CIERRE

As my investigation into the three phases of the corporation’s evolution unfolded, in conjunction with my exploration of the key Supreme Court rulings on corporate rights, a

particular kind of ideology operating in judicial discourse began to come into clearer view – the ideology of economic liberalism. The ideological principles of economic liberalism, and in the case of its most recent iteration, neoliberalism, hold that private property should be protected, corporate rights should be expanded, and the free market should have as few restrictions as possible because, if left unfettered, it is capable of appropriately regulating economic, social, political and cultural relations. While the principles of economic liberalism are not inherently problematic, they can become problematic when they function ideologically to reproduce inequality in the economic marketplace and in the marketplace of ideas. Inequity prohibits any marketplace from functioning optimally and living up to its ideals. My analysis attempted to extend the conversation on corporate rights and power by showing how the ideological principles

448 Philip Wander, “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism,” in Ed. Carl R. Burgchardt, 2^nd ed. (State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2000) 108.

of economic liberalism played out in each of the key Supreme Court decisions addressed in this dissertation.

While exploring the origins of corporate power via an analysis of Santa Clara, it became apparent that the racial component invoked with Santa Clara’s use of the Fourteenth

Amendment was not the only aspect distinguishing it from Dartmouth. Of equal importance were the economic possibilities for corporations that opened up under the Santa Clara ruling’s

application of Fourteenth Amendment personhood. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, intended to protect human beings from state discrimination, also functioned to insulate the corporation from state taxation and regulation. These legal protections facilitated the rapid amalgamation and protection of corporate wealth during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.⁴⁴⁹ Additionally, aware that lax labor laws positively impacted corporate profits, corporations used the Fourteenth Amendment to avoid laws attempting to limit the number of hours employees could work per day, even though these laws were designed to promote human health, worker well-being, and overall safety. In Santa Clara, the ideological principles of economic liberalism not only undergird the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the corporation, they were also reproduced by it. The ruling dramatically expanded the scope of corporate rights, paved the way for corporations to receive more constitutional rights, and ultimately contributed to the growth of corporate power.

In Nike v. Kasky, the ideological pillars of economic liberalism again emerged, this time in Nike’s response to the allegations of hazardous labor practices as well as in the Supreme Court’s ruling, or rather non-ruling, on the case. Let’s first begin with Nike. Company leaders

449 Of course I am not advocating that corporations should be taxed wantonly by states. I am merely pointing out how corporations were able to take advantage of the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection from an economic standpoint because it reduced the number of taxes they would have to pay.

were likely aware of the less-than-ideal working conditions in factories where some of its

products were made, even though its public relations campaign seemingly aimed to persuade key stakeholders (and the public) that laws were not violated. The goal of the campaign was to convince the public and key stakeholders that wrongdoing had not occurred in an effort to preserve the company’s reputation, which would serve the additional purpose of preserving corporate profits. The financial motivations arguably made this a case of commercial speech. In addition, Nike’s use of the corporate voice also seemed more indicative of the strategies and tactics of Bernays and Hill, because it aimed to promote and legitimate the dominant interests of the corporation in an effort to preserve profits.

Ethical approaches to public relations such as those espoused by Arthur Page, suggesting that the corporate voice be truthful and that the profit motive be relegated to its appropriate place below societal well-being, were not readily evident in Nike’s public relations campaign.

Similarly, the more recent symmetrical, two-way communication approaches to public relations in which communicative power is shared between parties did not have a strong presence in the campaign. In short, Nike’s public relations campaign provides a recent example of how the ideological principles of economic liberalism can emerge through the corporate voice in public relations contexts. In addition, the Court’s response was also problematic to critics. By not ruling on the case, the Court allowed the issues of corporate personhood and speech rights, including their limits, to remain untouched. Because there was no ruling, the rights of big business were protected, yielding an outcome consistent with the ideological principles of economic

liberalism.⁴⁵⁰

450 In pointing out the outcome of the non-ruling, I am not attributing intentionality. The outcome is the outcome and its implications persist regardless of the intention.

Perhaps the quintessential example of the ideological principles of economic liberalism evidenced in Supreme Court decisions is found in cases where the Court transformed money into speech. This trajectory of transformation may continue. For example, the Supreme Court

recently agreed to hear a case concerning limits on federal campaign contributions that could possibly reduce the overall cap on “contributions made directly to political candidates and some political committees.”⁴⁵¹ According to Liptak, that case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536, “may turn out to be the most important federal campaign finance case since the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.”⁴⁵² From Buckley to Citizens United, the Court has frequently ruled in ways that would further the expansion of corporate spending rights redefined as free speech rights. These decisions allow corporate money to directly infiltrate and influence democratic political processes, empowering modern corporations to use their profits to shape a variety of laws and policies that both pertain and do not pertain directly to their business operations.

Taken together, all of these decisions on the rights of corporations show an ideological orientation of economic liberalism dating back to Santa Clara. This pattern of economic

liberalism interwoven into Supreme Court decisions on corporate rights functioned both directly and indirectly to expand corporate rights and to spread corporate power and influence throughout society, facilitating the corporation’s rise to institutional hegemony. This leaves us with critical question number three: what are the implications of the corporation for the human experience?

451 Adam Liptak, “Justices Take Case on Overall Limit to Political Donations,” New York Times, 13 Feb.

2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-campaign-finance-case.html?pagewanted=all> para 1.

452 Liptak para 1.