Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and the Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing

By Redish, Martin H.; Siegal, Peter B. | Texas Law Review, May 1, 2013 | Go to article overview

Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and the Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing


Redish, Martin H., Siegal, Peter B., Texas Law Review


Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and the Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing BRANDISHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION IN AMERICA. By Tamara R. Piety. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2012. 342 pages. $70.00.

I. Introduction

Late in 2011, Massachusetts Congressman James P. McGovern proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the terms "People, person, or citizens" as used in the Constitution to natural persons.1 As to provisions that do not explicitly use the terms "People, person, or citizens," such as the First Amendment, the new amendment would clarify that "We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons," with the goal and effect of rendering impossible any constitutional recognition of corporations.2 Whatever one thinks about the merits of this proposal, there is little doubt that it taps into widespread confusion about and anger over the Supreme Court's holding in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that "the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker's corporate identity."3 The widespread reaction of both legal scholars and educated lay people to the Citizens United decision was that it is preposterous to believe that a corporation could actually possess constitutional rights because a corporation is neither a "person" nor a "citizen."4

Most recently, the debate over corporate First Amendment rights has been impacted by the interesting and controversial-if seriously flawed- new book by Professor Tamara Piety, Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America.5 Professor Piety's book develops an elaborate constitutional argument that all but excludes speech by profitmaking corporations from the First Amendment's protective scope.

This widespread reaction, while perhaps politically understandable, reveals a complete lack of familiarity with well-established precepts of American constitutional law. In reality, the Citizens United Court's recognition of a corporation's ability to invoke constitutional rights was nothing new. Corporations have been invoking numerous constitutionalized and subconstitutionalized rights in court for many years.6 Indeed, if Congressman McGovern's amendment ever managed to become law, one wonders how the provision's supporters would feel about the removal of the New York Times and Washington Post-both profit-making corporations, of course-from the First Amendment's protective reach.

Most of the battles over the constitutional status of corporations were long ago resolved in favor of allowing corporations to invoke constitutional guarantees. Today, corporate standing to challenge constitutional violations is so well established that it usually goes unnoticed. Corporations regularly invoke the Due Process Clause,7 the Dormant Commerce Clause,8 the Diversity Clause,9 separation of powers protections,10 and the Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to jury trial.11 Even when it comes to the First Amendment right of free expression, powerful corporate owners of newspapers and broadcast networks regularly invoke the First Amendment without the slightest controversy over their corporate form.12 Moreover, since 1976, the Supreme Court has provided continually expanding First Amendment protection to commercial speech, which is invariably disseminated by profit-making corporations.13

Such practices should hardly come as a surprise. After all, if a corporation is defrauded in the marketplace by a contractor or competitor, would anyone seriously challenge that corporation's ability to resort to the judicial process to remedy the legal wrong done to it? Our economy would no doubt quickly degenerate into a state of chaos if corporations were denied the opportunity to vindicate their legal rights in court. But if no doubt exists that corporations have standing to vindicate subconstitutional rights and protections, how, purely as a logical matter, could they be categorically denied the opportunity to invoke the nation's highest law, the United States Constitution? …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and the Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.