Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce/Dissent Kennedy

by Antonin Scalia

Justice KENNEDY, with whom Justice O'CONNOR and Justice SCALIA join, dissenting.

The majority opinion validates not one censorship of speech but two. One is Michigan's content-based law which decrees it a crime for a nonprofit corporate speaker to endorse or oppose candidates for Michigan public office. By permitting the statute to stand, the Court upholds a direct restriction on the independent expenditure of funds for political speech for the first time in its history.

The other censorship scheme, I most regret to say, is of our own creation. It is value-laden, content-based speech suppression that permits some nonprofit corporate groups, but not others, to engage in political speech. After failing to disguise its animosity and distrust for the particular kind of political speech here at issue-the qualifications of a candidate to understand economic matters-the Court adopts a rule that allows Michigan to stifle the voices of some of the most respected groups in public life on subjects central to the integrity of our democratic system. Each of these schemes is repugnant to the First Amendment and contradicts its central guarantee, the freedom to speak in the electoral process. I dissent.

* To understand the force of the Michigan statutory censorship scheme, one need not go beyond the facts of the case before us. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is a nonprofit corporation with an interest in candidates and public policy issues throughout the State of Michigan. The Chamber sought, on its own initiative and without communication with the candidate, to place a newspaper advertisement in support of one Richard Bandstra, a candidate for the House of Representatives in Michigan. (The proposed advertisement is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion.) The advertisement discussed the local economy and unemployment and explained why the candidate supported by the Chamber would understand and improve local economic conditions. This communication is banned by the law here in question, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (Act), 1976 Mich.Pub. Acts 388, Mich.Comp. Laws § 169.201 et seq. (1979).

The Act prohibits "a corporation," including a non-profit corporation, from making any "expenditure" in connection with an election campaign for state office. An expenditure includes any payment or other contribution in "assistance of, or in opposition to, the nomination or election of a candidate. . . ." The Act by its terms forbids corporations to make "independent expenditures" undertaken without any coordination or even communication with a candidate's organization. Under the Act, a corporate expenditure made for purposes of communicating on issues of public policy is permissible only if it does not support or oppose a candidate by name or by "inference." Violation of the Act is a felony.

The State has conceded that among those communications prohibited by its statute are the publication by a nonprofit corporation of its own assessment of a candidate's voting record. With the imprimatur of this Court, it is now a felony in Michigan for the Sierra Club, or the American Civil Liberties Union, or the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, to advise the public how a candidate voted on issues of urgent concern to its members. In both practice and theory, the prohibition aims at the heart of political debate.

As the majority must acknowledge, and as no party contests, the advertisement in this case is a paradigm of political speech. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14-15, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). The Michigan statute bans it, however, along with all other communications by nonprofit corporate speakers that carry an inference of support for, or opposition to, a candidate, on the sole ground that the speaker is organized in corporate form. The Act operates to prohibit information essential to the ability of voters to evaluate candidates. In my view, this speech cannot be restricted.

Far more than the interest of the Chamber is at stake. We confront here society's interest in free and informed discussion on political issues, a discourse vital to the capacity for self-government. "In the realm of protected speech, the legislature is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue." First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784-785, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1420, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). There is little doubt that by silencing advocacy groups that operate in the corporate form and forbidding them to speak on electoral politics, Michigan's law suffers from both of these constitutional defects.

First, the Act prohibits corporations from speaking on a particular subject, the subject of candidate elections. It is a basic precept that the State may not confine speech to certain subjects. Content-based restrictions are the essence of censorial power. Ibid. (invalidating statute that allowed corporations to speak on referenda issues that materially affected their business, but not on other subjects). See also Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 530, 537, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 2333, 65 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980) ("The First Amendment's hostility to content-based regulation extends not only to restrictions on particular viewpoints, but also to prohibition of public discussion of an entire topic").

Second, the Act discriminates on the basis of the speaker's identity. Under the Michigan law, any person or group other than a corporation may engage in political debate over candidate elections; but corporations, even nonprofit corporations that have unique views of vital importance to the electorate, must remain mute. Our precedents condemn this censorship. See Bellotti, supra, at 784-786, 98 S.Ct., at 1420-1421; Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (invalidating state statute that prohibited picketing near certain buildings but allowed certain labor picketers); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980).

