Business Ethics:
Contemporary Issues and
ST
Cases 1st Edition
UV
CASE
IA
SOLUTIONS
_A
PP
MANUAL
RO
Richard A. Spinello
VE
Comprehensive Case Solutions Manual for Instructors and
D?
Students
© Richard A. Spinello
?
All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution without permission is prohibited.
© DREAMSHUB
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Case Notes
for
Chapters 5 through 15
ST
UV
Sections III, IV, and V
IA
_A
Chapter 5 Cases
PP
Case 5.1
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Case Summary
RO
In this now famous court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a federal election
law could not ban corporate expenditures for political campaigns or electioneering
communications. The Supreme Court Justices (in a 5–4 vote) concluded that the federal law
banning such spending violated the First Amendment rights of corporations and other
institutions. The case, which follows up on the theme of corporate rights introduced in
VE
Chapter 2, has raised many vexing questions about the scope of those rights. Is this decision a
logical extension of Supreme Court cases affirming a corporation’s limited right to political
participation? Or is it a miscarriage of justice based on a misconception of the corporation?
Does this sweeping decision represent sound legal reasoning, consistent with a reasonable
view of the corporation, or is it grounded in fatally flawed assumptions about the nature and
D?
limited purpose of the corporate enterprise?
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Analysis and Teaching Suggestions
Citizens United can allow for a fruitful (and sometimes emotional) discussion on the essence
of the First Amendment and its scope. The First Amendment prohibits the government from
“abridging freedom of speech and of the press.” Broad free speech rights are a distinctive
quality of the U.S. Constitution, and it could be valuable for instructors to probe students on
their views about the virtually “absolute” freedom of thought and speech that is characteristic
of American political society. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations
ST
and unions have the same First Amendment right to spend their money to influence elections
as ordinary citizens do. According to law professor Eugene Volokh, money isn’t speech but
the First Amendment protects your right to speak using your money. As Chapter 2 makes
clear, this case follows a long line of judicial precedent that enshrines corporate liberty rights
in the law. Some focus on this trend (if class time allows) can also be a useful avenue of
UV
discussion. The key issue in Citizens United is whether or not there is a fundamental liberty
inherent in campaign spending that applies to corporations as well as individuals.
Consult the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case and outline
the arguments on both sides of the debate. (The decision can be downloaded at the Supreme
IA
Court website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf.)
Discussion Questions:
_A
• In your view should for-profit corporations be entitled to the same rights of
free speech and political participation as individual citizens? Or should
those rights be limited in some way?
The principal argument supporting the Citizens United outcome is that government
PP
should not restrict the speech of some elements of society such as wealthy corporations
and organizations (including unions) simply because they have money and choose to use
that money to favor a political candidate or cause. The First Amendment prohibits
Congress from promulgating laws that fine citizens or associations of citizens for simply
engaging in political speech. The main theme of the First Amendment is anti-censorial
RO
since it is meant to protect American citizens from regulations that stifle free expression.
According to former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “the government cannot be
trusted to assure, through censorship, the ‘fairness’ of political debate.” The bottom line
is that the government should not limit or constrain the amount of “election speech” that
is permissible, and the First Amendment prevents it from doing so, even if that political
speech originates from within a powerful corporation.i
VE
• Does this ruling threaten free, fair elections in any way?
The big concern, of course, is the influx of too much money into political campaigns with
D?
political candidates beholden in some way to their major contributors. Those contributors
are also more likely to gain access to political leaders and capture their attention, which is
antithetical to democratic values. The danger is that the interests of ordinary and
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
powerless citizens will be secondary to corporate interests. This was clearly the concern
of the four justices in the minority who sought in vain to restrict corporate liberties and
keep big money out of politics. One focus of their dissenting opinion was the
fundamental dissimilarity between a human person, whom the crafters of the Constitution
had in mind, and the corporation which is sometimes “managed and controlled by
nonresidents” (p. 107). After the decision was handed down, the New York Times opined
that the ruling would allow “corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm
elections.” On the other hand, prosperous families and individuals also spend a
ST
disproportionate amount of money on campaigns. (Wealthy and politically motivated
individuals such as George Soros, Bill Gates, and many others can dip into their fortunes
and use that money to try to influence an election).
• How would you have decided this case if you were a member of the Supreme
UV
Court? What are the major reasons and assumptions underlying your
decision?
After a period of debate about Citizens United that airs these different issues and
perspectives, students can be invited to cast their votes and give their personal reasons
underlying their choice. After tallying the class vote, the instructor can query students
IA
about whether or not they changed their mind after listening to the various opinions
expressed in the class debate.
Case 5.2
_A
The Hobby Lobby Case
Case Summary
PP
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, five Supreme Court justices concurred that a closely held, for-
profit corporation is entitled to the free exercise of religion without undue government
interference. The Justices exempted Hobby Lobby from providing to its employees several
types of abortifacient contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act’s HHS mandate
because this requirement imposed a substantial burden on its religious beliefs. The four
RO
dissenting justices vigorously resisted this conclusion. A cardinal question in this case study
is whether or not a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby can qualify as a “person” who
can in some way “exercise religion.”
VE
Analysis and Teaching Suggestions
Most students will be familiar with this well-known case that also follows up on the material
about corporate rights presented in Chapter 2. Students should be asked to think about the
scope of rights for corporations and whether any corporation deserves the right to religious
D?
liberty. The case dramatically juxtaposes employee rights to plenary health-care coverage to
the employer’s right to decide for its employees what health-care options they will cover.
