Regulate Political Speech
Can governments regulate political speech of corporations through restrictions on independent corporate expenditures?
Over the course of the past twenty years, the U.S. Supreme Court constantly increased constitutional protection of corporate speech under the First Amendment and repeatedly struck down regulations on commercial speech as violating the First Amendment. Although the Supreme Court recently held statutory restrictions on corporate expenditures for electioneering communications to violate the right to free speech, it is still controversially discussed whether such restrictions can be upheld under the First Amendment. However, supporters of such restrictions ignore that the First Amendment is written in terms of speech and not of …show more content…
As PACs are burdensome and expensive to administer they reduce the quantity of speech, for the quantity of speech is limited by financial resources available for the expression of political ideas. Consequently, expenditure restrictions function as a barrier to corporate speech and thereby prevent corporate voices from reaching the public and advising voters and deprive the public of its right to decide which speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. Therefore, restrictions on corporate expenditures also restrict political speech itself. Such restrictions can only be justified if they further a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve this …show more content…
They are overinclusive because they include small corporations that do not possess the financial ability to exercise a dominant influence on the political debate and non-profit organizations. On the other hand, they are underinclusive for they exclude media corporations, although in particular modern media empires amass immense wealth and unreviewable power and are equally if not better equipped to influence the public political debate than other corporations. Many media corporations are owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. As a result, a corporation owning a media business and a non-media business could exercise its control over the media to advance its overall business interests whereas other corporations would be prohibited from promoting the same issue. Lastly, political speech is so integrated in this country’s culture that speakers will always find a way to circumvent campaign finance
Over the course of the past twenty years, the U.S. Supreme Court constantly increased constitutional protection of corporate speech under the First Amendment and repeatedly struck down regulations on commercial speech as violating the First Amendment. Although the Supreme Court recently held statutory restrictions on corporate expenditures for electioneering communications to violate the right to free speech, it is still controversially discussed whether such restrictions can be upheld under the First Amendment. However, supporters of such restrictions ignore that the First Amendment is written in terms of speech and not of …show more content…
As PACs are burdensome and expensive to administer they reduce the quantity of speech, for the quantity of speech is limited by financial resources available for the expression of political ideas. Consequently, expenditure restrictions function as a barrier to corporate speech and thereby prevent corporate voices from reaching the public and advising voters and deprive the public of its right to decide which speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. Therefore, restrictions on corporate expenditures also restrict political speech itself. Such restrictions can only be justified if they further a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve this …show more content…
They are overinclusive because they include small corporations that do not possess the financial ability to exercise a dominant influence on the political debate and non-profit organizations. On the other hand, they are underinclusive for they exclude media corporations, although in particular modern media empires amass immense wealth and unreviewable power and are equally if not better equipped to influence the public political debate than other corporations. Many media corporations are owned or controlled by corporations that have diverse and substantial investments and participate in endeavors other than news. As a result, a corporation owning a media business and a non-media business could exercise its control over the media to advance its overall business interests whereas other corporations would be prohibited from promoting the same issue. Lastly, political speech is so integrated in this country’s culture that speakers will always find a way to circumvent campaign finance