The protection afforded core political speech is not diminished because the speaker is a nonprofit corporation. Even in the case of a for-profit corporation, we have upheld the right to speak on ballot issues. The Bellotti Court stated:

"If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." 435 U.S., at 777, 98 S.Ct., at 1416 (footnotes omitted).

By using distinctions based upon both the speech and the speaker, the Act engages in the rawest form of censorship: the State censors what a particular segment of the political community might say with regard to candidates who stand for election. The Court's holding cannot be reconciled with the principle that " 'legislative restrictions on advocacy of the election or defeat of political candidates are wholly at odds with the guarantees of the First Amendment.' " Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 428, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988), quoting Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S., at 50, 96 S.Ct., at 650.

The second censorship scheme validated by today's holding is the one imposed by the Court. In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986) (MCFL ), a First Amendment right to use corporate treasury funds was recognized for the nonprofit corporation then before us. Those who thought that the First Amendment exists to protect all points of view in candidate elections will be disillusioned by the Court's opinion today; for that protection is given only to a preferred class of nonprofit corporate speakers: small, single issue nonprofit corporations that pass the Court's own vague test for determining who are the favored participants in the electoral process. There can be no doubt that if a State were to enact a statute empowering an administrative board to determine which corporations could place candidate advertisements in newspapers and which could not, with authority to enforce the guidelines the Court adopts today to distinguish between the Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the statute would be held unconstitutional. The First Amendment does not permit courts to exercise speech suppression authority denied to legislatures.

The Court draws support for its discrimination among nonprofit corporate speakers from portions of our opinion in MCFL, supra. It must be acknowledged that certain language in MCFL, in particular the discussion which pointed to the express purpose of the organization to promote political ideas, id. at 263-265, 107 S.Ct., at 630-631, lends support to the majority's test. That language, however, contravenes fundamental principles of neutrality for all political speech. It should not stand in the way of giving full force to the essential and vital holding of MCFL, which is that a nonprofit corporation engaged in political discussion of candidates and elections has the full protection of the First Amendment.

The Act does not meet our standards for laws that burden fundamental rights. The State cannot demonstrate that a compelling interest supports its speech restriction, nor can it show that its law is narrowly tailored to the purported statutory end. See Bellotti, supra, 435 U.S., at 786, 793-795, 98 S.Ct., at 1421, 1424-1426. Restrictions on independent expenditures are unconstitutional if they fail to meet both of these standards. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra; FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee, 470 U.S. 480, 105 S.Ct. 1459, 84 L.Ed.2d 455 (1985) (NCPAC ); MCFL, supra. The majority opinion cannot establish either of these predicate conditions for the speech restriction imposed by the State.

* Our cases acknowledge the danger that corruption poses for the electoral process, but draw a line in permissible regulation between payments to candidates ("contributions") and payments or expenditures to express one's own views ("independent expenditures"). Today's decision abandons this distinction and threatens once-protected political speech. The Michigan statute prohibits independent expenditures by a nonprofit corporate speaker to express its own views about candidate qualifications. Independent expenditures are entitled to greater protection than campaign contributions. MCFL, supra, 479 U.S., at 259-260, 107 S.Ct., at 628-629. See also Buckley, 424 U.S., at 20-21, 96 S.Ct., at 635. "[E]xpenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of political expression and association than do . . . limitations on financial contributions." Id., at 23, 96 S.Ct., at 636. Candidate campaign contributions are subject to greater regulation because of the enhanced risk of corruption from the possibility that a large contribution would be given to secure political favors; independent expenditures pose no such risk:

"Unlike contributions, such independent expenditures may well provide little assistance to the candidate's campaign and indeed may prove counterproductive. The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate." Id., at 47, 96 S.Ct., at 648.

Appellants' reliance on cases involving contributions, such as FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197, 103 S.Ct. 552, 74 L.Ed.2d 364 (1982), is misplaced.

