Business and the Right to Free Speech

The president used the occasion on the State of the Union address to denounce the recent Supreme Court decision to allow freedom of speech protection to corporations. His disingenuous rationale was that it would open the door to foreign manipulation of American elections. The truth is that he knows business does not like his policies and he wants to limit its ability to fund political ads contrary to those policies. Lawyers, legislators, and political commentators have since come forward to state that the decision keeps in place the various regulation against foreign contributions to domestic political organisations.

Talk show host, Michael Medved, states that the court merely said that just as we do not limit a corporations ability to advertise, neither can we limit their public political statements. This may be so. It would be difficult, although totalitarian bureaucrats would relish the task, to discern where the one stopped and the other began. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness and seems disingenuous. It avoids the real issue. The populous is convinced that corporations should be silenced because it fears the power of corporations. Given the pervasiveness of misleading advertising, this is a reasonable fear. Nevertheless, the best policy is to hear all opinions and hope we can discern a measure of truth. That was the founders' rationale in guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As a practical matter, it is only common sense, that businesses should explain how a particular candidate or policy would affect their industry. In fact if they remain silent while a decision is being made, how can they complain later?