I’m amazed by the hysteria emerging from the Left on the Supreme Court decision this week, recognizing the unconstitutionality of restrictions on free speech imposed by McCain Feingold.
There are lots of problems with corporations as legal entities in our society. In my estimation, they all stem from the limited liability that a corporation enjoys, which protects owners from the consequences of corporate action. In conjunction with the agent/principal problems introduced by government created securities trading monopolies, and voila, all kinds of whacky stuff happens. This is standard Libertarian fare, the Libertarians actually have a great solution to these kinds of problems – so don’t reject us as defenders of the status quo in our crony-capitalist system. But the fundamental problems with corporations inhere to all forms of corporations, including unions and non-profits. The corporation is by no means solely a tool of the right, as so many would have you think. A great article on Cato goes into some depth on this topic http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/22/if-you-prick-a-corporation-does-it-not-bleed/
Here’s an excerpt:
“… we can happily declare that journalists enjoy full freedom of the press … as long as they don’t plan on using the resources of the New York Times Company or Random House or Comcast, which as mere legal fictions can be barred from using their property to circulate unpatriotic ideas. You’re free to practice your religion without interference — but if it’s an unpopular one, well, let’s hope you don’t expect to send your kids to a religious school or build a church or something, because those tend to involve incorporating. A woman’s right to choose is sacrosanct, but since clinics and hospitals are mere corporations with no such protection, she’d better hope she knows a doctor who makes house calls. Fill in your own scenarios, it’s easy.”
This issue is really about the limits we place on government, not the status of corporations in our society and legal system. It’s a great win for free speech because is recognizes that the First Amendment to the constitution actually means something, that the federal government cannot attenuate free speech randomly. Who is doing the speaking is another legal issue.






