The Corporation as a Tocquevillian Association

Q2 Social Sciences
Ronald J. Colombo
{"title":"The Corporation as a Tocquevillian Association","authors":"Ronald J. Colombo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2009885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC re-energized the debate over the proper role of corporations in the political process. Some have welcomed the decision as an application of the Constitution’s limits upon governmental regulation of political speech. Others have bemoaned the decision for equating corporate spending with free speech, thereby depriving government of the power to effectively safeguard the electoral process. Both sides of the debate, however, appear fixated upon a “one-size-fits-all” answer to the question of corporate political involvement. This is both unfortunate and inaccurate, for it undermines the construction of a positive path forward and obfuscates the truth of things. Corporations are marked by a tremendous degree of variation and diversity, and our approach to corporate involvement in the political process ought to take this important fact into account. Many corporations live up to their characterization as simply profit-maximizing machines. To equate their “speech” with the speech of a human being would seem odd and problematic. But some corporations belie such characterization. Some are genuine communities – a coming together of investors, business people, employees and customers around a particular vision of the good. They are marked by specific cultures, and adhere to certain principles. Such corporations provide people with not merely goods, services, and jobs, but the harmony that accompanies a life lived consistently – a life where employment and purchasing decisions are not separate from the value judgments that are constitutive of human character. These corporations should be recognized as “Tocquevillian Associations.” And their participation in the political process ought to be vigorously welcomed. Indeed, their participation in the political process is arguably essential to the health of our democratic republic.","PeriodicalId":53568,"journal":{"name":"Temple Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2009885","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Temple Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2009885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC re-energized the debate over the proper role of corporations in the political process. Some have welcomed the decision as an application of the Constitution’s limits upon governmental regulation of political speech. Others have bemoaned the decision for equating corporate spending with free speech, thereby depriving government of the power to effectively safeguard the electoral process. Both sides of the debate, however, appear fixated upon a “one-size-fits-all” answer to the question of corporate political involvement. This is both unfortunate and inaccurate, for it undermines the construction of a positive path forward and obfuscates the truth of things. Corporations are marked by a tremendous degree of variation and diversity, and our approach to corporate involvement in the political process ought to take this important fact into account. Many corporations live up to their characterization as simply profit-maximizing machines. To equate their “speech” with the speech of a human being would seem odd and problematic. But some corporations belie such characterization. Some are genuine communities – a coming together of investors, business people, employees and customers around a particular vision of the good. They are marked by specific cultures, and adhere to certain principles. Such corporations provide people with not merely goods, services, and jobs, but the harmony that accompanies a life lived consistently – a life where employment and purchasing decisions are not separate from the value judgments that are constitutive of human character. These corporations should be recognized as “Tocquevillian Associations.” And their participation in the political process ought to be vigorously welcomed. Indeed, their participation in the political process is arguably essential to the health of our democratic republic.
作为托克维尔协会的公司
最高法院2010年在“联合公民诉联邦选举委员会”一案中作出的裁决,重新激发了有关企业在政治进程中应扮演何种角色的辩论。一些人对这一决定表示欢迎,认为这是宪法对政府管制政治言论的限制的应用。其他人则对这一决定表示遗憾,认为它将企业支出等同于言论自由,从而剥夺了政府有效保护选举过程的权力。然而,辩论的双方似乎都执着于一个“一刀切”的答案来回答企业政治参与的问题。这既不幸又不准确,因为它破坏了积极前进道路的建设,混淆了事物的真相。公司的特点是巨大程度的变化和多样性,我们对待公司参与政治进程的方法应该考虑到这一重要事实。许多公司没有辜负他们的特点,只是利润最大化的机器。把它们的“语言”与人类的语言等同起来似乎很奇怪,也很有问题。但一些企业不相信这种说法。有些是真正的社区——投资者、商界人士、员工和客户围绕一个特定的美好愿景聚集在一起。它们具有特定的文化特征,并遵循一定的原则。这些公司不仅为人们提供商品、服务和工作,而且还为人们提供了一种和谐的生活——在这种生活中,就业和购买决策与构成人类性格的价值判断并没有分离。这些公司应该被认为是“托克维尔协会”。他们参与政治进程应该受到大力欢迎。事实上,他们参与政治进程可以说对我们民主共和国的健康至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Temple Law Review
Temple Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Temple Law Review is a student-edited scholarly journal that publishes four issues per year with a circulation of approximately 1,500 copies per issue. The Law Review staff is dedicated to providing a forum for the expression of new legal thought and scholarly commentary on important developments, trends, and issues in the law. Each issue contains articles written by judges, legal scholars, or practitioners, as well as recent notes and comments written by members of the Law Review staff.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信