I like corporations shag - I have made much money off them... I also know there is a reason for laws like Tillman and FECA... it is best to learn from the past, rather than just repeat the mistakes over and over again.
Since I was with a group of friends this weekend who are quite interested in the corporate freedom of speech case, a judge brought up this scenario:
And contrary to what you said before shag - this is a very complicated issue.
The racehorse and freedom of speech.
Because most racehorses are corporations (the expense of owning one is quite great, and oftentimes the horse is incorporated, shares sold, liability lessened), what happens to the racehorse under the recent SCOTUS decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205)?
Corporations are by law, property that is destined to protect itself, and be protected from others, including the officers, employees and shareholders of the corporation. The racehorse corporation has shareholders, but those shareholders have little input to the actual ‘running’ of the horse. The officers of the horse run the day to day management of the horse, but are dependent on the shareholders for funds to maintain the horse (especially early on in the horse’s career), and later are depended on creating a profit from the horse’s activities. What is paramount here is that the horse be protected, and he eventually creates income for the shareholders.
The officers of the racehorse corporation may speak on behalf of the horse, but those opinions must reflect what is best for the horse – it must reflect the ‘charter’ of the corporation. The shareholders have no ‘speaking’ opportunity at all, other than the ability to vote in new members of the board.
In turn, the horse is not allowed to speak for the personal beliefs of the people who work for the horse, or who own the horse. It is understood that when a board member is speaking for the horse, that the opinions she is stating are only those of the horse, and may or may not be her opinions. The horse may not say that it is speaking for the shareholders or the officers, unless an election has taken place and 100% of the officers, employees and owners agree. If 100% of the officers and shareholders don't agree there will be ultra vires suits brought against the company by those officers, employees or shareholders that don't agree. (Therefore, someone like FoxNewsCorp shouldn't be able to financially back a candidate because certainly one employee or shareholder will be against them).
So, there is no freedom of speech on what the officers or shareholders may say, beyond stating what is best for the horse.
At election time, the shareholders and officers decide to buy time for ads for a congressional candidate. They all belong to the same country club and church. They feel that they don’t have enough opportunities to get their viewpoint out regarding which candidate would best represent their beliefs, and this opportunity to use large amounts of money from their racehorse corporation appears to be the perfect solution. They can, in fact, load lots of money into the corporation by selling additional shares to themselves. However, because of the legal makeup of corporations, they may only support a candidate that represents the horse’s best interests, not the best interests of the shareholders or officers. Once again a form of ultra vires.
Remember the officers and shareholders don't have personal freedom of speech when they represent the corporation, or the corporation's funds, they may only act the best way possible for the corporation.
Since now the horse has freedom of speech, the candidate that the racehorse decides to back will reflect the horse’s needs on a political platform.
Candidate A supports lower income taxes on the wealthy, no healthcare reform, moving SS to a private sector model, a reduction in Medicaid benefits, is anti abortion, for zero farm subsidies, removal of all government support for higher education, retaining the current strict internet gaming laws and is for posting the 10 Commandments in school.
Candidate B supports higher income taxes on the wealthy, massive healthcare reform, expanding SS benefits to older unemployed Americans, increasing Medicaid and welfare benefits, pro abortion, higher farm subsidies, increasing government aid for higher education (especially doctors), is a strict separation of church and state proponent, would like to see a return to liberal internet gaming laws and a strong supporter for the ethical treatment of animals.
Now, in spite of the fact that the shareholders’ and officers’ beliefs follow exactly the promises made by Candidate A, the corporation will be required to support candidate B.
Candidate B – because of his support of farm subsidies (the horse's stabling costs would be reduced with a lowering of feed costs and shelter cost), along with the opportunity for better medical care (the government providing for the education of more veterinary doctors), his wanting to return to liberal internet gaming laws, which in turn support the racing industry, and his support of treating animals ethically would be the horse’s best choice for representing its interests in Congress.
Remember, it is the corporation that is allowed free speech, not the owners or the officers, they are only 'tools' allowed to do what is best for the horse, not for what they personally believe. Their personal freedom of speech is well protected outside of the corporate umbrella.
If the officers and shareholders decide to support Candidate A in spite of the evidence that candidate B would represent the corporation better, they would be acting against the best interests of the horse, and the corporation could sue, and if it was found that the board was acting against the best interests of the corporation, the board would be removed by the government, and damages could be sought.
Bottom line...
the horse has been given freedom of speech by the Supreme Court -
