First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti: Corporate Political Speech In Ballot-Measure Campaigns
Introduction
As “artificial persons,” corporations are entitled to some of the constitutional rights accorded natural persons. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court confronted the issue whether corporations have a right under the first amendment to spend money to publicize their views on a state constitutional amendment proposal. Political speech traditionally has been accorded a high degree of constitutional protection. In the modern political world, the expenditure of money has been recognized as essential to publicize one’s opinions effectively, and has been accorded the same constitutional protection as political speech. The Bellotti Court was faced with the task of balancing the importance of political speech against the state interests in controlling elections, protecting dissenting shareholders, and avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption. The case is important because it marks the first time that the Supreme Court has recognized that political speech does not lose its protection merely because its source is a corporation. The opinion’s impact is limited, however, to protecting corporate speech in ballot-measure campaigns.
This Comment begins with a discussion of the Bellotti decision and the cases leading up to it. Next, the Comment examines the competing concerns presented to the Court, including political speech, control over corruption in elections, and protection of dissenting shareholders. Finally, the Comment focuses on the fact that the case arose in the context of a ballot measure to help explain the limited applicability of the Supreme Court’s opinion
Suggested Reading
Law and the Questions and Answers of Workplace Mobilization
Michael M. Oswalt{{Michael M. Oswalt is an Assistant Professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law.}} Organizing is risky. Some workers join in and get fired, others face intimidation and drop out, while most–sensing the tension between legal rights and
More Information on our Speakers
Panel I: Defund Means Defund Andrea Ritchie (she/her) is a Black lesbian immigrant whose writing, litigation, and advocacy has focused on policing of women and LGBT people of color for the past two decades. She is currently a researcher with
Prohibiting Young Adult Life Without Parole: Examining Diminished Capacity and Diminished Culpability
As with juveniles, young adults (18-24) experience a diminished capacity for cognitive processing because the PFC and EFs continue to develop into the mid-20’s. This diminished capacity of young adults must be taken into consideration when sentencing people in this age
Labor Law and the NLRB: Friend or Foe to Labor and Non-Union Workers?
Wilma B. Liebman{{Former Member and Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, 1997-2011; visiting distinguished scholar Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations 2015-17; adjunct faculty, NYU Law School, spring 2015 and 2016. This article is based on remarks at the