The proper analysis must follow our cases on independent expenditures. We have established that limitations on independent political expenditures are subject to exacting First Amendment scrutiny. In Buckley, we invalidated a federal limitation on independent expenditures because they had no tendency to corrupt. By like analysis, we invalidated a ban on independent corporate expenditures for referenda issues, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, supra, and a federal limitation which prohibited political committees from spending more than $1,000 in support of any candidate who had accepted public funding, NCPAC, 470 U.S., at 491, 105 S.Ct., at 1465. In NCPAC, we found that the mere hypothetical possibility that candidates may take notice of and reward political action committee (PAC) expenditures by giving official favors was insufficient to demonstrate that the threat of corruption justified the spending regulation. Id., at 497, 105 S.Ct., at 1468.

The majority almost admits that, in the case of independent expenditures, the danger of a political quid pro quo is insufficient to justify a restriction of this kind. Since the specter of corruption, which had been "the only legitimate and compelling government interest[s] thus far identified for restricting campaign finances," NCPAC, supra, at 496-497, 105 S.Ct., at 1468, is missing in this case, the majority invents a new interest: combating the "corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth," ante, at 660, accumulated in corporate form without shareholder or public support. The majority styles this novel interest as simply a different kind of corruption, but has no support for its assertion. While it is questionable whether such imprecision would suffice to justify restricting political speech by for-profit corporations, it is certain that it does not apply to nonprofit entities.

The evil of political corruption has been defined in more precise terms. We have said: "Corruption is a subversion of the political process" whereby "[e]lected officials are influenced to act contrary to their obligations of office by the prospect of financial gain. . . ." NCPAC, supra, at 497, 105 S.Ct., at 1468. In contrast, the interest touted by the majority is the impermissible one of altering political debate by muting the impact of certain speakers.

The regulatory mechanism adopted by the Michigan statute is aimed at reducing the quantity of political speech, a rationale endorsed by today's majority. The First Amendment rests on quite the opposite theory. As we have already said in the context of political expenditures:

"A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." Buckley, 424 U.S., at 19, 96 S.Ct., at 634 (footnote omitted); see also id., at 39, 96 S.Ct., at 644.

In Buckley and Bellotti, acting on these precepts, we rejected the argument that the expenditure of money to increase the quantity of political speech somehow fosters corruption. The key to the majority's reasoning appears to be that because some corporate speakers are well supported and can buy press space or broadcast time to express their ideas, government may ban all corporate speech to ensure that it will not dominate political debate. The argument is flawed in at least two respects. First, the statute is overinclusive because it covers all groups which use the corporate form, including all nonprofit corporations. Second, it assumes that the government has a legitimate interest in equalizing the relative influence of speakers.

With regard to nonprofit corporations in particular, there is no reason to assume that the corporate form has an intrinsic flaw that makes it corrupt, or that all corporations possess great wealth, or that all corporations can buy more media coverage for their views than can individuals or other groups. There is no reason to conclude that independent speech by a corporation is any more likely to dominate the political arena than speech by the wealthy individual, protected in Buckley v. Valeo, supra, or by the well-funded PAC, protected in NCPAC, supra (protecting speech rights of PAC's against expenditure limitations). In NCPAC, we discredited the argument that because PAC's spend larger amounts than individuals, the potential for corruption is greater. Id., at 497-498, 105 S.Ct., at 1468-1469. We distinguished between the campaign contribution at issue in FEC v. National Right to Work Committee, supra, and independent expenditures, by noting that while "the compelling governmental interest in preventing corruption supported the restriction of the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form" with regard to candidate campaign contributions, a similar finding could not be supported for independent expenditures. NCPAC, supra, at 500-501, 105 S.Ct., at 1470.

In addition, the notion that the government has a legitimate interest in restricting the quantity of speech to equalize the relative influence of speakers on elections is antithetical to the First Amendment:

"[T]he 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," '. . . . The First Amendment's protection against governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person's financial ability to engage in public discussion." Buckley, supra, 424 U.S., at 48-49, 96 S.Ct., at 648-649 (citations omitted).

