{"id":10082,"date":"2017-09-27T03:02:32","date_gmt":"2017-09-27T03:02:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=10082"},"modified":"2017-09-28T03:05:54","modified_gmt":"2017-09-28T03:05:54","slug":"the-surprising-connection-between-take-a-knee-protests-and-citizens-united","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/the-surprising-connection-between-take-a-knee-protests-and-citizens-united\/","title":{"rendered":"The surprising connection between ‘take a knee’ protests and Citizens United"},"content":{"rendered":"

Elizabeth C. Tippett<\/a>, University of Oregon<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruling that some fear is destroying American democracy<\/a>, may also be showing us how to heal it. <\/p>\n

The most recent example of this is the reaction to President Donald Trump\u2019s comments suggesting that sports owners should fire players<\/a> who kneel during the national anthem. As the president does so often, he placed business leaders in the difficult position of deciding whether to speak out at the risk of alienating customers and courting further controversy. <\/p>\n

In this case, many league officials and owners chose to do just that, labeling<\/a> Trump\u2019s words \u201cdivisive\u201d and defending their players\u2019 right<\/a> to \u201cexpress themselves freely on matters important to them.\u201d Some owners<\/a> \u201ctook a knee\u201d alongside their players. <\/p>\n

While corporate speech is often assumed to favor only conservative causes, my research on attorney advertising reveals the extent to which free speech rights for companies also advances<\/a> causes important to liberals. <\/p>\n

I would argue that Citizens United \u2013 a Supreme Court opinion that has produced bitterly partisan reactions \u2013 ironically offers a pluralistic vision of corporate speech as well as a full-throated defense<\/a> of the kind of political speech we are now witnessing<\/a> from business leaders. <\/p>\n

\n \"\"
\n Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, center, resigned from Trump\u2019s manufacturing council because of the president\u2019s muted reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Va. The council soon disbanded after that.<\/span>
\n AP Photo\/Evan Vucci, File<\/span><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Speaking out in the age of Trump<\/h2>\n

Whether to speak out when Trump takes a position that is at odds with the rights of their employees or their own or company\u2019s values has become a fundamental dilemma for many business leaders in the Trump era. <\/p>\n

Many have done so on Charlottesville<\/a>, climate change<\/a>, transgender service in the military<\/a> and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals<\/a>. Others have stayed silent<\/a>, seeming to support the notion that inserting themselves into political controversies would be to step out of bounds. <\/p>\n

In this view, business should be separate from politics, and corporations should leave political discourse to private citizens. But for better or worse, our system protects business leaders speaking up. And the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Citizens United describes why it\u2019s so important. <\/p>\n

\n \"\"
\n They may not be people, but they\u2019re made up of them.<\/span>
\n AP Photo\/Toby Talbot<\/span><\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Citizens United, the left\u2019s bete noir<\/h2>\n

In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/a> overturned a law that limited corporate finance of certain political ads on First Amendment grounds. The reaction from liberals and those who favor limits on campaign finance was fierce<\/a>.<\/p>\n

President Barack Obama famously criticized<\/a> the opinion during a State of the Union address<\/a>, with the justices who issued the ruling sitting a few feet away:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think American elections should be bankrolled by America\u2019s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

According to a Time magazine survey of law professors, the opinion ranks among the worst since 1960<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And yet, like any political lightning rod, Citizens United is both less and more than it seems. <\/p>\n

Constitutional scholar Justin Levitt characterized<\/a> the opinion as an incremental change from previous law, which offered corporations no shortage of options for political influence. Another study<\/a> found that companies spent more on politics after Citizens United but it ultimately hurt shareholders \u2013 it was essentially a form of corporate waste. Spending additional corporate dollars on campaigns awash in advertising may not produce much of a return<\/a> on investment.<\/p>\n

Beyond its legal impact, Citizens United offered a vision of democracy that embraces the unique and important role that business leaders play in political discourse. In other words, exactly what we\u2019ve seen when business leaders stand up to Trump.<\/p>\n

\n