question archive For the initial post, choose one person from the 4-1 Small Group Discussion to post the consolidated opinion for your peers to review
For the initial post, choose one person from the 4-1 Small Group Discussion to post the consolidated opinion for your peers to review
Subject:SociologyPrice: Bought3
For the initial post, choose one person from the 4-1 Small Group Discussion to post the consolidated opinion for your peers to review.
In your individual response post to the larger group, state whether you support the position of the other peer groups regarding the Citizens United decision in the case. If so, why? If not, why not? Be sure to provide detailed justification for your response and support in the way of scholarly research cited
Should the First Amendment protect corporate political expression? Why or why not?
As a group, we agree that the First Amendment should protect corporate political expression. As long as what they are saying is not misleading and for political gain. According to Cleveland Ferguson of the First Amendment Encyclopedia, there are guidelines to receive protection. "For commercial speech to receive First Amendment protection: the commercial speech must relate to lawful activity and not be misleading the government regulation must support a substantial governmental interest; the regulation must directly advance that substantial governmental interest; and the regulation must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve the governmental interest. Otherwise the regulation will be held unconstitutional." (Ferguson 2020) There is a fine line when dealing with corporations in politics. Some come from a good innocent place and some of them are corrupt.
Corporations are ran by individuals and we believe in individuals having the freedom to express their personal political thoughts and beliefs. However, we do believe that when those individual beliefs become the corporation's, it can get messy. Some CEO's have used their positions to be able to push their own personal beliefs and utilize their corporation to influence for monetary or political gain. "Corporations are artificial entities, "not members of We the People," and not the individuals whose self-expression the First Amendment was written to protect. "Corporations," he wrote, "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, and no desires." They participate in elections solely based on their economic self-interest." (Steiner, Pg. 313). Not all CEO's take advantage of their position and the platform they have to speak their political beliefs. "Speech has never been and should not be banned based on the identity or wealth of the speaker. Allowing corporations to speak through political action committees restricts their speech because such committees are burdensome and expensive to administer." (Steiner, Pg. 313).
If not, where should you draw the line for corporations between freedom and restrictions?
Corporations should operate relatively unbiased and neutral is our opinion, but we realize this is unrealistic. The line should be drawn for corporations between freedom and restrictions when the corporation/CEO is utilizing their position/platform for further personal gain. There needs to be distinguishable differences between organization rights and human rights. In general, we believe that the less government regulations, the better. Obviously, we need certain regulations to protect the health and safety of our people and of course the environment. Nevertheless, imposing excess regulations will only weigh down the economy and restrict corporations from being able to fully operate. "The power of corporations is frequently misused, usually to the advantage of the financial and managerial elite. Employees, communities, consumers, the environment, and the public interest in general are elbowed aside in corporate decision making, unless the corporation can make money by taking them into account." (Greenfield, 2015).
If you were in charge of government relations at a business, what strategies would you now employ, in light of the Citizens United decision, to advance your position?
If we oversaw government relations at a business, we would focus on educating the people on the issues that are out there and how we can better them. We would also make it a priority to communicate effectively with government officials about general issues, as well as how these political issues impact our organization and how they can aid us as a company. It will be important to remain neutral in this government relations role maintaining factual and non-bias demeanor when discussing upcoming elections and political issues. Gaining factual, data driven information from political candidates will surely benefit the organization by informing strategic decisions. For example, negotiating and understanding which political party will benefit us most financially will be important. Lastly, it would be important for all business units and functions to play a role in managing and understanding the company's relationship with the government, and how it impacts the organization overall (Mckinsey, 2010).
