William J. Brennan, Jr.

“ The requirement that corporate independent expenditures be financed through a segregated fund or PAC expressly established to engage in campaign spending is designed to avert this danger. "The resources available to [a PAC] , as opposed to the corporate treasury, in fact reflect popular support for the political positions of the committee." ”

“ The Michigan statute advances the interest identified in MCFL in two distinct ways, by preventing both the Chamber and other business corporations from using the funds of other persons for purposes that those persons may not support. First, the state law protects the small businessperson who does not wish his or her dues to be spent in support of political candidates, but who nevertheless wishes to maintain an association with the Chamber because of the myriad benefits it provides that are unrelated to its political activities. ”

“ The Michigan law is concededly "underinclusive" insofar as it does not ban other types of political expenditures to which a dissenting Chamber member or corporate shareholder might object. See post, at 685-686 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) . The particular provision at issue prohibits corporations from using treasury funds only for making independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate in state elections. See ante, at 655-656. A corporation remains free, for example, to use general treasury funds to support an initiative proposal in a state referendum. ”

“ Hence, Justice KENNEDY's proposed reliance on a nonprofit's donors to monitor and police the corporation's activities overlooks the raison d'etre of the nonprofit form.↑ This very "underinclusiveness" belies the dissents' charge that the Michigan law is a broad restriction on corporate political expression; many avenues of communication are open to the Chamber. In addition, the segregated fund requirement in practice has not burdened significantly the Chamber's speech with respect to candidate-oriented expenditures. ”

“ In evaluating the First Amendment challenge, however, we "acknowledge [d] the legitimacy of Congress' concern that organizations that amass great wealth in the economic marketplace not gain unfair advantage in the political marketplace." 479 U.S., at 263, 107 S.Ct., at 630. Specifically, we noted that " [d] irect corporate spending on political activity raises the prospect that resources amassed in the economic marketplace may be used to provide an unfair advantage in the political marketplace," because " [t] he resources in the treasury of a business corporation . ”

“ The Chamber established a PAC in 1977 and has drawn from that fund in every election since then. The Chamber has an eligible class of about 50,000 individuals from whom it can solicit contributions to its PAC under the Michigan statute, and it has been quite successful in doing so. During the 1983-1984 election cycle, the Chamber PAC raised over $102,000, and its projected resources for the 1986 primary and general elections amounted to more than $140,000. ”

“ Third, the group "was not established by a business corporation or a labor union, and it [was] its policy not to accept contributions from such entities. This prevent [ed it] from serving as [a] condui [t] for the type of direct spending that creates a threat to the political marketplace." Ibid.
The majority today persuasively demonstrates that the situation in this case is markedly different from that in MCFL. The Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) is first and foremost a business association, not a political advocacy organization. ”

“ I join the Court's opinion. As one of the "Orwellian" "censor [s] " derided by the dissents, post, at 679 (SCALIA, J.) ; post, at 713 (KENNEDY, J.) , and as the author of our recent decision in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 107 S.Ct. ”