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…
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
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…
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