ABSTRACT
First National Bank of Boston and others desired to "speak" in opposition to a proposed state constitutional amendment authorizing a graduated individual income tax and thus alleged a violation of its political speech rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Writing for a five-four majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. focused less on the messenger-essentially avoiding the question of whether corporations have certain rights-and more on the message, reasoning that the bank's contributions were essential to a diverse and vibrant exchange of ideas. Justice Powell did not summarily reject the notion that corporate "speech" could overwhelm the electoral process-accepting that, with sufficient evidence, such a restriction could be constitutional-but he explained that the state had failed to provide proof justifying such a prohibition. In separate dissents, Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist emphasized the particular nature and power of the corporate form.
