(1) That's a plausible argument for suspending limited liability in libel lawsuits against newspapers -- someone we don't do, and something that to my knowledge has not even been seriously suggested. But it's not a plausible argument for restricting speech about candidates or ballot measures by corporations, where the worry is *not* that the corporation won't be able to pay any damages for libel and the like. I quite doubt that when people worry about, say, Exxon spending money on election-related speech, the concern is that it won't be able to pay damages if the speech is libelous; I suspect Exxon has enough in its treasury, or enough coverage in its insurance policies, to take care of that. In fact, the rich businesses that people most worry about in campaign finance debates are actually *more* likely to be able to be held "responsible for their abuses such as defamation" than the typical individual, who is more likely to lack sufficient assets or insurance to pay dam!
ages.
(2) This also helps show how many of the creative arguments for restricting corporate speech apply as strongly (or even more strongly) to newspapers and other media that are organized as corporations. Again, if one is really serious about protecting libel plaintiffs (as opposed to just using them as an excuse for restricting nonlibelous speech by corporations), one would be much more worried about libel in everyday stories by insufficiently capitalized media corporations than about libel in political ads run by insufficiently capitalized business corporations.
Eugene
Paul Lehto writes:
> State constitutions from all time periods in our country's history
> provide for free speech, but then commonly add that each person is
> "being responsible for the abuse of the right."
>
> While individuals in partnerships and associations remain responsible
> for their abuses such as defamation (because each partner or member
> being liable individually) this nexus of rights and liability called
> for in many state constitutions does not fit the corporation with its
> veil of limited liability because the shareholders are not responsible
> for the abuse of the right, if any.
>
> In the corporate context, they're trying to have rights without
> fulfilling the attendant duties that everyone else has. Thus, it's
> not just that corporations are "persons" for First Amendment political
> purposes -- it's that they are a superior class of legal "person"
> specifically with respect to speech.
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law