It probably won’t do it. But why can’t it?

Under Alito’s Police v. Newark analysis, it’s possible that limited liability might be considered a benefit that couldn’t be denied religious entities discriminatorily. It’s also possible that newspapers and universities may have a right to corporate existence under Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Sweeney v. New Hampshire, and the like because of the special role they play in society, although since Eisenstadt v. Baird, group-oriented rights previously thought to have been similar to the rights of universities and the like have been more or less decorporatized (“It is as individuals…”).

But even if it were so, this would still represent a set of special exceptions. Churches, schools, and newspapers would have to argue a claim to special privelege based on their special roles in society or as penumbras from other rights and precedents. It wouldn’t apply to run-of-the-mill corporations.

Not a germane example. Non-profit corporations are subject to entirely different standards of conduct than for-profit corporations because they receive special dispensation from the government (tax exemptions).

I’m not sure your distinction has any bearing on the example. But in any event, why would non-profit corporations be subject to different standards of conduct because they receive special dispensation?

So if I give money to Jan’s non profit corporation for the promotion of pro-choice causes

Not a germane example. Non-profit corporations are subject to entirely different standards of conduct than for-profit corporations because they receive special dispensation from the government (tax exemptions).

on any topic where a Corporation could be successfully sued for taking a position against its own interest, it should be subject to regulation against taking a position in its own interest.

So if I give money to Jan’s non profit corporation for the promotion of pro-choice causes, and the corporation uses the money to run an ad advocating banning abortion, I could probably sue the corporation, right? Does that mean the corporation can be prohibited from supporting pro-choice causes?

How ’bout if Jan isn’t a corporation? If she solicits me for money to run a pro-choice ad, then takes it an runs a pro-life ad, I’d imagine I could sue her, right? Does the same logic apply?

As far as quartering soldiers go, surely you can figure out a scenario where this may apply. In fact this would be one example where a corporation (Holiday Inn, etc) is much more likely to be involved than an individual.

Actually, following the logic of Engblom v. Carey, I am having a hard time understanding how this would apply to corporations where it wouldn’t fall under a penumbra of a takings protection as well.

Remember that in Engblom, the state was the owner of the apartments in question and the 3rd Amendment was ruled to protect tenants against the state. I think there are imaginable cases which might be 3rd Amendment rights of a corporaton might be infringed (quartering soldiers in the server room for example) but those seem rather unrealistic.

So because shareholders could sue Coca-Cola for running ads that say “Buy Pepsi, it’s better!” they should be subject to regulation preventing them from running a commercial saying “Buy Coke, it’s better!”

Yes. It would be a silly regulation, but it shouldn’t be unconstitutional (any more than the regulations preventing cigarette companies from running ads that say “Smoke ours. They’re Smoother!”)

When arguing whether a company should have first amendment rights, it makes sense to ask whether they have free speech anyway. If they are only legally permitted to say one thing under corporate law, I don’t see why they should have a Constitutional right to say it.

What about the right to bear arms? How does that apply to a corporation as opposed to an individual?

The same way I presume.

Let’s say you have a large hunting lodge, ranch or farm that is organized as a corporation and has a collection of necessary assets, including firearms, that are corporate property.

The gun is officially the property of ABC Chicken Farms, Inc. and it’s right to own and possess that firearm flows from the 2nd Amendment.

Private security firms or armored truck companies may work the same way, although I don’t know for sure whether they supply their employees with guns or they make them purchase and register their own.

As far as quartering soldiers go, surely you can figure out a scenario where this may apply. In fact this would be one example where a corporation (Holiday Inn, etc) is much more likely to be involved than an individual.

So because shareholders could sue Coca-Cola for running ads that say “Buy Pepsi, it’s better!” they should be subject to regulation preventing them from running a commercial saying “Buy Coke, it’s better!”

Corporations are subject to shareholder lawsuits if they take a course of action that harms their interests as shareholders. Shareholders win these lawsuits if the corporations cannot show a rationale for the action that benefits the company. (In practice, of course, “Showing itself to be a good civic and community member” can usually trump otherwise useless expenditures.)

Now, what if an insurance company took out an ad saying, “Regulate Insurance Companies A Lot! It will hurt our profitability, but will be good for America!” What if this is because the insurance company executives really believed it, and felt that it would have more political weight coming from an insurance company? What if a shareholder brought a lawsuit and the corporation admitted that it wouldn’t help the corporation at all, but that it was the right thing to do? The Shareholder should — fairly obviously — win the lawsuit.

