder from the rude world of politics and ideology.

But even if that were not fanciful, it would be fanciful to think, as Justice BRENNAN's opinion assumes, that there is any difference between for-profit and not-for-profit corporations insofar as the need for protection of the individual member's ideological psyche is concerned. Would it be any more upsetting to a shareholder of General Motors that it endorsed the election of Henry Wallace (to stay comfortably in the past) than it would be to a member of the American Civil Liberties Union that it endorsed the election of George Wallace? I should think much less so. Yet in the one case as in the other, the only protection against association-induced trauma is the will of the majority and, in the last analysis, withdrawal from membership.

In Part V of its opinion, the Court accurately sets forth our longstanding First Amendment law as follows:

"Because the right to engage in political expression is     fundamental to our constitutional system, statutory      classifications impinging upon that right must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest." Ante, at 666.

The Court finds this requirement fully met for the following reason:

"As we explained in the context of our discussions of whether     the statute was overinclusive, supra, at 660-661, or      underinclusive, supra, at 665 and this page, the State's      decision to regulate only corporations is precisely tailored      to serve the compelling state interest of eliminating from      the political process the corrosive effect of political 'war      chests' amassed with the aid of the legal advantages given to      corporations." Ibid.

That state interest (assuming it is compelling) does indeed explain why the State chose to silence "only corporations" rather than wealthy individuals as well. But it does not explain (what "narrow tailoring" pertains to) why the State chose to silence all corporations, rather than just those that possess great wealth. If narrow tailoring means anything, surely it must mean that action taken to counter the effect of amassed "war chests" must be targeted, if possible, at amassed "war chests." And surely such targeting is possible-either in the manner accomplished by the provision that we invalidated in Buckley, i.e., by limiting the prohibition to independent expenditures above a certain amount, or in some other manner, e.g., by limiting the expenditures of only those corporations with more than a certain amount of net worth or annual profit.

No more satisfactory explanation for the obvious lack of "narrow tailoring" is to be found in the Court's discussion of overinclusiveness, to which the above-quoted passage refers. That discussion asserts that we "rejected a similar argument" in FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U.S. 197, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982) (NRWC ), where we said that " 'we accept Congress' judgment' " that " 'the special characteristics of the corporate structure' " create a " 'potential for . . . influence thatdemands regulation.' " Ante, at 661, quoting 459 U.S., at 209-210, 103 S.Ct., at 560 (emphasis added by the Court). Today's opinion then continues: "Although some closely held corporations, just as some publicly held ones, may not have accumulated significant amounts of wealth, they receive from the State the special benefits conferred by the corporate structure and present the potential for distorting the political process.  This potential for distortion justifies § 54(1)'s general applicability to all corporations." Ante, at 661.

The Court thus holds, for the first time since Justice Holmes left the bench, that a direct restriction upon speech is narrowly enough tailored if it extends to speech that has the mere potential for producing social harm. NRWC (which in any event involved not a direct restriction upon corporate speech but a restriction upon corporate solicitation of funds for candidates) is no authority for that startling proposition, since it did not purport to be applying the First Amendment narrow-tailoring requirement. The principle the Court abandons today-that the mere potential for harm does not justify a restriction upon speech-had its origin in the "clear and present danger" test devised by Justice Holmes in 1919, see Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 49-51, 39 S.Ct. 247, 248, 63 L.Ed. 470, and championed by him and Justice Brandeis over the next decade in a series of famous opinions opposing the affirmance of convictions for subversive speech, see Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 624, 40 S.Ct. 17, 20, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 672, 45 S.Ct. 625, 632, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 374, 47 S.Ct. 641, 647, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). The Court finally adopted their view in 1937, see Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 258, 57 S.Ct. 732, 739, 81 L.Ed. 1066; see also Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263, 62 S.Ct. 190, 194, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 105, 60 S.Ct. 736, 745, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 639, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5, 69 S.Ct. 894, 895-896, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949). Today's reversal of field will require adjustment of a fairly large number of significant First Amendment holdings. Presumably the State may now convict individuals for selling books found to have a potentially harmful influence on minors, Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 77 S.Ct. 524, 1 L.Ed.2d 412 (1957), ban indecent telephone communications that have the potential for reaching minors, Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 109 S.Ct. 2829, 106 L.Ed.2d 93 (1989), restrain the press from publishing information that has the potential for jeopardizing a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976), or the potential for damaging the reputation of the subject of an investigation, Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), compel publication of the membership lists of organizations that have a potential for illegal activity, see NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 464, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 1172, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958), and compel an applicant for bar membership to reveal her political beliefs and affiliations to eliminate the potential for subversive activity, Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 702, 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971).

