Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 2 - Commentary on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

  • from Part II - Legal Personality, Identity, and Limited Liability of Corporate Entities
  • Edited by Anne M. Choike, Michigan State University, Usha R. Rodrigues, University of Georgia School of Law, Kelli Alces Williams, Florida State University
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Corporate Law Rewritten
    Published online:
    15 January 2023
    Print publication:
    05 January 2023, pp 35-61

  • Summary

    In 2010s Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that corporations do indeed have a right to freedom of speech, just as regular citizens do, and that the government could not restrict expenditures based on an entity’s corporate identity. Citizens United thereby allowed corporate donations to flood into elections. In her feminist judgement, Carliss Chatman breaks with the original opinion and refuses to extend the political speech rights of individuals to corporations. She grounds her analysis in the injustice of affording full personhood rights to corporations – which are artificial persons – even as natural persons like women and minorities have historically not enjoyed such rights and continue to suffer inequality. Amy Sepinwall’s commentary situates and contextualizes the feminist judgment, and then questions a key premise. She suggests an alternate feminist approach focusing on the right of the listener to hear from all perspectives, rather than having one side use spending to dominate – and drown out – other voices.