Thoughts about the USA, Asia and other things from Ed Ahnert, a Texan who has lived on the western Pacific Rim for 21 years
Friday, October 29, 2010
Corporate Political Speech: The Implications of "Citizens United"
This article from Wharton is an excellent discussion of the issues raised by the Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.
Thanks for posting this article re the Citizens United decision. On the pro side, isn't a corporation deemed a legal person under the law and, as such, shouldn't it have the rights of a legal person? Or is the distinction between a legal person and a political person something to be taken into account?
There doesn't seem to be any issue taken in this article about unions. Unions, too, are able to raise funds on behalf of their political interests. And given the fact that the government employees' unions are becoming more important because they are growing in numbers, shouldn't they deserve the right to express (ie fund) their poltical preferences as well?
As pointed out in the article, disclosure is a critical element both of the decision and the aftermath of the decision. It is the responsibility now of individual shareholders or association members or union members to hold their respective organizations responsible for their actions. As noted, this is not always easy, but my feeling is "tough!": no one seems to want to take responisibility for very much these days.
There are legitimate communal or group interests involved in society these days. Diversity and individualism are not the only values in town. More work for us individuals I suppose, but this is a democracy of sorts, and we should be up to it.
1 comment:
Thanks for posting this article re the Citizens United decision. On the pro side, isn't a corporation deemed a legal person under the law and, as such, shouldn't it have the rights of a legal person? Or is the distinction between a legal person and a political person something to be taken into account?
There doesn't seem to be any issue taken in this article about unions. Unions, too, are able to raise funds on behalf of their political interests. And given the fact that the government employees' unions are becoming more important because they are growing in numbers, shouldn't they deserve the right to express (ie fund) their poltical preferences as well?
As pointed out in the article, disclosure is a critical element both of the decision and the aftermath of the decision. It is the responsibility now of individual shareholders or association members or union members to hold their respective organizations responsible for their actions. As noted, this is not always easy, but my feeling is "tough!": no one seems to want to take responisibility for very much these days.
There are legitimate communal or
group interests involved in society these days. Diversity and individualism are not the only values in town. More work for us individuals I suppose, but this is a democracy of sorts, and we should be up to it.
Post a Comment