Free-speech ruling stirs a row
Turn-of-the-century progressives and populists championed the statewide referendum as a way of giving the little man a voice on political issues. Thus the idea of allowing lavish spending by big corporations to sway the outcome of a referendum would probably make the likes of Robert LaFollette twist in their graves. But last week the Supreme Court gave corporations the go-ahead to spend whatever they please. The court's reason? Corporations have at least one thing in common with the individual: the right to speak out on governmental issues.
By a 5-to-4 vote, the court struck down a Massachusetts law forbidding corporations to use their funds to influence a referendum that did not notably affect their business or property. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis Powell rejected a state court opinion that corporations do not enjoy full First Amendment protection. The decision permits two Boston banks and three corporations to spend freely on any political matter.* Because speech comes from a corporation rather than a person does not deprive the firm of First Amendment guarantees, explained Powell.
Vigorously dissenting, Justice Byron White insisted that allowing corporations to spend money on political issues unrelated to their business would harm free speech. Corporate money, wrote White, can drown out individual expression. To defeat antinuclear-power referendums, he noted, firms in California outspent the opposition by $2.5 million to $1.6 million; in Montana, corporations raised $144,000 to their foes' $450.
To White's fear that corporations would use their power to dominate referendum debates, Powell responded that the same could be said of news organizations, whose First Amendment rights are unquestioned. Powell's comment on the power of the press was almost an aside. Filing a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger aired the same view in an eight-page essay that at times bordered on a polemic. "Modern media empires" enjoy "vastly greater influence" than most banks or corporations, stated Burger. They "pose a much more realistic threat to valid interests."