That those who can afford to publicize their views may succeed in the political arena as a result does not detract from the fact that they are exercising a First Amendment right. Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S., at 426, n. 7, 108 S.Ct., at 1894, n. 7 (upholding First Amendment right to use paid petition circulators). As we stated in Bellotti, paid advocacy "may influence the outcome of the vote; this would be its purpose. But the fact that advocacy may persuade the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it." 435 U.S., at 790, 98 S.Ct., at 1423. The suggestion that the government has an interest in shaping the political debate by insulating the electorate from too much exposure to certain views is incompatible with the First Amendment. "[T]he people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments." Id., at 791, 98 S.Ct., at 1423; see also Meyer, supra, at 426, n. 7, 108 S.Ct., at 1894, n. 7; Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 60, 102 S.Ct. 1523, 1532, 71 L.Ed.2d 732 (1982).

An argument similar to that made by the majority was rejected in Bellotti. There, we rejected the assumption that "corporations are wealthy and powerful and their views may drown out other points of view" or "exert an undue influence" on the electorate in the absence of a showing that the relative voice of corporations was significant. 435 U.S., at 789, 98 S.Ct., at 1422. And even were we to assume that some record support for this assertion would make a constitutional difference, it has not been established here. The majority provides only conjecture. All censorship is suspect; but censorship based on vague surmise is not permissible in any case.

The Act, as the State itself says, prevents a nonprofit corporate speaker from using its own funds to inform the voting public that a particular candidate has a good or bad voting record on issues of interest to the association's adherents. Though our era may not be alone in deploring the lack of mechanisms for holding candidates accountable for the votes they cast, that lack of accountability is one of the major concerns of our time. The speech suppressed in this case was directed to political qualifications. The fact that it was spoken by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and not a man or woman standing on a soapbox, detracts not a scintilla from its validity, its persuasiveness, or its contribution to the political dialogue.

The Court purports to distinguish MCFL on the ground that the nonprofit corporation permitted to speak in that case received no funds from profit-making corporations. It is undisputed that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce is itself a nonprofit corporation. The crucial difference, it is said, is that the Chamber receives corporate contributions. But this distinction rests on the fallacy that the source of the speaker's funds is somehow relevant to the speaker's right of expression or society's interest in hearing what the speaker has to say. There is no reason that the free speech rights of an individual or of an association of individuals should turn on the circumstance that funds used to engage in the speech come from a corporation. Many persons can trace their funds to corporations, if not in the form of donations, then in the form of dividends, interest, or salary. That does not provide a basis to deprive such individuals or associations of their First Amendment freedoms. The more narrow alternative of recordkeeping and funding disclosure is available. See MCFL, 479 U.S., at 262, 107 S.Ct., at 630. A wooden rule prohibiting independent expenditures by nonprofit corporations that receive funds from business corporations invites discriminatory distinctions. The principled approach is to acknowledge that where political speech is concerned, freedom to speak extends to all nonprofit corporations, not the special favorites of a majority of this Court.

The majority concludes that the Michigan Act is narrowly tailored. First, it seeks support in the availability of PAC's as an alternative to direct speech. Second, the majority advances the rationale that the restriction protects shareholders from the use of corporate funds to support speech with which they may not agree. Third, it asserts that independent expenditures funded by corporate wealth pose inherent dangers. None of these justifications can suffice to save the Act.

That the censorship applies to the nonprofit corporate speaker itself and not to a PAC that it has organized, far from being a saving feature of the regulation, further condemns it. The argument that the availability of a PAC as an alternative means, see Mich.Comp. Laws § 169.255 (1979), can save a restriction on independent corporate expenditures was rejected by the Court in MCFL, 479 U.S., at 253-255, 107 S.Ct., at 625-626; id., at 266, 107 S.Ct., at 632 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring), as a costly and burdensome disincentive to speech. The record in this case tended to show that between 25 and 50 percent of a PAC's funds are required to establish and administer the PAC. See App. 103a, 108a. While the corporation can direct the PAC to make expenditures on behalf of candidates, the PAC can be funded only by contributions from shareholders, directors, officers, and managerial employees, and cannot receive corporate treasury funds. Mich.Comp. Laws § 169.255(3) (1979). That the avenue left open is more burdensome than the one foreclosed is "sufficient to characterize [a statute] as an infringement on First Amendment activities." 479 U.S., at 255, 107 S.Ct., at 626. Consolidated Edison Co., 447 U.S., at 541, n. 10, 100 S.Ct., at 2335, n. 10; see also Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 757, n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, n. 15, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976). As the Court reaffirmed just two Terms ago, "[t]he First Amendment protects appellees' right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for so doing." Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S., at 424, 108 S.Ct., at 1893.

