Corporate Political Speech and Moral Obligation

Stoll, Mary Lyn

doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2355-9

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From a normative perspective, it can be argued that shareholders have a right to know what political overtures are being made in their name as they are not only shareholders but also citizens (Ramsay et al, 2001). Shareholders may also want assurance that managers are not using political donations to further managerial interests (Bebchuk and Jackson, 2010;Stoll, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second argument is that managers may use political donations to further their own managerial interests at the expense of both societal and corporate interests. For example, a manager may be tempted to spend shareholder money to help launch their own political career in the future (Stoll, 2015) a reverse of the usual "revolving door" that sees corporate regulators obtain industry appointments. Alternately, managers might lobby against shareholder rights (Bebchuk and Jackson, 2010) such as the ability of shareholders to place restrictions on executive remuneration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A third, more pragmatic argument is that disclosure in company reports may help close loopholes within existing reporting systems and would also include donations made in 586 AAAJ 32,2 countries lacking disclosure regimes. For example, depending on how a particular reporting regime is specified (and enforced) corporations may be able to conceal their political donation by donating via subsidiaries or third parties (Bebchuk and Jackson, 2010;Ramsay et al, 2001;Stoll, 2015), donating beneath the disclosure thresholds or using some other technique. In addition, as AMP Capital Investors Sustainable Funds (2005) observe, an important advantage of disclosing through corporate reports is that it permits stakeholders to learn about donations made in foreign countries, including those with no established disclosure regime.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Australian corporate political donation disclosures

Tello

Hazelton

Leong

2019

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A primary tool for managing the democratic risks posed by political donations is disclosure. In Australia, corporate donations are disclosed in government databases. Despite the potential accountability benefits, corporations are not, however, required to report this information in their annual or stand-alone reports. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the quantity and quality of voluntary reporting and seek to add to the nascent theoretical understanding of voluntary corporate political donations. Design/methodology/approach Corporate donors were obtained from the Australian Electoral Commission database. Annual and stand-alone reports were analysed to determine the quantity and quality of voluntary disclosures and compared to O’Donovan’s (2002) legitimation disclosure response matrix. Findings Of those companies with available reports, only 25 per cent reported any donation information. Longitudinal results show neither a robust increase in disclosure levels over time, nor a clear relationship between donation activity and disclosure. The findings support a legitimation tactic being applied to political donation disclosures. Practical implications The findings suggest that disclosure of political donations in corporate reports should be mandatory. Such reporting could facilitate aligning shareholder and citizen interests; aligning managerial and firm interests and closing disclosure loopholes. Originality/value The study extends the literature by evaluating donation disclosures by companies known to have made donations, considering time-series data and theorising the findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Australian corporate political donation disclosures

Tello

Hazelton

Leong

2019

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Speech in the public sphere is expensive, and opposing opinions can be crowded out with money (Dawood, 2015). This direct and undue influence means that those with the greatest wealth can buy space in mass media, thereby providing a greater opportunity to influence opinions in the public sphere , either by making direct arguments against public policies (e.g., regulation of tobacco or fossil fuels) (Murray et al, 2016) and public concerns (e.g., climate change) (Wright & Nyberg, 2015), or by funding advertisements for political candidates (e.g., through Super PACs) (Stoll, 2015). Social integration thus secures corporate participation in the public sphere.…”

Section: Political Corruption and Voice In The Public Spherementioning

confidence: 99%

Corporations, Politics, and Democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption

Nyberg

2021

Organization Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Corporate involvement in democratic processes typically takes the form of corporate political activity (CPA). In this paper, I develop a framework of political corruption to explain the corroding influence of CPA on democratic processes. CPA corrupts democratic processes by excluding (a) citizen representation from political decision making, (b) citizens’ voices from public deliberation, and (c) citizens’ interests from private deliberations about political preferences. By attending to the power relations within the three key democratic spheres in society—political, public, and private—I explain how corporations influence democratic processes and how these processes in turn become dependent on corporate involvement. My theorization explicates the corporate capture of democratic processes and provides a nuanced understanding of corruption in Western liberal democracies. Finally, I suggest ways to halt this process and thereby defend democracy as a system of governance from undue corporate interests.

show abstract

“…His ideas invited intensive discussion among legal philosophers such as Eskridge and Manning, and also the linguists of the legal community, for example Solan and Marmor (Eskridge, 1990, 1998; Manning, 1997, 2010; Marmor, 2004; Solan, 2004, 2009). His ideas also brought scholars from other disciplines into the dialogue, including scholars of literary theory, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, economics, political science, sociology and theology (Brandwein, 1999; Brisbin, 1997; Garcia, 2003; Greenberg, 2011; Philipse, 2007; Stoll, 2015; Winter, 2001; Zywicki and Sanders, 2008). Scalia’s intellectual legacy is enviable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The controversial intellectual giant of our time

Magyar

2016

Common Law World Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the late Justice Antonin Scalia is best known for his colourful, intemperate dissents, not everyone is aware of his broader significance as a jurist and legal scholar. As well as being successful at the bar and bench, Justice Scalia adopted an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation called ‘textualism’ which proved highly influential, and which inspired an enormous quantity of scholarly writing. He claimed that his approach to adjudication was value-neutral; however, his well-known connections to the Republican Party made him a target for accusations of political bias. His concurring opinions in several landmark Supreme Court judgments added fuel to the controversy by providing outcomes which advanced policies generally regarded as favourable to those on the right of the political spectrum. The controversy tends to overshadow the enormous impact that Scalia’s jurisprudence has had on the legal community. He inspired the development of legal thought on both sides of the political divide, and he drew scholars from a variety of academic disciplines into the dialogue. In light of the enormous body of literature he inspired, and his political, legal and social impact, Justice Scalia deserves to be regarded as one of the great common law jurists of the Anglo-American tradition, alongside historical figures such as Denning and Pound.

show abstract

Corporate Political Speech and Moral Obligation

Cited by 15 publications

References 13 publications

Australian corporate political donation disclosures

Australian corporate political donation disclosures

Corporations, Politics, and Democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption

The controversial intellectual giant of our time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About