In Mary Lyn Stoll’s article on “Corporate Speech and Moral Obligation”, we see her take the side of adding more regulations to the corporate political actions of businesses. The basis of her argument is that businesses should be using their political power to impact their company directly, rather than affecting or influencing specific political campaigns especially in the judiciary system (Stoll p.561). Meaning that for example if a certain judge supports a certain rule that would benefit the company however hurt the overall moral standings then it would be morally wrong for the business to support that certain campaign, even though it may help the overall revenues of the company, or dividends of the stockholders. Stoll explains that it is nearly impossible for businesses to totally ditch the political expenditures, but that there should be some common-sense regulations that would help prevent them from getting out of hand (Stoll Abstract), meaning they will never be able to get their right completely taken from them for the political support but they should end up handling things in the best interest of the shareholders in the business and the overall welfare of the government. There is a much larger moral debate in businesses spending shareholders money on political speaking rather than the commercial speaking. She believes that the government is more obligated to stay out of political standings of businesses which is why there is more regulations for the company completely lying about their products commercially (Stoll p.560). She believes that the United States should adopt the system for CPA that the UK has. Where the political expenditures are approved by a board, which would more likely support the shareholders political affiliations, and having the campaigns approved by the shareholders. As of now The United States is forcing the shareholders rely on the corporation’s interpretation of “good will” (Stoll p.561). Basically, if businesses have too much involvement in political affiliations then they would be able to silence the voices of many other people due to the amount of money that they are able to spend in their favor. Although they are using their speech rights it undermines the rights that other citizens have causing the business to have an over load of power, which is immoral in the most obvious reasons due to the fact that all citizens should be able to have an equal stand on the political standings of the government (Stoll p.561) (As well as shareholders in the business in which is using their money). This is unfair for the shareholders because they just have to rely on what the high-end people of the company believe is right which in turn would sacrifice their political views. She appears to be doubtful in believing that the companies will always act in a way that supports the “good will” of not only the company but the overall standpoint of the government as well.
People in the business have rights too and the shareholders and stakeholders chose to put their money into the specific corporation, they were not forced. Therefore, technically, maybe not by moral guidelines, that company has the right to use the money in ways that they will see the largest return. After all, that is what the main goal of business is, to invest their money into services and campaigns that would bring them the most benefit becoming a more successful business. Sure, you may believe that it is not ethically fair to flood the voting systems to vote on political campaigns and contribute the money which almost shuts out what the regular individual has for his needs, but there is no legal barrier. And for some of the people whose money is being used by the business in political speeches it supports their beliefs and they are satisfied in the way the company is using the money. It is simply impossible to please every single person who has money in the company. Every person who has invested does not completely share beliefs. By that I mean that if someone agreed with what the company was spending the money on and someone else did not, if the company decided to go against the person who wanted to make the expenditure it would be unfair. Because that would be taking the other people’s rights as more important than the person who wanted to create the certain type of government style. I would disagree with this objection and side with Stoll because I don’t think that the companies using other people’s money in ways that they do not support is morally correct. I want my money to be used in things that will benefit what I believe is right and if people are spending my money on political structures that are the opposite in what I have my beliefs in that is unfair. I think it is morally incorrect for a business to trump over my voting due to the fact that it has way more money than I can spend on the political action. Overall that would create a society in which large, wealthy corporations become the overall ruler of the government.
The United States constitution was founded on the Laissez-faire principle, meaning that the government has no rights to interfere with private businesses. This could be one of the reasons that the United States is unable to match the stricter legal regulations that the United Kingdom has implemented on their corporate political activities. So, there is no reason that businesses should be outlawed from making donations to a specific political candidate. For example, if a judge was known for not giving hefty fines for improper disposal of manufacturing biproduct, then the corporation would benefit in supporting his campaign because it would be cheaper to dispose of waste in that way rather than the proper way. Let’s say a pharmaceutical company needed to dump their waste, and it would be cheaper to take a fine for dumping it into a lake rather than properly disposing of it, then it would be in the company and as well as the stockholder’s best interest to dump the waste in the lake. After all it is the company’s job to create the highest possible dividend for its stockholders. The issue is that it is the exact opposite of morally correct. The company would be destroying the environment for future generations. Sure, to them it may do nothing but create higher profits but a few years down the line it could have serious environmental and health impacts for the people who live in the area. The fact that a multi-million-dollar corporation is trying to save a slight bit of money to increase the stockholder’s dividends by a max of a few dollars is morally incorrect and should not be allowed, because the government is also responsible for making sure that its people are living in a safe area and are healthy. Financially, yes, the stockholders would benefit. However, they would be living in a less healthy environment, so the people would have to decide if their money is more important than the health of themselves and the rest of the population. And the amount of money that the business would be gaining does not make a substantial difference to the company. Hey, they are already a multimillion-dollar company and they are saving one million more dollars by dumping in the lake, in the overall scheme of things one million dollars is simply not worth risking the health of the entire population.