*
It is an interesting question “who” is even speaking
when a business corporation places an advertisement that
endorses or attacks a particular candidate. Presumably it
is not the customers or employees, who typically have no
say in such matters. It cannot realistically be said to be
the shareholders, who tend to be far removed from the
day-to-day decisions of the firm and whose political prefer
ences may be opaque to management. Perhaps the officers
or directors of the corporation have the best claim to be
the ones speaking, except their fiduciary duties generally
prohibit them from using corporate funds for personal
ends. Some individuals associated with the corporation
must make the decision to place the ad, but the idea that
these individuals are thereby fostering their self
expression or cultivating their critical faculties is fanciful.
It is entirely possible that the corporation’s electoral mes
sage will conflict with their personal convictions. Take
away the ability to use general treasury funds for some of
those ads, and no one’s autonomy, dignity, or political
equality has been impinged upon in the least.
(From Judge Stevens’ dissent, Citizen’s United)
.i`` * ^ / . . . . . ` `~ 