Corporate speech and individual speech not at all the same

Politicians must be held to account
6/24/11
It’s clear that liberals are afraid of Palin
6/24/11
Taxes are a necessary part of any deficit solution
6/24/11
‘Student-athlete’ clearly a term that no longer applies
6/23/11
Banquet offers a glimpse at what’s being lost
6/23/11
> More opinion headlines

4:34 PM Tuesday, February 9, 2010

I endorse the Dayton Daily News editorial, “Corporations didn’t need more rights,” Jan. 23. I also was disappointed with the recent Supreme Court decision and was surprised that self-proclaimed strict constructionists have expanded the rights of corporations. These rights are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Let me be clear, I am not a strict constructionist. Rather, I believe the Bill of Rights, including speech rights afforded under the First Amendment, should reflect the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and should not be limited to its specific wording. Even the Founding Fathers in their wisdom could not envision the distant future.

I do not believe the recent Supreme Court decision reflects even the spirit of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, much less their specific wording. There are so many differences between personal political speech and corporate political speech that I do not believe the latter should be given so many of the rights of the former.

Among other things, personal political speech often, but not always, seeks to promote the public good, whether that might be “right, left, center,” while corporate political speech primarily seeks to promote shareholder profit — indirectly, if not directly. These are very different motivations. The one looks to a better America, the other looks to company profits. Why should these very different motivations be granted equal status?

I support personal political speech of all kinds, but not corporate political speech of all kinds.

Huntting W. Brown

Kettering

Share this article