Your response implies that you don't think that a fair fight matters.
Freedom matters more to be that "a fair fight". If you have to send out the Handicapper General to make the fight "fair", then I say have an unfair fight. Its not just corporations who have a lot of money, so do rich individuals (who don't have to answer to stockholders for how they spend it). Celebrities (who also tend to be very wealthy) also get a platform of more influence than the average person, as to sitting politicians, and members of the media (even ones who aren't so prominent as to be rich or a celebrity). Free speech doesn't mean that everyone gets equal "volume" or influence, and it SHOULDN'T mean that.
But the "unfairness" contributed by allowing corporate political adds has been greatly exaggerated. Both in terms of how much corporations will influence elections, and in terms of how much of that influence relates to this decision. Spending billions or even many millions endorsing candidates or parties is not likely to be supported by the shareholders, and also risks blow back against both the company and the candidate. Also if corporations where itching to spend this much money to elect candidates they could have already done so before this decision. Issue adds can support a candidate without explicitly saying "vote for Bob Smith". Also corporations could run loss making (if necessary, profitability would of course be desired, but they would likely lose money) media outlets and then claim freedom of the press.
That last part is interesting, because if corporations (or technically individuals collectively operating within the framework of a corporation) don't have freedom of speech, than they don't really have freedom of the press either. Its the same amendment that grants both, under the same "congress shall make no law" phrase, with no mention of corporations (or of "persons", "individuals", "organizations", "collective entities", or any other word or phrase that would assign some rights to individuals and some rights to go beyond individuals. If Exxon-Mobil doesn't have free speech as a constitutional right, than the New York Times, doesn't have freedom of the press as a constitutional right.
--
Lessened Corporate First Amendment Rights and Media Corporations
volokh.com |
