|
I missed this thread when it first occurred, but I wanted to raise one point I don't think was discussed.
My main concern with any sort of law restricting corporate speech is that it's difficult to do so without providing a carve-out for the media. And if you provide a carve-out from the media, why shouldn't all corporations have this privilege? News Corp. owns a number of media outlets which Rupert Murdoch can use to support whatever candidates he wants. Is it more acceptable for him to do that because he owns the newspaper or TV station, as opposed to if he was just buying ads on them? I'm not sure the distinction makes much sense (unless, of course, you believe the government should be able to censor media--I do not)
Like many of you, I worry about the influence of money in politics. Further, I think many managers would use corporate money to benefit themselves at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders. That said, the issue above gives me some pause when considering this issue.
|