Suppose a state passed a statute prohibiting corporations from buying ads to support or oppose any referendum unless the ballot measure relates directly to the corporation's business.This law most likely would be
A)constitutional,because corporations don't have a First Amendment right to influence ballot measures.
B)constitutional,under the "shareholder rule" of Buckley v.Valeo.
C)unconstitutional,unless limited to nonprofit ideological corporations.
D)unconstitutional,under the precedent of First National Bank of Boston v.Bellotti.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The statute would most likely be held unconstitutional under the precedent of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which established that corporations have First Amendment rights, including the right to speak on issues of public concern. The law would be considered a content-based restriction on speech, which is subject to strict scrutiny and would likely be struck down unless the state can prove it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The shareholder rule of Buckley v. Valeo applies to political contributions, not speech, and the idea of limiting the law to nonprofit ideological corporations would likely not survive strict scrutiny.

Suppose a State Passed a Statute Prohibiting Corporations from Buying