Law Commons^™

Supreme Court Amicus Brief Of 22 Corporate Law Professors, Mark Janus V. American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al, No. 16-1466, John C. Coates, Iv, Lucian A. Bebchuk, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, James D. Cox, Marcel Kahan, Reinier Kraakman, Jeffrey N. Gordon, Ronald J. Gilson, Vikramaditya S. Khanna, Michael Klausner, Henry Hansmann, Donald C. Langevoort, Brian J.M. Quinn, Michal Barzuza, Mira Ganor, Edward B. Rock, Mark J. Roe, Helen S. Scott, Holger Spamann, Randall S. Thomas

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has looked to the rights of corporate shareholders in determining the rights of union members and non-members to control political spending, and vice versa. The Court sometimes assumes that if shareholders disapprove of corporate political expression, they can easily sell their shares or exercise control over corporate spending. This assumption is mistaken. Because of how capital is saved and invested, most individual shareholders cannot obtain full information about corporate political activities, even after the fact, nor can they prevent their savings from being used to speak in ways with which they disagree. Individual shareholders have no “opt …

Costing Out Campus Speaker Restrictions, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

Frederick Schauer gently points out the challenging, and arguably absurd, situation we find ourselves in today, where a commitment to free expression has enabled provocateurs not only to spew hostile messages into our communities but also to divert extraordinary levels of resources to protect their messaging.

This is not new, of course. As Professor Schauer details, governments and courts have long wrestled with speakers dropping into communities where they are not wanted, generating significant tension and upset, and requiring outsized expenditures in efforts to ensure public safety.