National Bank V. Bellotti Case: Term Paper

Total Length: 960 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 0

Page 1 of 3

" In short, when it comes to the First Amendment, greater issues are at stake beyond the immediate interests of the corporations in question. There must be a compelling state interest to limit freedom of expression.

Why doesn't it make a difference whether the corporate speech is about matters that materially affect its business interests?

It is not the state's place to regulate when and if First Amendment rights apply in certain areas. Rather: "Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.... The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual." The right to express one's political views was held to be particularly important, and the individual's right to do so would not have been called into question, if the appellants were not business corporations. "Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government."

What is the constitutional standard used to determine whether government regulation of political speech is permissible?

Only if the democratic process as a whole is endangered, which the state could not prove, "thereby denigrating rather than serving First Amendment interests," can such regulations be permitted

What state interests did Massachusetts assert to justify its regulation of corporate political speech? What was the Supreme Court's response to them?

Massachusetts cited the state's interest in maintaining the confidence of the people in the democratic populace, and stated that the interests of natural persons under the law were "endangered by corporate participation in discussion of a referendum issue," assuming that corporations could "exert an undue influence on the outcome of a referendum vote" because they are so wealthy and powerful.
However, the court noted that "there has been no showing that the relative voice of corporations has been overwhelming or even significant in influencing referenda in Massachusetts or that there has been any threat to the confidence of the citizenry in government"

What is Rehnquist's fundamental argument?

Although for certain purposes, corporations are treated like persons, they are in no way natural persons, and in 1906 the court decided the liberty protected by that Amendment "is the liberty of natural, not artificial persons." Rehnquist believed that the original decision was correct, that "when a State creates a corporation with the power to acquire and utilize property, it necessarily and implicitly guarantees that the corporation will not be deprived of that property absent due process" but these property rights did not mean that corporations had First Amendment rights to express political views about issues that had nothing….....

Show More ⇣


     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"National Bank V Bellotti Case " (2007, September 13) Retrieved April 25, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/national-bank-bellotti-case-35829

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"National Bank V Bellotti Case " 13 September 2007. Web.25 April. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/national-bank-bellotti-case-35829>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"National Bank V Bellotti Case ", 13 September 2007, Accessed.25 April. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/national-bank-bellotti-case-35829