Advancing New Scholarship

Free Speech For People is building support in the legal community for a new jurisprudence, alongside developing new scholarship and thinking that challenges the fabrication of corporate constitutional rights and the doctrine of unlimited campaign spending.

Harvard Law School – “Advancing A New Jurisprudence For American Self-Government And Democracy”

On November 7, 2014, in partnership with Harvard Law School and Harvard Law Professor John Coates, a leading corporate law expert in the country, we convened our first symposium, entitled “Advancing a New Jurisprudence for American Self-Government and Democracy.” We brought together prominent constitutional law professors and attorneys interested in creating new scholarship and legal arguments challenging the doctrines underlying the Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Buckley rulings.  The symposium included welcoming remarks by Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow, a public keynote by Senator Jon Tester of Montana, and four invitation-only panels on the following subjects:

  • Money in Politics and Democracy
  • Corporations and the First Amendment
  • Constitutional Dimensions of Corporate Law
  • Moving Beyond Citizens United and Hobby Lobby

The symposium was followed by a special publication of key papers in Constitutional Commentary, the most prestigious law journal focusing on constitutional law, and now serves as an important vehicle for educating the legal community and the public at large about the threat these doctrines present to our democracy and the work we must do to overturn them.

This is the first in a series of such convenings which will help amplify and organize voices of dissent within the legal community.

Harvard Law School – “Is the SpeechNow Ruling Vulnerable?”

On November 16, 2015, Free Speech For People and Harvard Law also hosted a symposium on, “Ending Super PACs: Is the SpeechNow ruling vulnerable?” The forum examined the case of SpeechNow, how a potential challenge could be crafted, and how overruling SpeechNow could affect Super PACs and campaign financing. The panel featured: Mark Alexander of Seton Hall Law School, Albert Alschuler of University of Chicago Law School, and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School. Renée Loth, columnist & former editorial page editor of The Boston Globe, moderated the conversation.

 

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California – “Corporations, the Constitution and Democracy”

Free Speech For People and Loyola Law School cohosted a symposium on “Corporations, the Constitution and Democracy” on November 20, 2015. The event featured two panels, “The Future of Corporate Constitutional Rights Litigation and Theory” and “Democracy, Corporations and Money In Politics.” The Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court delivered closing remarks, Corporate Power Ratchet: The Courts’ Role in Eroding “We the People’s” Ability to Constrain Our Corporate Creations.

For video of the symposium and a full list of speakers, click here.

Developing New Scholarship

Upon completion of our 2014 Harvard Law Symposium, key scholars and legal experts advanced our ways of understanding corporate constitutional rights through extensive research and analysis.

In February 2015, Professor John Coates of Harvard Law School published a paper, “Corporate Speech and the First Amendment: History, Data and Implications”. The article draws on empirical analysis, history, and economic theory to demonstrate how corporations have increasingly displaced individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment.

Professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy of Stetson University College of Law provided commentary in “Corporate Democracy From Say on Pay to Say on Politics”. Published in March 2015, Professor Torres-Spelliscy explains how the Court’s ‘conception of corporate democracy rights for shareholders should protect shareholders’ ability to have a say on pay and say on politics.

Jennifer Taub, Vermont Law School professor and author, recently published “Is Hobby Lobby a Tool for Limiting Corporate Constitutional Rights?”, exploring how the Supreme Court further expanded corporate personhood in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Taub’s article offers an alternative to the current reading, by suggesting Hobby Lobby might provide a tool to limit “previously recognized corporate constitutional rights.”

For a complete list and access to publications stemming from our fall symposium, click here.

Building Support For Our New Jurisprudence

Free Speech For People receives legal support from law professionals across the country. To get involved with our Legal Advocacy work, click here.

 

 

 

Comments are closed.