I know that this is what the cases say, of course. I am quite familiar with Citizens United, Bellotti, and other corporate speech cases, and do not need for you to show me the way.
The question is the should, not the is.
John
John R. Allison
The Spence Centennial Professor of
Business Administration
McCombs School of Business
CBA 5.246
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
512-471-9435
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daren Bakst
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 1:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Actually, it is that corporations have rights to free speech as speakers.
If you can point to cases that support otherwise, I'd be very interested in
them.
Here are some cites:
See Citizens United (just citing this because it points to other sources as
well): http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
See: First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/765/case.html
Daren Bakst
On 3/11/11 12:55 PM, "Petty, Ross" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I watched the video but have not read the Supreme Court's decision. However,
> past decisions have always emphasized, not the rights of the speaker but those
> of listeners to hear a plurality of views. So it is not that corporations
> have the right to free speech as speakers, but that citizens have the right to
> hear all views even those that come from corporations.
>
> Ross D. Petty
> Professor of Marketing Law
> Zwerling Family Term Chair
> Babson College
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of John
> Allison
> Sent: Fri 3/11/2011 12:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
>
>
>
> But they're spending other people's money, even if they own shares themselves.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank Cross
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:52 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
>
> Management is individuals too, John.
>
> At 10:40 AM 3/11/2011, John Allison wrote:
>> Question: Does "that doesn't mean corporations don't have First
>> Amendment rights.
>> They are "associations" of individuals." ignore the reality that the
>> average shareholder has little voice in what management does?
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daren Bakst
>> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:28 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
>>
>> I hope that students receive a more accurate picture of the issue than this
>> piece. There are so many flaws with the video, it is tough to know where to
>> begin.
>>
>> Actually, I'll start from one of the first lines about the problem with
>> campaign ads getting worse because of Citizens United. That's interesting
>> because there is little to no evidence that the "recent" decision had any
>> impact on the last election cycle (not to mention, it is unclear what is
>> wrong with campaign ads). Further, states across the country already have
>> allowed corporations to spend money from their general treasuries for
>> independent expenditures without it creating some crisis in those states.
>>
>> The issue of a corporation not being a person is a silly argument--we know
>> this, but that doesn't mean corporations don't have First Amendment rights.
>> They are "associations" of individuals.
>>
>> Should newspapers, such as the NYT, be barred from running commentary (they
>> are corporations and spend money that refer to candidates). What about book
>> publishers--should they be scared about publishing a book because it
>> mentions a political candidate? Interesting that not once did I hear
>> anything about unions.
>>
>> The biggest problem with the video and the most disturbing actions of some
>> critics of Citizens United is this unwarranted and vicious attack on the
>> Supreme Court as an institution and the questioning of the justices'
>> motives.
>>
>> Daren Bakst, J.D., LL.M.
>> Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies
>> John Locke Foundation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/11/11 10:55 AM, "Susan Rogers" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks! this is just what my students need!
>>>>
>>>>> Annie Leonard, creator of Story of Stuff, explains the Corporate
>>>>> Personhood fiasco that Democracy has gotten itself into
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> <http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/>http://storyofstuff.org/citizensuni
>>>>> ted/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> Frank B. Cross
> Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
> McCombs School of Business
> University of Texas
> CBA 5.202 (B6500)
> Austin, TX 78712-0212
> 512.471.5250
|
