University:
Indiana University Bloomington
Course:
Financial and Managerial Accounting: Information for Decisions - John J. Wild
Academic year:

2024
Views:

70

Pages:

2
Author:

bratrochanter

Citizens United and Corporate Speech The core issue in Citizens United v. FEC involves the extent to which corporations, like Citizens United, can use general treasury funds for political broadcasts close to elections. The Court’s majority held that the First Amendment does not permit restrictions on political expenditures based on the speaker’s corporate identity, thereby overturning previous rulings, notably Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had permitted limitations on corporate speech to prevent potential corruption or undue influence. The ruling affirms that political speech is crucial to democracy, irrespective of whether it comes from individuals or corporations. Dissenting Views and Concerns Justice Stevens, in his dissent, argued that corporations differ fundamentally from individuals in their financial influence and operational goals, and thus warrant regulation in the political sphere to avoid undermining electoral integrity. Stevens emphasized the historic rationale for the Tillman Act (1907) and other laws, which established campaign limits for corporations. He argued that the ruling unnecessarily deviated from longstanding judicial and legislative tradition intended to protect democratic processes from potentially disproportionate corporate influence. Commercial Speech and the First Amendment In commercial contexts, the Supreme Court grants intermediate protection to commercial speech, which receives constitutional protection as long as it is truthful and non-misleading. Restrictions on commercial speech must meet the Central Hudson test, requiring that they directly advance a substantial government interest and are narrowly tailored. This differs from the strict scrutiny applied to political speech, which requires a compelling interest. Cases such as 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island further illustrate the Court’s commitment to consumer access to truthful commercial information. Here, the Court invalidated a Rhode Island law prohibiting the advertisement of alcohol prices, emphasizing that restrictions limiting non-misleading commercial speech hinder informed consumer choices without sufficient justification. Non-Protected Categories of Speech Certain types of speech, such as obscene material or child pornography, fall entirely outside First Amendment protections. In United States v. Stevens, the Court resisted broadening these exceptions to include depictions of animal cruelty, reflecting a reluctance to exclude new categories of offensive content without clear justification. This decision underscores the Court’s careful scrutiny when evaluating whether speech limitations align with constitutional values, especially as they pertain to public access to varied sources of information. Conclusion The Citizens United ruling expanded First Amendment protections for corporate political speech, departing from prior precedent in favor of broad protections against government-imposed restrictions. Concurrently, commercial speech protections, while strong, remain distinct from political speech and are subject to specific limitations to ensure consumer protection and government interests. Through these cases, the Court continues to balance regulatory needs with the constitutional mandate for free expression.