The primary ethical issue in this case is about material cooperation--paying for an
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
Contemporary Issues and
ST
Cases 1st Edition
UV
CASE
IA
SOLUTIONS
_A
PP
MANUAL
RO
Richard A. Spinello
VE
Comprehensive Case Solutions Manual for Instructors and
D?
Students
© Richard A. Spinello
?
All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution without permission is prohibited.
© DREAMSHUB
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Case Notes
for
Chapters 5 through 15
ST
UV
Sections III, IV, and V
IA
_A
Chapter 5 Cases
PP
Case 5.1
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Case Summary
RO
In this now famous court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a federal election
law could not ban corporate expenditures for political campaigns or electioneering
communications. The Supreme Court Justices (in a 5–4 vote) concluded that the federal law
banning such spending violated the First Amendment rights of corporations and other
institutions. The case, which follows up on the theme of corporate rights introduced in
VE
Chapter 2, has raised many vexing questions about the scope of those rights. Is this decision a
logical extension of Supreme Court cases affirming a corporation’s limited right to political
participation? Or is it a miscarriage of justice based on a misconception of the corporation?
Does this sweeping decision represent sound legal reasoning, consistent with a reasonable
view of the corporation, or is it grounded in fatally flawed assumptions about the nature and
D?
limited purpose of the corporate enterprise?
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Analysis and Teaching Suggestions
Citizens United can allow for a fruitful (and sometimes emotional) discussion on the essence
of the First Amendment and its scope. The First Amendment prohibits the government from
“abridging freedom of speech and of the press.” Broad free speech rights are a distinctive
quality of the U.S. Constitution, and it could be valuable for instructors to probe students on
their views about the virtually “absolute” freedom of thought and speech that is characteristic
of American political society. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations
ST
and unions have the same First Amendment right to spend their money to influence elections
as ordinary citizens do. According to law professor Eugene Volokh, money isn’t speech but
the First Amendment protects your right to speak using your money. As Chapter 2 makes
clear, this case follows a long line of judicial precedent that enshrines corporate liberty rights
in the law. Some focus on this trend (if class time allows) can also be a useful avenue of
UV
discussion. The key issue in Citizens United is whether or not there is a fundamental liberty
inherent in campaign spending that applies to corporations as well as individuals.
Consult the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case and outline
the arguments on both sides of the debate. (The decision can be downloaded at the Supreme
IA
Court website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf.)
Discussion Questions:
_A
• In your view should for-profit corporations be entitled to the same rights of
free speech and political participation as individual citizens? Or should
those rights be limited in some way?
The principal argument supporting the Citizens United outcome is that government
PP
should not restrict the speech of some elements of society such as wealthy corporations
and organizations (including unions) simply because they have money and choose to use
that money to favor a political candidate or cause. The First Amendment prohibits
Congress from promulgating laws that fine citizens or associations of citizens for simply
engaging in political speech. The main theme of the First Amendment is anti-censorial
RO
since it is meant to protect American citizens from regulations that stifle free expression.
According to former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “the government cannot be
trusted to assure, through censorship, the ‘fairness’ of political debate.” The bottom line
is that the government should not limit or constrain the amount of “election speech” that
is permissible, and the First Amendment prevents it from doing so, even if that political
speech originates from within a powerful corporation.i
VE
• Does this ruling threaten free, fair elections in any way?
The big concern, of course, is the influx of too much money into political campaigns with
D?
political candidates beholden in some way to their major contributors. Those contributors
are also more likely to gain access to political leaders and capture their attention, which is
antithetical to democratic values. The danger is that the interests of ordinary and
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
powerless citizens will be secondary to corporate interests. This was clearly the concern
of the four justices in the minority who sought in vain to restrict corporate liberties and
keep big money out of politics. One focus of their dissenting opinion was the
fundamental dissimilarity between a human person, whom the crafters of the Constitution
had in mind, and the corporation which is sometimes “managed and controlled by
nonresidents” (p. 107). After the decision was handed down, the New York Times opined
that the ruling would allow “corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm
elections.” On the other hand, prosperous families and individuals also spend a
ST
disproportionate amount of money on campaigns. (Wealthy and politically motivated
individuals such as George Soros, Bill Gates, and many others can dip into their fortunes
and use that money to try to influence an election).
• How would you have decided this case if you were a member of the Supreme
UV
Court? What are the major reasons and assumptions underlying your
decision?
After a period of debate about Citizens United that airs these different issues and
perspectives, students can be invited to cast their votes and give their personal reasons
underlying their choice. After tallying the class vote, the instructor can query students
IA
about whether or not they changed their mind after listening to the various opinions
expressed in the class debate.
Case 5.2
_A
The Hobby Lobby Case
Case Summary
PP
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, five Supreme Court justices concurred that a closely held, for-
profit corporation is entitled to the free exercise of religion without undue government
interference. The Justices exempted Hobby Lobby from providing to its employees several
types of abortifacient contraceptives mandated by the Affordable Care Act’s HHS mandate
because this requirement imposed a substantial burden on its religious beliefs. The four
RO
dissenting justices vigorously resisted this conclusion. A cardinal question in this case study
is whether or not a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby can qualify as a “person” who
can in some way “exercise religion.”
VE
Analysis and Teaching Suggestions
Most students will be familiar with this well-known case that also follows up on the material
about corporate rights presented in Chapter 2. Students should be asked to think about the
scope of rights for corporations and whether any corporation deserves the right to religious
D?
liberty. The case dramatically juxtaposes employee rights to plenary health-care coverage to
the employer’s right to decide for its employees what health-care options they will cover.
The primary ethical issue in this case is about material cooperation--paying for an
?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