The secondhand endorsement structure required by the Michigan state law debases the value of the voice of nonprofit corporate speakers. The public is not interested in what a PAC says; it does care what the group itself says, so that the group itself can be given credit or blame for the candidates it has endorsed or opposed. PAC's suffer from a poor public image. See App. 92a, 104a, 108a. An advertisement for which a nonprofit group takes direct responsibility, in all likelihood, will have more credibility and generate less distrust than one funded by a PAC. PAC's are interim, ad hoc organizations with little continuity or responsibility. The respected organizations affected by this case have a continuity, a stability, and an influence that makes it critical for their members and the public at large to evaluate their official policies to determine whether the organizations have earned credibility over a period of time. If a particular organization supports a candidate who injures its cause or offends its ideals, the organization itself, not some intermediary committee, ought to take the blame. It is a sad irony that the group before us wishes to assume that responsibility but the action of the State, endorsed by this Court, does not allow it to do so.

The diffusion of the corporate message produced by the PAC requirement also ensures a lack of fit between the statute's ends and its means. If the concern is that nonprofit corporate speech distorts the political process, it would seem that injecting the confusion of a PAC as an intermediary, albeit one controlled and directed by the corporation, further diffuses responsibility. Even if there were any possibility of corruption by allowing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to finance the proposed advertisement supporting a candidate, it makes no sense to argue that such a possibility would be eliminated by requiring the disclaimer at the bottom to read "Paid for by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC" rather than "Paid for by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce."

The majority relies on the state interest in protecting members from the use of nonprofit corporate funds to support candidates whom they may oppose. We should reject this interest as insufficient to save the Act here, just as we rejected the argument in Bellotti, 435 U.S., at 792-793, 98 S.Ct., at 1424. See also Consolidated Edison Co., supra, at 543, 100 S.Ct., at 2336.

The Court takes refuge in the argument that some members or contributors to nonprofit corporations may find their own views distorted by the organization, and cites our holding in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S.Ct. 1782, 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). Abood does not apply here, as the disincentives to dissociate are not comparable. Bellotti, supra, at 794, n. 34, 98 S.Ct., at 1425, n. 34 (noting "crucial distinction" between union members and shareholders). One need not become a member of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club in order to earn a living. To the extent that members disagree with a nonprofit corporation's policies, they can seek change from within, withhold financial support, cease to associate with the group, or form a rival group of their own. Allowing government to use the excuse of protecting shareholder rights to stifle the speech of private, voluntary organizations undermines the First Amendment.

To create second-class speakers that can be stifled on the subject of candidate qualifications is to silence some of the most significant participants in the American public dialogue, as evidenced by the amici briefs filed on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Public Interest Law, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Realtors, the American Insurance Association, the National Organization for Women, Greenpeace Action, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Right to Work Committee, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Fund for the Feminist Majority, the Washington Legal Foundation, and the Allied Educational Foundation. I reject any argument based on the idea that these groups and their views are not of importance and value to the self-fulfillment and self-expression of their members, and to the rich public dialogue that must be the mark of any free society. To suggest otherwise is contrary to the American political experience and our own judicial knowledge.

It is a distinctive part of the American character for individuals to join associations to enrich the public dialogue. See, e.g., R. Horn, Groups and the Constitution 13-18 (1956). The theme of group identity is part of the history of American democracy. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison). As Toqueville observed:

"Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, general or restricted, enormous or diminutive. . . . If it is proposed to inculcate some truth or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever at the head of some new undertaking you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association." 2 A. de Toqueville, Democracy in America 106 (P. Bradley ed. 1948).

