Corporates that attempt to address social issues damage political discourse.

The proposition side have resurrected an old legal mechanism that was of limited use in order to defend an inaccurate and polarising interpretation of corporate rights. The proposition argues that the actions and behaviour of profit making business corporations will always be guided by the profit motive and that, for this reason, corporations will never be able to contribute to the accommodations and compromises that free speech is used to foster. In plainer terms, side proposition see corporations as being inherently deceptive and untrustworthy. The proposition side have failed to consider that it is possible for corporations to function within free markets, and to participate fully in capitalist democracies, without being bound to a single minded pursuit of profit. Corporations have now recognised that the growth and maintenance of profits in the long term can often best be served by under-emphasising profit in the short term. Corporations have become increasingly conscious of the effects that their activities have on the societies that they operate in. Ostensibly profitable actions that undermine the cohesiveness of communities, make enemies of politicians or, ultimately, create less stable market conditions will not contribute to the long-term health of the corporation. Indeed, long term planning and long term impact is more important to corporations as they exist in perpetuity. Unlike natural persons, corporations will never die. The profit motive is no longer the primary driving force behind corporate activity. There is little need for the state to take drastic steps to curtail corporations’ freedoms , because the behavioural imperative that the proposition side objects to is no longer the central priority of businesses operating in liberal democracies. Another way to address this problem is to adopt the perspective of NPR columnist Bradley Smith. Smith correctly observes that states, including the USA, may grant rights to individuals and that those rights may be exercised under certain circumstances that the state prescribes. An individual can, for example, exercise a right to receive income support, or can obtain a right to drive a car by passing a driving test. Similarly, corporate persons have been granted a certain body of rights by the state[1]. The individuals that band together as a corporation have the right to limit their liability for the corporations losses; to have the corporation treated as a single person and to benefit (in the US at least) from similar rights to due process and freedom from discrimination. Simply because a corporation is granted certain rights by the state that improve the efficiency of its operations and the financial position of its members, this does not mean that it should lose its right to speak freely. In a liberal democracy, rights are not traded, hedged and swapped by states and citizens. Nor do constitutional rights exist in a hierarchy. Rights are incommensurate, because they can be applied in a wide variety of ways to defend a wide variety of causes. The right to speech are persuasion must always remain flexible because different audiences and different groups respond to different arguments. There is nothing dishonest in a company choosing the most persuasive manner of speech that it can find in order to defend its own interests. [1] “Corporations are people, too”. National Public Radio online, 10 September 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112711410