Thoughts on Corporate Speech

Thoughts on Corporate Speech

I understand the distinction between corporate speech and commercial speech – the former being related to issues of social and political polices and receiving full First Amendment protection, and the latter being related to company business and subject to government regulation. However, it seems that the laws about corporate speech are somewhat flawed and perhaps that category of speech may need a bit of regulating too.

I agree with the 1978 Supreme Court recognition that corporations contribute to public policy debates and that we have a right to hear what they have to say. However, what they contribute is always going to be that side of the debate and that information only that best benefits them. While there is nothing wrong with championing those ideas that benefit you the most, I fear that other equally viable ideas are not going to be heard as clearly or as thoroughly and – most importantly – as often because corporations are always going to have the financial resources to buy a bigger microphone for that debate than many other groups, organizations or can afford. This point is mentioned in our text, and I agree with the notion that corporations are going to drown out a lot of dissenting voices.

I also understand that the purpose of the Federal Election Act of 1971 is to prevent corporations from buying candidates, which is a good thing. It does not allow for money to go to the candidates but rather to the campaign in the form of soft money. This is the point that is confusing to me. It seems that this really doesn’t change things and that the end result is still the same. It’s like arriving at the same destination but just using a different car to do it.