Finally, the majority's conclusion that the statute is not overinclusive because independent expenditures by nonprofit corporations may be assumed to have a pernicious, distorting effect on political processes does not withstand the rigorous scrutiny applicable to bans on speech. See NCPAC, 470 U.S., at 501, 105 S.Ct., at 1470. It even contradicts MCFL, where we said: "[A]ssociations do not suddenly present the specter of corruption merely by assuming the corporate form." 479 U.S., at 263, 107 S.Ct., at 630. The Court reasons that the Chamber of Commerce benefits from a "unique state-conferred corporate structure that facilitates the amassing of large treasuries." Ante, at 660. This proposition is not self-evident and has little or no relation to the suppression of ideas. The reality, of course, is that some groups and organizations, particularly those with many members, may find that the nonprofit corporate form is the only feasible way of organizing so that they can transmit important views to the public as a whole. Because the unincorporated association structure carries with it a high risk of personal liability for members and operates in an uncertain legal climate, groups often prefer to organize in nonprofit corporate form. The corporate form provides clear rights and responsibilities and limits the liability of members. E. Hadden & B. French, Nonprofit Organizations 12 (1987); H. Oleck, Nonprofit Corporations, Organizations and Associations 30-31 (4th ed. 1982); M. Lane, Legal Handbook for Nonprofit Organizations 4, 22-26, 43, 59-61, 124 (1980). For these reasons, in recent years the number of important unincorporated associations has dwindled while the number of incorporated associations has proliferated. Oleck, supra, at 31. By deciding to operate as a nonprofit corporation rather than an unincorporated association, a group does not forfeit its First Amendment protection to participate in political discourse.

An independent ground for invalidating this statute is the blanket exemption for media corporations. It is beyond per-adventure that the media could not be prohibited from speaking about candidate qualifications. The First Amendment would not tolerate a law prohibiting a newspaper or television network from spending on political comment because it operates through a corporation. See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218-220, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1436-1437, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). As Justice BRENNAN, supported by a majority of the Court in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985), state: "[T]he rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities." Id., at 784, 105 S.Ct., at 2958 (dissenting opinion, joined by MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ.); id., at 773, 105 S.Ct., at 2952 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) ("[T]he First Amendment gives no more protection to the press . . . than it does to others exercising their freedom of speech"). The argument relied on by the majority, that media corporations are in the business of communicating and other corporations are not, is unsatisfying. All corporations communicate with the public to some degree, whether it is their business or not; and communication is of particular importance for non-profit corporations.

The web of corporate ownership that links media and nonmedia corporations is difficult to untangle for the purpose of any meaningful distinction. Newspapers, television networks, and other media may be owned by parent corporations with multiple business interests. Nothing in the statutory scheme prohibits a business corporate parent from directing its newspaper to support or oppose a particular candidate. The Act not only permits that discretion or control, but makes it a crime for a public-interest nonprofit corporation to bring to light such activity if to do so infers candidate support or opposition. I can find no permissible basis under the First Amendment for the States to make this unsupported distinction among corporate speakers.

The Court's hostility to the corporate form used by the speaker in this case and its assertion that corporate wealth is the evil to be regulated is far too imprecise to justify the most severe restriction on political speech ever sanctioned by this Court. In any event, this distinction is irrelevant to a non-profit corporation. "Where at all possible, government must curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand, and must avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation." MCFL, 479 U.S., at 265, 107 S.Ct., at 631. The wholesale ban on corporate political speech enacted by the Michigan Legislature is "too blunt an instrument for such a delicate task." Ibid.

By constructing a rationale for the jurisprudence of this Court that prevents distinguished organizations in public affairs from announcing that a candidate is qualified or not qualified for public office, the Court imposes its own model of speech, one far removed from economic and political reality. It is an unhappy paradox that this Court, which has the role of protecting speech and of barring censorship from all aspects of political life, now becomes itself the censor. In the course of doing so, the Court reveals a lack of concern for speech rights that have the full protection of the First Amendment. I would affirm the judgment.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF KENNEDY, J., DISSENTINGn

Notes