Corporate Speech and the First Amendment: History, Data, and Implications

John C. Coates, IV
{"title":"Corporate Speech and the First Amendment: History, Data, and Implications","authors":"John C. Coates, IV","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2566785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article draws on empirical analysis, history, and economic theory to show that corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment and to outline an argument that the shift reflects economically harmful rent seeking. The history of corporations, regulation of commercial speech, and First Amendment case law is retold, with an emphasis on the role of constitutional entrepreneur Justice Lewis Powell, who prompted the Supreme Court to invent corporate and commercial speech rights. The chronology shows that First Amendment doctrine long post-dated both pervasive regulation of commercial speech and the rise of the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power – a chronology with implications for originalists, and for policy. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions are analyzed to quantify the degree to which corporations have displaced individuals as direct beneficiaries of First Amendment rights, and to show that they have done so recently, but with growing speed since Virginia Pharmacy, Bellotti, and Central Hudson. Nearly half of First Amendment challenges now benefit business corporations and trade groups, rather than other kinds of organizations or individuals, and the trend-line is up. Such cases commonly constitute a form of corruption: the use of litigation by managers to entrench reregulation in their personal interests at the expense of shareholders, consumers, and employees. In aggregate, they degrade the rule of law, rendering it less predictable, general and clear. This corruption risks significant economic harms in addition to the loss of a republican form of government.","PeriodicalId":81001,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional commentary","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional commentary","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2566785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

This Article draws on empirical analysis, history, and economic theory to show that corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment and to outline an argument that the shift reflects economically harmful rent seeking. The history of corporations, regulation of commercial speech, and First Amendment case law is retold, with an emphasis on the role of constitutional entrepreneur Justice Lewis Powell, who prompted the Supreme Court to invent corporate and commercial speech rights. The chronology shows that First Amendment doctrine long post-dated both pervasive regulation of commercial speech and the rise of the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power – a chronology with implications for originalists, and for policy. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions are analyzed to quantify the degree to which corporations have displaced individuals as direct beneficiaries of First Amendment rights, and to show that they have done so recently, but with growing speed since Virginia Pharmacy, Bellotti, and Central Hudson. Nearly half of First Amendment challenges now benefit business corporations and trade groups, rather than other kinds of organizations or individuals, and the trend-line is up. Such cases commonly constitute a form of corruption: the use of litigation by managers to entrench reregulation in their personal interests at the expense of shareholders, consumers, and employees. In aggregate, they degrade the rule of law, rendering it less predictable, general and clear. This corruption risks significant economic harms in addition to the loss of a republican form of government.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公司演讲和第一修正案:历史、数据和含义
本文利用实证分析、历史和经济理论来表明,公司已经开始取代个人成为第一修正案的直接受益者,并概述了一种观点,即这种转变反映了经济上有害的寻租行为。本书重述了公司、商业言论监管和第一修正案判例法的历史,重点介绍了宪法企业家刘易斯·鲍威尔大法官的作用,他促使最高法院发明了公司和商业言论权。这一年表显示,第一修正案的原则远远落后于对商业言论的普遍监管和美国作为世界领先经济大国的崛起——这一年表对原旨主义者和政策都有影响。对最高法院和上诉法院的判决进行分析,以量化公司取代个人成为第一修正案权利的直接受益者的程度,并表明它们最近已经这样做了,但自弗吉尼亚药房、贝洛蒂和中央哈德逊以来,这种趋势正在加速。近一半的第一修正案挑战现在有利于商业公司和贸易团体,而不是其他类型的组织或个人,而且趋势线正在上升。此类案件通常构成腐败的一种形式:管理者利用诉讼,以牺牲股东、消费者和员工的利益为代价,巩固对其个人利益的监管。总的来说,它们削弱了法治,使其变得更不可预测、更笼统和更清晰。这种腐败除了会导致共和政体的丧失之外,还可能造成严重的经济损失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Reality Principle The Constitutional Marriage of Personality and Impersonality: Office, Honor, and the Oath Originalist Theory and Precedent: A Public Meaning Approach Taking Legitimacy Seriously: A Return to Deontology Family Reunification and the Security State
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1