So if I understand it, this is an extension of the “corporate personhood” debate. If corporations are people, then they are entitled to free speech including the freedom in how they spend their money. However corporations are entities created by the state, not people, therefore the state has the right to define what powers a corporation has.
Basically your not restricting the type of spending allowed, a corporation doesn’t have the ability to spend.
I hope this argument works. I expect it will make its way through the courts over the next several years. It was the Robert’s Court that decided Citizens United and it’s only grown more conservative over the years, so I would suspect they would claim this is still a restriction. But maybe they’ve see the damage Citizens United has done or just simply affirm that states, as the creators of corporations, have the right to define what they can do.
So if I understand it, this is an extension of the “corporate personhood” debate. If corporations are people, then they are entitled to free speech including the freedom in how they spend their money. However corporations are entities created by the state, not people, therefore the state has the right to define what powers a corporation has.
Basically your not restricting the type of spending allowed, a corporation doesn’t have the ability to spend.
I hope this argument works. I expect it will make its way through the courts over the next several years. It was the Robert’s Court that decided Citizens United and it’s only grown more conservative over the years, so I would suspect they would claim this is still a restriction. But maybe they’ve see the damage Citizens United has done or just simply affirm that states, as the creators of corporations, have the right to define what they can do.