Analyze the arguments presented in the “Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission” case to determine which arguments you find the most persuasive. Explain both your rationale and the probable impact of the outcome of this case on corporate governance moving forward.
Prof Armstrong I must agree with the argument of Justice Stevens....In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. His argument was based on the distinction between corporate and human speakers. I feel that because corporations contribute a vast amount of money to political candidates for election they believe they have the right to dictate our countries policies. The breakdown of this argument basically shows the more Money you have (Corporations) the greater your Power (voice) in the political arena. (Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E., 2012 p. 34). The breakdown of this argument basically shows the more Money you have the greater your Power (voice) in the political arena.
From the e-Activity, discuss ways in which the company you researched could leverage corporate social responsibility as a competitive strategy. Provide specific examples to support your response. I believe this argument fits in well with my discussion on the attempted merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. According to the wall street journal AT&T is one of the top 10 companies to give political contributions in the current election cycle (2012). The donations include monies give to political parties, candidates, and political action committees. AT&T attempted to gain a monopoly in the telecommunications arena by merging with their small competitors. The more money you have the deeper you power and influence over politics. Sources:...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document