Michael,

I agree that the Court considered the benefit of hearing multiple views.
However, the ultimate result is that corporations have first amendment
rights and further, protecting a corporation's speech also played a major
role in the case:

From Bellotti:

"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 issues.  If a legislature may direct
business corporations to "stick to business," it also may limit other
corporations -- religious, charitable, or civic -- to their respective
"business" when addressing the public. Such power in government to channel
the expression of views is unacceptable under the First Amendment."

Daren


On 3/11/11 6:08 PM, "Garrison, Michael J." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Daren
> 
> I believe Ross is correct about the landmark Bellotti case. The Court in
> Bellotti based its protection of corporate campaign spending on the first
> amendment interests of the public in hearing corporate opinions. The Court
> avoided the issue of whether corporations are speakers for purposes of the
> first amendment. 
> 
> There is an old, fairly boring analysis of the Bellotti case and the MCFL
> decision (that was overruled in Citizens United) in the ABLJ. Garrison,
> Corporate Political Speech, Campaign Spending and First Amendment Doctrine, 27
> Am. Bus. L.J. 163 (1989).
> 
> Michael
> 
>     
> -----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 1:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
> 
> I was responding to Ross.
> 
> Daren Bakst
> 
> 
> On 3/11/11 2:14 PM, "John Allison" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> 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/citizensun>>>>
i
>>>>>>> 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