The 14th Amendment And The Protection Of Corporate Political Speech
Protection of Corporate Political Speech
1. How would you frame the issue and conclusion of this essay?
The essay in our textbook argues that when The First amendment and the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause are combined, corporations are provided the rights and protection of political speech. Currently, corporations are regulated on supporting political candidates through indirect corporate funding. This allows corporations to indirectly support political leaders, but ultimately they cannot voice their concerns. The essay also argues that corporations do in fact deserve to have the same protections since they are not technically able to vote, but must pay taxes. Without the ability to have free political speech, these corporations technically do not have any way to influence any decision that may affect their businesses or trades. The essay …show more content…
regarding the protection of corporate political speech argues that corporations are in fact people, and the only way that they can exercise equality with government participation is through the protection of political speech. The issue in the essay is the inequality among citizens. If corporations are in fact seen as people, then they too must have equal rights and protection under the fourteenth amendment. This would allow corporations to have those same rights as all individuals do, and participate in political speech as individuals do.
In conclusion, every individual or corporation deserve the same protection under the constitution, and because the Supreme Court determined that corporations are people, then their political speech should be protected under the fourteenth amendment in the same fashion.
2. What are the relevant rules of law used to justify the argument in this essay?
The author of this essay uses several rules of law to justify the argument. The first rule is that of corporate personhood. “Corporate personhood is central to the determination of corporations' claim to First Amendment free speech rights. Courts struggle to appropriately define, or, more accurately, conceptualize corporations for the purpose of extending or denying constitutional rights” (Berger, 2004). The second rule of law is the first amendment that grants citizens the right to free speech, as well as the fourteenth amendment which grants equal protection for all citizens.
3. Does the argument contain significant ambiguity in the reasoning?
Clue: What word(s) or phrase(s) could have multiple meanings that would change the meaning of the reason
entirely? The essay’s argument contains significant ambiguity in their reasoning due to the mention of corporations being considered artificial persons that are not capable of voting. This could also be proof to argue the opposite side, and prove that corporations cannot be considered people since they cannot vote. This mention could influence steps towards equality for political speech protection, but in a different fashion than individual people. Additionally the essay mentions “allowing corporations to engage in political speech is not the same as saying that the general population will agree with the corporations’ political speech. Rather, corporate political speech allows corporations to express their opinions openly and then allows the people to agree or disagree with these opinions” (Kubasek, N. K., Brennan, B. A., Browne, M. N. (2017). This specifically spells out that corporate speech is not the same as the general population, which is the same as saying that corporations should be treated differently, and not to be found as persons.
4. Write an essay that someone who holds an opinion opposite to that of the essay author might write.
Clue: What other ethical norms could influence an opinion about this issue?
Under existing law, a corporation’s decision to engage in political speech is governed by the same rules as ordinary business decisions, which give directors and executives essentially unlimited authority. However, many argue that such rules are inappropriate for corporate political speech decisions. Under existing corporate laws, corporate political speech decisions are subject to the same rules as individual people. Rather than treat Corporations the same as individuals, lawmakers and government officials should develop special rules and regulations to govern who may make political speech decisions on behalf of corporations. Additionally, political speech decisions are substantially different from, and should not be subject to the same rules as, individual people.
1. How would you frame the issue and conclusion of this essay?
The essay in our textbook argues that when The First amendment and the fourteenth amendment’s equal protection clause are combined, corporations are provided the rights and protection of political speech. Currently, corporations are regulated on supporting political candidates through indirect corporate funding. This allows corporations to indirectly support political leaders, but ultimately they cannot voice their concerns. The essay also argues that corporations do in fact deserve to have the same protections since they are not technically able to vote, but must pay taxes. Without the ability to have free political speech, these corporations technically do not have any way to influence any decision that may affect their businesses or trades. The essay …show more content…
regarding the protection of corporate political speech argues that corporations are in fact people, and the only way that they can exercise equality with government participation is through the protection of political speech. The issue in the essay is the inequality among citizens. If corporations are in fact seen as people, then they too must have equal rights and protection under the fourteenth amendment. This would allow corporations to have those same rights as all individuals do, and participate in political speech as individuals do.
In conclusion, every individual or corporation deserve the same protection under the constitution, and because the Supreme Court determined that corporations are people, then their political speech should be protected under the fourteenth amendment in the same fashion.
2. What are the relevant rules of law used to justify the argument in this essay?
The author of this essay uses several rules of law to justify the argument. The first rule is that of corporate personhood. “Corporate personhood is central to the determination of corporations' claim to First Amendment free speech rights. Courts struggle to appropriately define, or, more accurately, conceptualize corporations for the purpose of extending or denying constitutional rights” (Berger, 2004). The second rule of law is the first amendment that grants citizens the right to free speech, as well as the fourteenth amendment which grants equal protection for all citizens.
3. Does the argument contain significant ambiguity in the reasoning?
Clue: What word(s) or phrase(s) could have multiple meanings that would change the meaning of the reason
entirely? The essay’s argument contains significant ambiguity in their reasoning due to the mention of corporations being considered artificial persons that are not capable of voting. This could also be proof to argue the opposite side, and prove that corporations cannot be considered people since they cannot vote. This mention could influence steps towards equality for political speech protection, but in a different fashion than individual people. Additionally the essay mentions “allowing corporations to engage in political speech is not the same as saying that the general population will agree with the corporations’ political speech. Rather, corporate political speech allows corporations to express their opinions openly and then allows the people to agree or disagree with these opinions” (Kubasek, N. K., Brennan, B. A., Browne, M. N. (2017). This specifically spells out that corporate speech is not the same as the general population, which is the same as saying that corporations should be treated differently, and not to be found as persons.
4. Write an essay that someone who holds an opinion opposite to that of the essay author might write.
Clue: What other ethical norms could influence an opinion about this issue?
Under existing law, a corporation’s decision to engage in political speech is governed by the same rules as ordinary business decisions, which give directors and executives essentially unlimited authority. However, many argue that such rules are inappropriate for corporate political speech decisions. Under existing corporate laws, corporate political speech decisions are subject to the same rules as individual people. Rather than treat Corporations the same as individuals, lawmakers and government officials should develop special rules and regulations to govern who may make political speech decisions on behalf of corporations. Additionally, political speech decisions are substantially different from, and should not be subject to the same rules as, individual people.