Recent studies have demonstrated that massive one-sided spending in opposition to ballot measures has been highly successful in defeating such proposals. Supreme Court decisions have cast serious doubt on the constitutionality of statutes designed to curb this dominating influence by limiting corporate spending in ballot measure campaigns. This Note surveys the theoretical bases for upholding these statutes against first amendment challenge. After considering the view that any infringement on first amendment rights is justified by a compelling state interest, the Note discusses the view that restrictions on corporate political speech entail no infringement of the speaker's first amendment rights. The Note presents a theoretical justification for restrictions on corporate political speech that is more satisfactory than those previously advanced because it takes into account all the values that freedom of speech is generally recognized as serving.
Matthew J. Geyer,
Statutory Limitations on Corporate Spending in Ballot Measure Campaigns: The Case for Constitutionality,
36 Hastings L.J. 433
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol36/iss3/4