Law Commons^™

The Corporate Right To Bear Arms, Robert E. Wagner

William & Mary Business Law Review

The ability of a corporation to exercise constitutional protections has been rife with uncertainty and change since the conception of corporate rights came into existence. The history and rapid development of the corporation, combined with the misapplied and misunderstood “corporate personhood” theory, have resulted in an almost unintelligible hodgepodge of corporate constitutional applications. Similarly, the concept of the right to bear arms has equally been muddled and applied very differently at varying times and locations since before the establishment of the Second Amendment. This Article attempts to clarify how an alternative to the “corporate personhood” theory, namely the “purpose” theory …

Crafting A Corporate Analogue To Criminal Disenfranchisement, B. Graves Lee Jr.

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC represented a sea change in the world of corporate citizenship. Although the decision dealt with campaign finance law, it has sparked significant discussion of the concept of corporate personhood more broadly. Corporations have increasingly taken advantage of legal rights previously reserved for individuals. This Note argues that where corporations reap the benefits of constitutional entitlements intended for individuals, they should suffer consequences for malfeasance similar to those imposed on individuals who engage in criminal conduct. Specifically, this Note advocates for limitations on corporate electioneering as a collateral consequence of a …

Impersonal Personhood: Crafting A Coherent Theory Of The Corporate Entity, Bryan P. Magee

Cornell Law Review

Corporate legal personhood is a baffling and elusive concept. Are corporations persons and, if so, what does this mean? Ascribing the moniker of "person" to a corporation can conjure up the idea that a corporate entity is entitled to all the natural and legal rights that natural "personhood" entails. This, however, ignores that there are different kinds of "legal person" and that the scope of their respective rights differs based on the purpose of the personhood they are given. This Note posits that the law grants corporations entity-hood primarily to centralize contractual rights and obligations. This purpose, this Note contends, …

Effective Compliance With Antidiscrimination Law: Corporate Personhood, Purpose And Social Responsibility, Cheryl L. Wade

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Speaks The Culture Of The Corporation?, Gwendolyn Gordon

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Recent cases – Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores and Citizens United chief among them – evince a new understanding of the nature of the corporation and its place in society. Whether a corporation has rights – such as those of religious exercise – is not, however, just a question of legal interpretation. To answer this question requires a theory of group or cultural identity, that is, a theory of how a group may have “culture” separate and apart from those of the individuals that comprise it. And such a theory must address how to understand the meaning of culture when …

Making Corporate Law More Communitarian: A Proposed Response To The Roberts Court's Personification Of Corporations, Robert M. Ackerman, Lance Cole

Brooklyn Law Review

Both Citizens United and Hobby Lobby are notable for the Roberts Court’s personification of the corporation. In Citizens United, the United States Supreme Court expanded corporate speech rights in a political context; in Hobby Lobby, it accorded religious rights to corporations in an unprecedented manner. This article explains how the Court’s expansion of corporate personification has ignored both traditional corporate law doctrine regarding shareholder primacy and the fundamental distinction in corporate law between the corporate entity and the shareholders who control it.

The article takes a communitarian approach to corporate law analysis, recognizing that corporations play useful roles …

Prece-Don't: Corporations And The Rise Of The Modern Judicial Dictatorship, Justin Levitt

Florida A & M University Law Review

In 2010, the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, declared unconstitutional any law forbidding corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for "electioneering communication," or political advocacy transmitted by broadcast, cable, or satellite communication in the period leading up to a federal election.

This note will examine the implications of the Citizens United decision and will argue that the future of First Amendment protection of corporate speech does not turn on any notion of corporate personhood. It will explore exactly how the Court has applied the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to corporations. It …

The Corporatization Of Communication, Eric Chiappinelli, Adam Candeub, Jeffrey Chester, Lawrence Soley

Seattle University Law Review

Our next panel discusses the corporatization of communication.

Corporate Personhood And The Rights Of Corporate Speech, Adam Winkler

Seattle University Law Review

My objective here is to provide a little historical background on business corporations and their place in First Amendment law. In the course of that overview, I will also make a few observations that I believe can be helpful in thinking about corporate speech rights. First, I will argue that one aspect of the constitutional status of corporations-the notion of corporate personhood-has not played the central role in shaping corporate speech rights that some believe. Corporations have free speech rights, but they are more limited than those held by individuals. Second, I will argue that there is not a single …

Should Corporations Have First Amendment Rights?, Kent Greenfield, Daniel Greenwood, Erik Jaffe

Seattle University Law Review

As Professor Winkler correctly stated, current doctrine emphasizes the rights of listeners rather than the identity of corporate speakers. My argument is, in effect, that this emphasis misses the key point. But I will not deal with listeners directly. I am simply going to assume, rather than argue, that if corporate advertising were ineffective in influencing voters or legislators, normal market processes would eliminate it. I'm going to take it for granted that when corporations speak, it makes a difference in the actual results.

Corporations And Commercial Speech, Ron Collins, Mark Lopez, Tamara Piety, David Vladeck

Seattle University Law Review

Today's discussion will be about a rather famous case-actually, a non-case, Nike v. Kasky.

Corporations And Political Speech: Should Speech Equal Money?, David Skover, Lisa Danetz, Martin Redish, Scott Thomas

Seattle University Law Review

Welcome now to the panel on corporations and political speech. We will explore the First Amendment jurisprudence of campaign finance regulation and some of the more controversial issues raised by corporate involvement in the marketplace of political ideas and elections.

Corporations And Society: Power And Responsibility, Sara Anne Engle

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Corporations and Society: Power and Responsibility edited by Warren J. Samuels and Arthur S. Miller