Corporate Spending on Political Speech
By Randall Holcombe • Thursday January 28, 2010 3:14 PM PDT • 5 Comments
I’ve commented before on the explicitly liberal (in the contemporary sense of the word) turn that Newsweek magazine has recently taken. While I’ve always viewed the magazine as having a liberal bias, until recently it came across as liberal reporters attempting to present the facts. Now they’ve quit reporting the news (because it’s so readily available elsewhere) to focus on liberal commentary on the news.
The February 1st edition runs two columns criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision dropping limits on corporate spending on political speech. Jonathan Alter says, “In a devastating decision, the high court cleared the way for one of those corporate takeovers you read about, only much bigger.” Stuart Taylor, Jr. says the ruling unleashes “... corporate executives to pour unlimited amounts of stockholders’ money—without their consent—into adds supporting or attacking federal candidates. Indeed the 5-4 decision would allow any big company to spend a fortune attacking candidates whom many, or even most, of its stockholders would rather support.”
First, let me say that I agree with Alter’s and Taylor’s implication that most politicians are sleazebags whose votes can be bought, and who can’t be trusted to act in the public interest, even if they have an idea of what that is. I also agree with their implication that a major motivation of politicians is getting elected and re-elected, and that they will stoop pretty low to enhance their electoral chances.
Setting that aside (because my intention here isn’t to bash politicians), if Alter and Taylor believe we should limit the political speech of corporations, why not start with the Washington Post Company, the owner of Newsweek? Why should they be free to spout their liberal ideology, while muzzling other corporations? The same question applies to News Corp, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and other media outlets.
Taylor has an answer for that: “The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom ‘of the press’ as well as of speech.” But that doesn’t seem like much of an answer to me. All that says is, “We’re a media company, so we shouldn’t be limited in what we say, but other corporations shouldn’t have the same rights we do.” Is there any logic in that? Why should some corporations have an unlimited right to political speech while others are limited?
I see this in politics all the time: people argue that certain rules should be applied to everyone else but them, because for some reason they are different and deserve the exception. If the Washington Post Company is protected by the First Amendment, why would other corporations not be entitled to the same protection?
Tags: Civil Liberties, Elections, Integrity, Law, Media, Politics, Regulation 
This is developing into a pattern in the progressive press. (If they don’t want to call themselves liberal any more, but rather want to identify themselves with the “progressive” Wilson, the worst enemy of free speech to occupy the White House, I’m not going to argue.)
I really think it’s another case of corporations lobbying for special privilege. They want to take free speech away from corporations in general (notably including non-profit advocacy organizations, whom the progressives never say should get an exemption), and recasting “freedom of the press” to refer to an elite subset of the population which is identified as “The Press.” It’s no different in essentials from insurance companies lobbying for mandatory insurance; they’re willing to trade off real freedom for monopoly privilege.
This does indeed show that you shouldn’t trust corporations ... when they’re campaigning for government favors for themselves.
Gary McGath | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
“They want to take free speech away from corporations in general ... recasting “freedom of the press” to refer to an elite subset of the population...”
Well said, Gary!
Randall Holcombe | Jan 29, 2010 | Reply
I agree that organizations such as Gannett or GE/NBC should have no special privileges which are unavailable to any other corporation. But I don’t believe the Citizens United ruling is about granting rights to corporations. Scalia made that clear.
The First Amendment protects a citizen from a powerful government which would decide what speech the citizen is allowed to hear. It’s not a right granted to a speaker, but rather to a listener. As such, it makes no difference whether the speaker is a single person, an organization, a union, a church, or a corporation. It is the speech – and the right of the citizen to hear it – which is protected.
John Dewey | Feb 1, 2010 | Reply
Consider the allegedly “terrible” consequences of this new free speech decision:
Corporations are composed of people. They have interests that deserve to be defended or asserted in the public debate.
If they offend their shareholders by supporting the wrong policy or candidate, the shareholders can vote out the board (in theory) or sell stock and lower the value to the remaining shareholders and management. Pretty good self-limiting device.
And legally a corporation cannot risk or spend its funds on items that don’t eventually benefit the company. So a corporation board is unlikely to allow huge expenditures for extreme or frivolous political campaigns.
I am not worried. I am hopeful for the future of freer speech!
Garrett of Oakland
Garrett Riegg | Feb 1, 2010 | Reply
Folks, you are ignoring what has happened: elected representatives are the best that money can buy. Most money wins almost all the time. Who supplies the money? Big corporations, and unions. So their interests are served, and the People’s interests wither. If you are happy with this, no change is called for, but if not, what to do? The decision of the Supremes adds fuel to the fire burning up democracy.
S. Lawrence | Feb 2, 2010 | Reply