It is perplexing, or perhaps revealing, to compare the Court's cavalier treatment of the narrow-tailoring requirement today with its elaborate discussion of that issue six years ago in League of Women Voters. See 468 U.S., at 392-395, 397-398, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3126, 82 L.Ed.2d 278. As my earlier discussion makes clear, it would make no difference if the law were narrowly tailored to serve its goal, since that goal is not compelling. But the fact that, even having made that first error, the Court must make yet a second in order to reach today's judgment suggests what an impregnable fortress our First Amendment jurisprudence has been. The Court's explicit acceptance of "potential danger" as adequate to establish narrow tailoring, even more than its recognition of an insubstantial interests as "compelling," greatly weakens those defenses.

Finally, a few words are in order concerning the Court's approval of the Michigan law's exception for "media corporations." This is all right, we are told, because of "the unique role that the press plays in 'informing and educating the public, offering criticism, and providing a forum for discussion and debate.' " Ante, at 667 (citation omitted). But if one believes in the Court's rationale of "compelling state need" to prevent amassed corporate wealth from skewing the political debate, surely that "unique role" of the press does not give Michigan justification for excluding media corporations from coverage, but provides especially strong reason to include them. Amassed corporate wealth that regularly sits astride the ordinary channels of information is much more likely to produce the New Corruption (too much of one point of view) than amassed corporate wealth that is generally busy making money elsewhere. Such media corporations not only have vastly greater power to perpetrate the evil of overinforming, they also have vastly greater opportunity. General Motors, after all, will risk a stockholder suit if it makes a political endorsement that is not plausibly tied to its ability to make money for its shareholders. But media corporations make money by making political commentary, including endorsements. For them, unlike any other corporations, the whole world of politics and ideology is fair game. Yet the Court tells us that it is reasonable to exclude media corporations, rather than target them specially.

Members of the institutional press, despite the Court's approval of their illogical exemption from the Michigan law, will find little reason for comfort in today's decision. The theory of New Corruption it espouses is a dagger at their throats. The Court today holds merely that media corporations may be excluded from the Michigan law, not that they must be. We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers. See Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 782, 98 S.Ct., at 1418, and cases cited. Thus, the Court's holding on this point must be put in the following unencouraging form: "Although the press' unique societal role may not entitle the press to greater protection under the Constitution, Bellotti, supra, at 782, 98 S.Ct., at 1418, and n. 18, it does provide a compelling reason for the State to exempt media corporations from the scope of political expenditure limitations." Ante, at 668. One must hope, I suppose, that Michigan will continue to provide this generous and voluntary exemption.

I would not do justice to the significance of today's decision to discuss only its lapses from case precedent and logic. Infinitely more important than that is its departure from long-accepted premises of our political system regarding the benevolence that can be expected of government in managing the arena of public debate, and the danger that is to be anticipated from powerful private institutions that compete with government, and with one another, within that arena.

Perhaps the Michigan law before us here has an unqualifiedly noble objective-to "equalize" the political debate by preventing disproportionate expression of corporations' points of view. But governmental abridgment of liberty is always undertaken with the very best of announced objectives (dictators promise to bring order, not tyranny), and often with the very best of genuinely intended objectives (zealous policemen conduct unlawful searches in order to put dangerous felons behind bars). The premise of our Bill of Rights, however, is that there are some things-even some seemingly desirable things-that government cannot be trusted to do. The very first of these is establishing the restrictions upon speech that will assure "fair" political debate. The incumbent politician who says he welcomes full and fair debate is no more to be believed than the entrenched monopolist who says he welcomes full and fair competition. Perhaps the Michigan Legislature was genuinely trying to assure a "balanced" presentation of political views; on the other hand, perhaps it was trying to give unincorporated unions (a not insubstantial force in Michigan) political advantage over major employers. Or perhaps it was trying to assure a "balanced" presentation because it knows that with evenly balanced speech incumbent officeholders generally win. The fundamental approach of the First Amendment, I had always thought, was to assume the worst, and to rule the regulation of political speech "for fairness' sake" simply out of bounds.

