Non-Profit Corporations

January 2010, U.S. Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that nonprofit corporations, for profit corporations, and/or labor union will not be denied their 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, at which their voice should be heard. They also go on to explain, for purposes of political speech, corporations speech can be identified through the use of money. In other words, U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person freedom of speech is equivalent to freedom to spend money to be heard. This was a decision that gave corporations the right to spend unlimited money on political ads that directly supported or fixed on specific candidates. Corporations

The U.S. Constitution starts off by stating “We the People”, directly talking to individual human bodies. Pass government official implemented legislations that distinguished who the people were so that there would not be any later confusion. 1907 Tillman Act was put in place stating corporations should not use stockholders money for promotion of political purposes. Stockholders are not well informed about aid campaigns that the corporations are promoting with their money. Corporations are not collectively coming together with stockholders to discuss how they feel about political issues. Instead they are basing their political freedom of speech on what financially benefits them. They should not have the right to speak on behalf of multiple individuals without consulting with each stockholder. Stockholders do not have any control over corporate decisions but corporation has a freedom of speech to speak on their behalf. 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was implemented at the end of World War II in response to the growth of labor unions with the work force. This act prohibited labour unions financial donations to federal political

This gives the corporations the right to spend an unlimited amount of money, their speech, like individual people do, with less limitations. While an individual is limited to spending only 2,700 on a specific political party, corporations now have the right to spend an unlimited amount to support political issues. The money that the corporations are using to speak loudly to the public, through ads, are stockholders money. This ruling place a major roll on future political individuals who may have been seeking a position within congress. Do to the Republicans being more for the corporations over the people, this may discourage future Democrats from running for political positions. With the corporations funding more money into republican parties and issues, they have a greater chance of being heard by the public through numerous paid advertisements. A Democrat that opposes issues that corporations support are at a great risk of being anonymously slandered within television advertisements. Ronald Dworkin stated in The Decision That Threatens Democracy, “So though allowing them to use their stockholder’s money rather than their own will increase the volume of advertising, it will not add to the diversity of ideas offered to voters.” Being loud in a crowded room may draw attention to the speaker. People who speak loud may come off