Business Ethics: Contemporary
Issues and Cases 1st Edition
ST
CASE SOLUTIONS
UV
IA
MANUAL
_A
PP
Richard Spinello
RO
Comprehensive Case Solutions Manual for
VE
Instructors and Students
D?
© Richard Spinello. All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution without permission is
prohibited.
©MedConnoisseur
, Case Solutions Manual
for Business Ethics,
Contemporary Issues and
ST
Cases, 1e Richard
UV
Spinello (All Chapters)
IA
_A
PP
RO
VE
D?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Case Notes
for
Chapters 5 through 15
ST
Sections III, IV, and V
UV
IA
Chapter 5 Cases
_A
Case 5.1
PP
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
Chapter 2, has raised many vexing questions about the scope of those rights. Is this decision a
VE
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
limited purpose of the corporate enterprise?
D?
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
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
ST
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
discussion. The key issue in Citizens United is whether or not there is a fundamental liberty
UV
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
Court website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf.)
IA
Discussion Questions:
• In your view should for-profit corporations be entitled to the same rights of
_A
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
should not restrict the speech of some elements of society such as wealthy corporations
PP
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
since it is meant to protect American citizens from regulations that stifle free expression.
RO
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
political candidates beholden in some way to their major contributors. Those contributors
D?
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?
Issues and Cases 1st Edition
ST
CASE SOLUTIONS
UV
IA
MANUAL
_A
PP
Richard Spinello
RO
Comprehensive Case Solutions Manual for
VE
Instructors and Students
D?
© Richard Spinello. All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution without permission is
prohibited.
©MedConnoisseur
, Case Solutions Manual
for Business Ethics,
Contemporary Issues and
ST
Cases, 1e Richard
UV
Spinello (All Chapters)
IA
_A
PP
RO
VE
D?
Downloaded by: tutorsection | Want to earn $1.236
Distribution of this document is illegal extra per year?
, Spinello, Business Ethics, 1e
SAGE Publishing, 2020
Case Notes
for
Chapters 5 through 15
ST
Sections III, IV, and V
UV
IA
Chapter 5 Cases
_A
Case 5.1
PP
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
Chapter 2, has raised many vexing questions about the scope of those rights. Is this decision a
VE
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
limited purpose of the corporate enterprise?
D?
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
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
ST
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
discussion. The key issue in Citizens United is whether or not there is a fundamental liberty
UV
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
Court website: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf.)
IA
Discussion Questions:
• In your view should for-profit corporations be entitled to the same rights of
_A
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
should not restrict the speech of some elements of society such as wealthy corporations
PP
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
since it is meant to protect American citizens from regulations that stifle free expression.
RO
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
political candidates beholden in some way to their major contributors. Those contributors
D?
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?
