Corporations as Speakers

Author(s):  
Randall P. Bezanson

This chapter examines the justices' views and the reasoning behind Supreme Court's 5–4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It does so through a review of the second oral argument before the Court and an analysis of the Court's opinion. After the Court had first heard oral argument in 2009, it scheduled a second argument and instructed the parties to brief and argue the general question of the constitutional status of corporate speech. The Court had ruled in prior cases that much corporate speech was protected by the First Amendment, but as a general rule the protection afforded such speech was weak and limited. After taking full stock of the Court's decision, and in light of the virtual absence of serious constitutional analysis of the core question of the First Amendment's meaning, the chapter then steps back and considers from a fresh and broader perspective whether corporations should be fully protected speakers under the First Amendment, drawing on the Constitution's text, its history, and the structural, philosophical, and practical considerations that bear on this central question.

Author(s):  
Ana Valero Heredia

Con la sentencia de la Corte Suprema norteamericana, pronunciada en el Caso Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission, de febrero de 2010, el Tribunal Supremo Norteamericano ha revocado un fallo que desde hacía veinte años imponía límites y restringía la capacidad de las empresas y los sindicatos para financiar las campañas electorales de los partidos políticos en las elecciones federales. Esta reñidísima decisión del Supremo intérprete de la Constitución estadounidense, ha supuesto una auténtica convulsión en materian electoral en los Estados Unidos pues anula el fallo emitido veinte años atrás en el Caso Austin v. Cámara de Comercio de Michigan, según el cual, las empresas podían ver limitado el uso de sus fondos con fines políticos para evitar los riesgos de corrupción.Citizens ofrece una visión absolutista de la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución que permite a las empresas gastar sumas ilimitadas de dinero de manera independiente para apoyar u oponerse a candidatos para el cargo, dando carta blanca a la desregularización de la financiación de las campañas electorales y permitiendo a las contribuciones opacas de las empresas sin límite de ningún tipo.With the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, pronounced in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, February 2010, the American Supreme Court has overturned a ruling that for twenty years imposed limits and restricted the ability of firms and unions to finance the election campaigns of political parties in federal elections. This decision of the Supreme interpreter of the U.S. Constitution was a radical upheaval in the U.S. election as the ruling nullifies twenty years ago in Austin v Case. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, according to which companies could have limited the use of their funds for political purposes to avoid the risks of corruption. Citizens offers an absolutist view of the First Amendment of the Constitution that allows companies to spend unlimited amounts of money independently to support or oppose candidates for office, giving carte blanche to the deregulation of the financing of election campaigns and allowing contributions opaque firms without any limit.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. McCormick

What will it take to get Americans to do something about political corruption? I mean the deep corruption of politics and policy now caused by massive campaign contributions, by lobbyists who bundle those contributions for political candidates and then influence the policy decisions of elected officials, by the revolving door between public office and lucrative private employment, and—through all these instruments and more—by the influence of wealthy individuals and interests over the agencies and institutions of government. Some people say this is just American politics as usual: money is inevitable in public life, and anyway it's all perfectly legal. Sadly, those who say this are, at this moment, winning the argument. Writing for the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Justice Anthony Kennedy opined, “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.” Cementing the case, says the Court, is the First Amendment, which protects political speech and political dollars.


Author(s):  
Robert E. Mutch

The point of disclosure is to let voters see who is financing election campaigns. That was why the Supreme Court upheld the disclosure law in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United, and that was the purpose of the law when...


2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Yoder

Few recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court have created quite the stir as did Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. One reason the opinion had such an effect is that it contains a smorgasbord of business-related legal and political issues, including issues relating to election law, ethics, social responsibility, stare decisis, judicial review, selection of Supreme Court Justices, the definition of free speech, and corporate “personhood” for purposes of the First Amendment. Perhaps surprising for a case involving a lawsuit brought by a nonprofit public advocacy organization against the federal agency charged with enforcing federal election laws, the opinion also ventures into one of the most important current issues in corporate governance, the role of shareholders in the business and affairs of a corporation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document