General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was Citizens United Correct? [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So your point seems to rely on looking at the corporate charter, in order to determine whether "speech" is part of that charter.
You seem to accept as given that some corporations constitute media companies, and that there is some kind of distinction to be made between companies that sell soap, and companies that, for example, make movies.
The first problem is that most corporate charters are not in the least specific to any sort of business at all. The overwhelming majority of corporate charters state that the corporation is formed for the purpose of conducting "any lawful business". Most states don't require anything more specific than that.
The second problem leads me to wonder whether you actually read the case. Specifically, what was it that the actual company - Citizens United - was organized to do?
In other words, if we apply your "what is the business of this corporation?", can you explain why the corporation in question fails the test you are proposing?
It was a movie production company. It is not at all unusual for a movie to be made by an individual production company formed for the purpose of making a movie.
But, in your view, does Universal Studios or Sony Pictures have a first amendment right to make movies about whatever they want or not?