The Modern Corporation and Political Thought

The significant aspects of the statement under analysis state that corporate speech should be regulated in all elections because only such action can protect the rights of real citizens to participate equally in a democratic political system. In addition, it states this theory is entirely consistent with the theory of modern corporation law. In fact, modern corporation law appears to be moving toward greater recognition of corporate autonomy and greater treatment of corporations as private citizens whose internal decisions should not be interfered with, a theory inconsistent with the belief corporate speech should be regulated. However, recent decisions by the Supreme Court also recognize corporations can in fact be distinguished from individual citizens and regulation of corporate speech is an acceptable way to protect the political process.

In a capitalist economy like the United States, corporations play a fundamental role in economic and political life. Because of the emphasis on corporate activity, a democratic government is understandably hesitant to interfere in corporate management and administration. What this has come to mean in the United States is that corporations largely enjoy the same constitutional protections as individual citizens. For example, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti 435 U.S. 765 (1978), the Supreme Court held corporations have the same constitutional rights under the First Amendmen

. . .
trict the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form, to eliminate the effect of aggregated wealth on federal elections, to curb the political influence of those who exercise control over large aggregations of capital, and to regulate the substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages that go with the corporate form of organization (Brennan, J., 1986, p. 627). Thus, theoretically consistent is Austin, in which the Court found the likelihood these corrupting influence could be present. In Austin, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was also a nonprofit corporation, but its stated purpose was to promote economic conditions favorable to private enterprise and three-quarters of its members were for-profit corporations (Marshall, J., 1990). Applying the MCFL test, Justice Marshall concluded the Chamber of Commerce was not an ideological nonprofit corporation in the sense intended in MCFL and therefore was not exempt from the statute's prohibitions against the expenditure for corporate treasury funds in candidate elections (Bowman, 1996, p. 160). Bowman argues Austin constitutes a watershed in the debate over the permissible regulation of corporate political speech and activity under
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Chamber Commerce, MCFL Austin, Wrigley Field, Supreme Court, Scott Bowman, Exxon Corporation, Brennan Bellotti, PG&E's Powell, Commission PUC, Justice Brennan, political process, bowman 1996, individual citizens, corporate speech, court held, political autonomy, chamber commerce, modern corporation, michigan chamber commerce, individual citizen, powell 1978, austin michigan chamber, boston bellotti 435, bank boston bellotti, 494 652 1990,
Approximate Word count = 2910
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)

More Essays on The Modern Corporation and Political Thought