Explore the vast range of titles available.

This video explains commercial speech and the 1st Amendment.

Tamara R. Piety argues that increasingly expansive First Amendment protections for commercial speech imperil public health, safety, and welfare; the reliability of commercial and consumer information; the stability of financial markets; and the global environment. Using evidence from public relations and marketing, behavioral economics, psychology, and cognitive studies, she shows how overly permissive extensions of protections to commercial expression limit governmental power to address a broad range of public policy issues.

All legitimate democratic governments must remain responsive to the interests of their citizens. Such responsiveness depends, in turn, on the right of free expression, without which citizens cannot make their interests and grievances known. When citizens must compete for attention and influence with powerful private corporations, however, unregulated expression can become a danger to democracy. Drawing ideas from the republican tradition of political thought, this essay argues that political speech funded by business corporations—not just during election campaigns but in all political seasons—threatens the legitimacy of American government. The essay advances an egalitarian, democratic theory of free expression and uses the theory to clarify the relationship between free speech and vibrant democracy. It then defends ambitious restrictions on corporate political speech that extend far beyond campaign-finance reform.

Does nonprofit mean nonpolitical? When the Susan G. Komen foundation pulled funding for Planned Parenthood's breast exam program, the public uproar brought new focus to the high political and economic stakes faced by nonprofit organizations. The missions of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations, political action committees, and now Super PACs have become blurred as issues of advocacy and political influence have become increasingly entangled. Questions abound: Should a nonprofit advocate for its mission and its constituents with a goal of affecting public policy? What are the limits of such advocacy work? Will such efforts fundamentally jeopardize nonprofit work? What can studies of nonprofit advocacy efforts reveal? Editors Robert J. Pekkanen, Steven Rathgeb Smith, and Yutaka Tsujinaka recognize the urgent need for relevant research and insight into these issues as direct and indirect government services are squeezed by federal cutbacks. Nonprofits and Advocacy defines advocacy and clarifies the differences among advocacy, lobbying, political activity, and education, as well as advocacy measurements. Providing original empirical data and innovative theoretical arguments, this comparative study is organized into two parts. The first part focuses on local and national dimensions of nonprofit advocacy, and the second part looks at organizational politics and strategies. The conclusion considers basic questions about nonprofit advocacy and seeks to draw lessons from research efforts and practice. Providing a critical look at the multidimensional roles and advocacy efforts of nonprofits, this volume will be valued by scholars, students, leaders, and activists—many of whom advocate for the interests of their organizations while delivering services to their organizations' constituents. The research is also relevant for policymakers involved in cross-sector public policy initiatives as they strive to provide more efficient public-private solutions to challenging governance issues.

This Article explores the policy bases for, and the political economy of, the law's longstanding discrimination against corporate political speech. This Article also explores the relevance of state law regulation of corporate political speech to the competition between the states for corporate charters. The underlying aim of this Article is to bring to bear on the relevant policy debates a shift in focus from the shareholder/manager agency relationship to the agency relationship between lawmakers and society. The Article draws on the contractarian view of the firm, the economic theory of regulation, and the study of public choice.

When the Federal Communications Commission considered revamping its policies, many political activists argued that media conglomerates had failed to meet their duties to protect freedom of speech. Moveon's dispute with CBS over its proposed Superbowl advertisement and Michael Moore's quarrel over distribution of his documentary, Fahrenheit 911, are cases in point. In matters of pure entertainment, the public expect companies to avoid offensive programming. The press, on the other hand, may well be forced to offend some audience members in order to create a viable forum for political dissent. As journalism and entertainment are increasingly inter-linked, an in depth moral analysis of the media corporation and its obligations becomes increasingly important. I explore Kantian, Utilitarian, and Rawlsian analyses of corporate obligation in the aforementioned cases. I then examine whether or not these results suggest anything more generally about the sorts of mission statements and ethical policies that ought to be endorsed by media conglomerates and whether non-business institutions also require changes. Ultimately, I suggest that at a minimum, media institutions should view the duty to promote the representation of diverse views in a democracy as an imperfect moral and civic duty rather than making programming decisions solely by reference to profit. Ideally, greater access to media access should not be increased for the most powerful unless doing so at the same time increases free speech opportunities for those who currently have the least access.

There has been episodic discussion over whether corporations do, or should, have the power, by management decision or majority shareholder vote, to make philanthropic gifts. If a business expenditure is one from which the corporation cannot possibly derive any benefit of any kind, common law doctrine suggests that the enterprise lacks the power to do so, at least as against dissenting stockholders' if not 3rd persons' claims. The theory appears to be that the legal function of the corporation and its management is to preserve and enhance the value of the assets of its stockholders. Legislation, by expressly empowering corporation to make charitable gifts, has undercut the doctrinal obstacle to the power to make such gifts. Reasonable arguments can be offered to support such power in corporation. However, acknowledgment of this corporate power shifts the inquiry to the question of authority. This paper focuses on whether this authority should be vested in stockholders individually or in corporate management.

This handbook draws on multidisciplinary insights and the experiences of academics and campaign practitioners to provide a comprehensive guide and introduction to planning, implementing and measuring public information and communication campaigns.

The objective of this study is to explore to what extent freedom of expression should protect food businesses against government intervention with corporate communications on food labels. A functional comparative method was used to analyse the objective. It was found that expression on food labels should be considered primarily commercial in nature. In the USA some food labelling regulations are considered inconsistent with the freedom of commercial expression. EU courts seem to uphold government restrictions to commercial expression in all cases, especially when restrictions are based on protection of human health. It can be concluded that food businesses should only be able to claim free speech rights on food labels when it is of importance to the public or consumers.