Given this background Corporations Law, it is clear that Corporations do not — at present — have “Free Speech” as they are not free to speak against their own interests, the same way a millionaire can take out an ad saying “Tax Us Millionaires!”

So, the relevant distinction seems obvious — on any topic where a Corporation could be successfully sued for taking a position against its own interest, it should be subject to regulation against taking a position in its own interest.

Aha, some might say, the real people aren’t silenced — they can still speak using their own property.

This argument as phrased would be silly. The corporation is, after all, the property of these real people!

There is a sensible argument hiding in the background though: some might argue that real people have a right to speak using property they completely own personally, but no right to band together and speak using property they own collectively, since collectively they might have “too much power” compared to others who choose not to band together.

To me, the claim is that you are free to use your own printing press, but have no guaranteed right to use the printing press you bought jointly with your neighbour.

As a creature of the State, for example, corporations traditionally lack 4th-amendment rights to be free of unlawful search, due to the rather expansive visitatorial powers of their constitutor, which have been upheld.

Do you have a cite for that? This article suggests otherwise and I am trying to understand the difference.

Like bandwidth or spectrum?

Somehow I don’t think you mean that.

Limited does not mean scarce, so the question is how much bandwidth is available. To me the fundamental question is how scarce and important a media is and whether there is a likelihood of anticompetitive behavior over those media.

I could see a number of ways such a law could work. One would be a fairness doctrine for analog, broadcasted tv for a period of time prior to an election. (Honestly once you regulate this media, other cable tv channels really don’t need the same level of regulation because the capacity to distort isn’t there.)

In short the question is whether heavy distortions to the marketplace of ideas intentionally engineered by individuals with lots of money are necessarily free from regulation. I don’t think that this element of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce needs to be overruled. I just think it needs to be narrowed.

I cannot think of any circumstance where preventing a corporation from printing election pamphlets would be Constitutional. Restrictions on genuinely important and scarce media might be though.

Like bandwidth or spectrum?

Somehow I don’t think you mean that.

If you really believe that corporations lack constitutional rights, then the government would be free to ban corporate-run newspapers from criticizing the government

I disagree–the text of the first amendment specifically names freedom of “the press” as protected. Likewise for religion.

Whether or not you think corporations have constitutional rights in general, it’s hard to see how denying freedom of the press or religion solely on the basis of the legal form people have used to organize themselves is consistent with the text of the bill of rights.

A more interesting set of questions would be to look at the other rights individuals enjoy and whether they should apply to corporations.

For example, does a corporation have a right to not incriminate itself? If the answer is “yes,” then (given the nature of a corporation) the obvious interpretation is that a company cannot be compelled to turn over records which might pertain to illegal activity; and that company employees cannot be compelled to testify against their employer unless they are personally implicated.

What about the right to bear arms? How does that apply to a corporation as opposed to an individual?

Quartering of troops?

But wait, some might say: Corporations are created by the government; they only exist because of government-issued charters; why can’t the government attach conditions to those charters, e.g., “If you get a corporate charter, you can’t use it to express your views about ballot measures”?

There is more to this though. The question is whether a corporation is created by government of men or whether it is created by our government of laws. I think it is fairly clear both in jurisprudence since Dartmouth v. Woodward and conceptually that it is the latter.

If it is the latter, then a corporation existing in a system of laws must necessarily be granted certain rights that emerge from that system of laws. In our system, these include a right to due process, and a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure among other things. The Constitution doesn’t say “freedom of speech for any citizens” or even “freedom of speech for any persons.” It simply says that no law may abridge this freedom. Subsequent jurisprudence suggests that this is a right in our system based on IMPERSONAL principles rather than natural rights principles. Yates and Brandenburg both profess faith in a marketplace of ideas which corporations necessarily participate in. This marketplace is central to the democratic processes in our republican system of government, so it must be protected. (I am not saying that rules designed to protect that marketplace would be Unconstitutional, btw.)

I therefore think that political speech is a right held by corporations. However at the same time, corporations may wish to monopolize either the free marketplace of goods and services, or the marketplace of ideas. I think that reasonable regulations designed to protect the latter would not run afoul with the Constitution. However these would have to be based on anticompetitive harm rather than procompetitive behavior. I cannot think of any circumstance where preventing a corporation from printing election pamphlets would be Constitutional. Restrictions on genuinely important and scarce media might be though.

For speech, wouldn’t the easy workaround simply be to identify an individual speaker “for” the organization? NYT articles have bylines, wouldn’t that individual speaker be protected?