I doubt that those who framed and adopted the First Amendment would agree that avoiding the New Corruption, that is, calibrating political speech to the degree of public opinion that supports it, is even a desirable objective, much less one that is important enough to qualify as a compelling state interest. Those Founders designed, of course, a system in which popular ideas would ultimately prevail; but also, through the First Amendment, a system in which true ideas could readily become popular. For the latter purpose, the calibration that the Court today endorses is precisely backwards: To the extent a valid proposition has scant public support, it should have wider rather than narrower public circulation. I am confident, in other words, that Jefferson and Madison would not have sat at these controls; but if they did, they would have turned them in the opposite direction.

Ah, but then there is the special element of corporate wealth: What would the Founders have thought of that? They would have endorsed, I think, what Tocqueville wrote in 1835:

"When the members of an aristocratic community adopt a     new opinion or conceive a new sentiment, they give it a      station, as it were, beside themselves, upon the lofty      platform where they stand;  and opinions or sentiments so      conspicuous to the eyes of the multitude are easily      introduced into the minds or hearts of all around.  In      democratic countries the governing power alone is naturally      in a condition to act in this manner;  but it is easy to see      that its action is always inadequate, and often dangerous. .      . .  No sooner does a government attempt to go beyond its      political sphere and to enter upon this new track than it      exercises, even unintentionally, an insupportable tyranny. .      . .  Worse still will be the case if the government really believes itself interested in preventing      all circulation of ideas;  it will then stand motionless and      oppressed by the heaviness of voluntary torpor. Governments,     therefore, should not be the only active powers;      associations ought, in democratic nations, to stand in lieu      of those powerful private individuals whom the equality of      conditions has swept away."  2 A. de Tocqueville, Democracy      in America 109 (P. Bradley ed. 1948).

While Tocqueville was discussing "circulation of ideas" in general, what he wrote is also true of candidate endorsements in particular. To eliminate voluntary associations-not only including powerful ones, but especially including powerful ones from the public debate is either to augment the always dominant power of government or to impoverish the public debate. The case at hand is a good enough example. Why should the Michigan voters in the 93d House District be deprived of the information that private associations owning and operating a vast percentage of the industry of the State, and employing a large number of its citizens, believe that the election of a particular candidate is important to their prosperity? Contrary to the Court's suggestion, the same point cannot effectively be made through corporate PACs to which individuals may voluntarily contribute. It is important to the message that it represents the views of Michigan's leading corporations as corporations, occupying the "lofty platform" that they do within the economic life of the State-not just the views of some other voluntary associations to which some of the corporations' shareholders belong.

Despite all the talk about "corruption and the appearance of corruption"-evils that are not significantly implicated and that can be avoided in many other ways-it is entirely obvious that the object of the law we have approved today is not to prevent wrongdoing but to prevent speech. Since those private associations known as corporations have so much money, they will speak so much more, and their views will be given inordinate prominence in election campaigns. This is not an argument that our democratic traditions allow-neither with respect to individuals associated in corporations nor with respect to other categories of individuals whose speech may be "unduly" extensive (because they are rich) or "unduly" persuasive (because they are movie stars) or "unduly" respected (because they are clergymen). The premise of our system is that there is no such thing as too much speech-that the people are not foolish but intelligent, and will separate the wheat from the chaff. As conceded in Lincoln's aphorism about fooling "all of the people some of the time," that premise will not invariably accord with reality; but it will assuredly do so much more frequently than the premise the Court today embraces:  that a healthy democratic system can survive the legislative power to prescribe how much political speech is too much, who may speak, and who may not.

*  *   *

Because today's decision is inconsistent with unrepudiated legal judgments of our Court, but even more because it is incompatible with the unrepealable political wisdom of our First Amendment, I dissent.